Erik Verlinde says no need for Dark Matter and Gravity is emergent

moebius:

Good thing physics does not rely on how somebody feels about it.

Tell me, what part of gravity has been reconciled with the other forces of physics? We know there is an attraction between masses of objects, we have called it gravity, but we do not know how it arises. Einstein stated that it arises because the mass of objects curve 'spacetime', but I have already argued that 'space' does not interact with anything, and time does not exist except as a mathematical abstraction.

So, if you can allow yourself to think outside the constraints of orthodox physics, what exactly is being warped? You cannot say 'spacetime', because that is not logical. No. One as to look for an alternative hypothesis that does not use illogical understanding.

I think over the next day or so I'll create a new thread dealing with 'spacetime' and how such a construct cannot be real. I need to marshal my thoughts and thinking and gather certain understandings. Just remember, I can be wrong many times (and I'll happily admit when I am), orthodox physics just has to be wrong once and it then has to reassemble itself...hopefully with a clearer picture of the universe.

GetHyped:

Speak for yourself! *floats away*

Glibness without argument to support it is as empty as the face that wears it.

originally posted by: elysiumfire


Remember, Einstein did away with the idea of the 'ether' and replaced it with 'spacetime', but this too, was disingenuous, as the 'time' part of 'space-time' does not exist in reality, it is but an abstraction of mathematics. It works because the abstract measurement of time, for instance, the second, has an observable measurable beginning and an observable measurable end. The distance between the observed beginning and the observed end is called 'duration'. Duration is the measurement of 'events', and an event can be anything from photon emission from an electron, to the motion of a degree of an arc of the entire observable matter universe. We derive 'time' from the observation of the duration of events.

There you go, experimental evidence that 'space-time' isn't just an abstraction: it is an abstraction with major physical implications.

Thus, the second is the distance between the observed measurable oscillation rate of the caesium atom. One oscillation of this atom has a length of duration, and is determines the length of a second. So you see, time has no existential reality of its own, time is something we impose on reality by measuring observable lengths of duration.

In other words, it is essential and embedded into the observable physics of the world. This is exactly Einstein's point: time is what clocks measure. He meant this literally: the physics of clocks shows what the meaning of time is.

Instead of demoting time it amplifies its essential importance.

Space, the first part of Einstein's spacetime, has no interactive properties.

That was proven false experimentally by LIGO.

With this statement I am disavowing acceptance that space can be warped by mass. Don't get me wrong, 'something' is indeed being warped by mass, but it is not space, it is not time, nor is it spacetime, it is gravity itself.

In GR, there isn't any difference. Time is what clocks measure. Warping of spacetime is what gravitational lens experiments measure.

Clearly, I cannot accept Verlinde's theory.

Your objections have no clear relations to Verlinde's theory. He's trying to provide interior mechanisms to classical GR fields in the way that Navier-Stokes equations of classical fluid mechanics can be shown to arise from microscopic statistical mechanics plus some thermodynamic assumptions.

The physicists who object have more serious concerns, and I share their concerns though the notion of emergent gravity is extremely attractive to me to explain its very odd nature compared to all other fundamental forces, primarily that the 'charge' and coupling constant is weird numbers instead of +1, -1, or 1/3rd or other rationals, as elementary forces are, and its coupling is universal instead of yes/no.

mbkennel:

...it (time) is essential and embedded into the observable physics of the world. This is exactly Einstein's point: time is what clocks measure. He meant this literally: the physics of clocks shows what the meaning of time is. Instead of demoting time it amplifies its essential importance.

I understand the import and the skewing my statements make regarding space and time to both 'classical' and GR theories. They are merely hypotheses, not facts proven. Classical and GR theories are the basis from which I am drawing these alternative thoughts.

Clocks are not a natural phenomenon. What they measure (by our input alone) is duration of an event (motion). Motion is change, and change comes in all sorts of lengths of duration. A duration has a beginning and an end and its length is determined by the beginning and the end, and thus we derive our measure of time by the observance of the length of a duration. We have standardised the length of a second by observing and measuring the duration of the event of a single oscillation of the caesium atom. This so that we have an accuracy of measurement that does not deviate over a period of millions of years.

I am not demoting time, I am placing it in correct context. Duration exists, time (and you stated it yourself as 'being embedded') as an independent reality does not. You cannot separate time from duration, but you can have duration without a sense of time), the internal sense workings of the human body notwithstanding. How can you know what the length of a second is without observing the duration of an event upon which the length of the second is based? What is actually embedded in the 'observable physics of the world' is duration, not time. Time is an imposed model derived from duration.

That was proven false experimentally by LIGO.

No, it was not. LIGO detected two examples of gravitational waves. They did not prove that space has no interactive properties. I am not saying gravity does not exist, I am positing that it arises out of the motion of different masses around each other. If space truly had interactive properties, it would alter physics drastically.

Warping of spacetime is what gravitational lens experiments measure.

The warping of spacetime by mass is the current model that supports current observations. What I am positing is that in logical terms, space has no interactive properties, and time does not exist. So, although the model works to support observations, it is something 'other' to account for the bending of light, and that there is no warping of either space, or time, or spacetime...that is my conjecture. Spacetime warping as depicted is a useful analogy, but not entirely accurate in my mind, but until a better model comes along and is proven, it is the basis from which I draw my thoughts.

Your objections have no clear relations to Verlinde's theory.

Yes they do have clear relations, because I draw the conclusion that spacetime is not real, but merely an abstraction to give understanding to an event...i.e., the bending of a photon's path. What I am positing is that gravity happens in space, not to it.

a reply to: elysiumfire


So a construct that cannot be real allows for gravity?


These are your words.

Kashai:

So a construct that cannot be real allows for gravity? These are your words.

Instead of acting the 'big I am', and trying to be clever, why don't you actually elaborate on your thinking? Show me where I state or even impute that gravity is allowed by something that I state is not real? Show your logic and reasoning. I'll happily engage you.

I don't want cut & paste all over the thread, I want to see your own thinking.

a reply to: elysiumfire

"but I have already argued that 'space' does not interact with anything, and time does not exist except as a mathematical abstraction. "

"What I am positing is that gravity happens in space, not to it."

"I think over the next day or so I'll create a new thread dealing with 'spacetime' and how such a construct cannot be real."

Like I said these are your own words.

Time relates to motion not just a clock so without time nothing can move so not realistic conditions for the development of life.

Clocks are an assessment of time like a fuel gage in a car is an assessment of how much gas is available.

Kashai:

Elysiumfire...but I have already argued that 'space' does not interact with anything, and time does not exist except as a mathematical abstraction. What I am positing is that gravity happens in space, not to it.

There is no contradiction in my statement. It states that space has no interactive properties, and that gravity happens 'IN', not 'TO' space. Are you having trouble with the distinction, or are you being deliberately obtuse?

Kashai:

Time relates to motion not just a clock...

Time only relates to motion via an event's duration as a measurement of the length of duration. That is what I am saying.

Kashai:

...so without time nothing can move so not realistic conditions for the development of life.

I cannot for the life of me perceive how you find your statement logical? Time does not provide the energy for any kind of motion, none at all. If time existed, motion would occur in time, not by time. In my hypothesis, time does not exist, except as a mathematical abstraction...merely a measurement of the duration of an event's motion.

a reply to: elysiumfire

"If time existed, motion would occur in time, not by time. In my hypothesis, time does not exist, except as a mathematical abstraction...merely a measurement of the duration of an event's motion."

How can time exist as a mathematical abstraction if motion occurs in time?

What to you is the difference between "in time" and "by time"?

In and definition

1 a —used as a function word to indicate inclusion, location, or position within limits
b :  into 1

www.merriam-webster.com...

by and definition

1 :  in proximity to :  near

www.merriam-webster.com...

Both terms present inclusion.

Why are you suggesting there is a real difference???

originally posted by: RP2SticksOfDynamite
If that were to be true, who or what is projecting the hologram and where did they come from? Not convinced!

Very good. You show them that they still are locked in the chicken and egg matrix however clever or new the theory appears

This idea is related to the premise that reality is an illusion. Okay but an illusion is real but its just not the end and be all of any given phenomenon. In other words like TV is an illusion but its still a real projected image and simulation of reality.


An illusion is a statement that a phenomenon has multiple levels that one can perceive it at depending on time and place. Or an illusion is a temporary condition of being. Such as we look at a child and say that's a child. No that's an illusion because such child will be a man soon or a teenager.

So when one says the universe s a hologram that’s really not saying anything substantial since we don’t really define what a hologram is inherently in the supposition.

Sure we may be in a TV show in the greater scheme of things but what exactly does that prove?

Furthermore, saying reality is a hologram is non-sequatur. Its like saying reality is hot…or reality is cold. In other words who can say reality is any one thing and be valid.

Thank you for sharing that. I loved it.

originally posted by: elysiumfire

That was proven false experimentally by LIGO.

No, it was not. LIGO detected two examples of gravitational waves. They did not prove that space has no interactive properties. I am not saying gravity does not exist, I am positing that it arises out of the motion of different masses around each other. If space truly had interactive properties, it would alter physics drastically.

Space does have interactive and self-interactive properties, and that fact does alter physics drastically: gravitational waves, which don't occur in Newtonian or any other theory of "different masses around each other", without an internal medium which has self-interactive properties to support wave motion.

Warping of spacetime is what gravitational lens experiments measure.

The warping of spacetime by mass is the current model that supports current observations. What I am positing is that in logical terms, space has no interactive properties, and time does not exist. So, although the model works to support observations, it is something 'other' to account for the bending of light, and that there is no warping of either space, or time, or spacetime...that is my conjecture. Spacetime warping as depicted is a useful analogy, but not entirely accurate in my mind, but until a better model comes along and is proven, it is the basis from which I draw my thoughts.

What is the problem with space-time warping and time being real? Because that's what the experimental evidence sure looks like to me.

Clocks measure something important which is all over physics, and gravitational lensing and waves are real.

Yes they do have clear relations, because I draw the conclusion that spacetime is not real, but merely an abstraction to give understanding to an event...i.e., the bending of a photon's path. What I am positing is that gravity happens in space, not to it.

You can't have gravitational waves without 'gravity happening to space'.


You get EM waves because EM interacts with EM: changing magnetic fields make electric fields and vice versa. If you think about it correctly as Einstein did, magnetic and electric are just parts of the one larger EM field, it has interactive properties so that you can get propagating waves carrying energy and momentum in areas without charges. That's a very clear example of classical intrinsic waves. And Einstein gravity has the same property: gravitational waves propagating strain & energy across distances without needing masses in the intermediate locations.

a reply to: elysiumfire

Tell me, what part of gravity has been reconciled with the other forces of physics? We know there is an attraction between masses of objects, we have called it gravity, but we do not know how it arises.

Matter itself could consist of curved knotted spacetime so gravity might be considered an aberation if one concedes that a straight line in warped spacetime is warped as well.

originally posted by: Willtell
Furthermore, saying reality is a hologram is non-sequatur. Its like saying reality is hot…or reality is cold. In other words who can say reality is any one thing and be valid.

No, the 'holographic universe' theories mean something real and substantial and non-trivial. Don't take the word 'hologram' quite so literally, it's an analogy which makes sense very much to physicists but can be confusing to laymen. What the "h-word" is about is asserting that physics in a 'bulk' are in fact describable by a different but parallel set of physics in a 'surface' which has one lower space dimension than the bulk. That is how a conventional optical hologram works---three-dimensional light distributions are controlled by two-dimensional patterns on the hologram exposed surface. The QM version is much more abstract, but the notion of 'surface' and 'bulk' persists: describe fundamental physics on the hypersurface and the physics in the bulk in which we live and perceive is paralleled there.

By the way, these holographic theories are NOT complete and are NOT part of accepted standard physics yet. Generally accepted (experimentally confirmed) physics is Standard Model of quantum field theory is a standard QM field theory in the 'bulk' of regular spacetime.

a reply to: glend


Another way of addressing such a position is that if correct it would be inherent to nature and therefore not an aberration.

Perhaps nature does not answer to us unless we understand that relating to it can be very personal.

a reply to: mbkennel


Actually that is really accurate. When it comes to the Holographic Principle, scientist are not talking about some appearance.

a reply to: Kashai

Yes my mistake, should have written not an aberration, thanks for correcting.
That was beautiful Kashai. ☺

a reply to: elysiumfire

If you stop the earth's and the moon's motion, you immediately stop all effects that their motion about one another induce

Actually, the Moon will start falling toward Earth.

You cannot stretch that which has no interactive properties...space does not interact with anything.

Yes, it interacts with mass. To be more precise, mass affects space. Isn't it a well known fact?

So...how the Moon orbits Earth. Mechanism, please. I want to know.