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

Verlinde could be right when he says Gravity is an emergent property and not a fundamental force. Verlinde's model explains the motion of objects at large scales without the need for dark matter and his theory supports the universe as a hologram.

Erik Verlinde just released the latest installment of his new theory of gravity. He now says he doesn’t need dark matter to explain the motions of stars in galaxies.

Theoretical physicist Erik Verlinde has a new theory of gravity, which describes gravity not a force but as an illusion. The theory says gravity is an emergent phenomenon, possible to be derived from the microscopic building blocks that make up our universe’s entire existence. This week, he published the latest installment of his theory showing that – if he’s correct – there’s no need for dark matter to describe the motions of stars in galaxies.

Verlinde, who is at the University of Amsterdam, first released his new theory in 2010. According to a statement released this week (November 8, 2016):

… gravity is not a fundamental force of nature, but an emergent phenomenon. In the same way that temperature arises from the movement of microscopic particles, gravity emerges from the changes of fundamental bits of information, stored in the very structure of spacetime.

earthsky.org...

Wow!

So everything is a construct of information. This is essentially the holographic principle. There's no volume and everything we see as 3D is really a projection of information on a 2D surface area. Here's more:

New theory explains gravity better than Einstein's relativity

But now there's a new theory on the block that's based on the idea that the universe is a hologram, and it doesn't require dark matter or its elusive cousin, dark energy, to explain gravity on a larger scale, reports Phys.org.

So if gravity is emergent, like temperature is, that means it must be emergent from something. But from what? This is where Verlinde borrows from the holographic principle. His theory suggests that gravity is emergent from fundamental bits of information that are stored in the fabric of spacetime itself.

www.mnn.com...

So what he's saying is, Gravity emerges when these fundamental bits that are stored in the fabric of spacetime change. This is very interesting as Gravity is also being tied to the entropy of entanglement.

In this instance, entropy can be seen as the amount of information contained in an area of spacetime. Any change in this information can increase entropy and gravity emerges. So gravity is an entropic force that emerges instead of a fundamentel force of nature.

From idea of information entropy, you can derive Einstein’s equations of general relativity exactly.



So our universe is processing and projecting vast amounts of information on a 2D surface area. Here's a good discussion on this topic from Leonard Susskind.

a reply to: neoholographic

his theory supports the universe as a hologram.

those damm holo-versers...

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

a reply to: RP2SticksOfDynamite

It doesn't matter if you're convinced or not. Like Susskind said, physics doesn't care about what people think. These things have very powerful explanatory power when it comes to our universe.

Why would there need to be a who projecting this information if information is a fundamental aspect of our universe? Here's Susskind talking about this and he lays it out very well. People react to the Holographic Principle in the same way people reacted to Quantum Mechanics years ago. People have to realize that the universe doesn't conform to their local point of view.

“I remember discussions with Bohr which went through many hours till very late at night and ended almost in despair; and when at the end of the discussion I went alone for a walk in the neighbouring park I repeated to myself again and again the question: Can nature possibly be so absurd as it seemed to us in these atomic experiments?”
― Werner Heisenberg

Even Heisenberg struggled with these things.





These things only seem absurd because people approach the issue with a preconceived notion as to what the universe must be. Like I said, science can care less about opinion.

So,.....are we simply a dream in the mind of God?

How many dimensions of reality contained in a hologram?


Wish it would get reprogram so I could fly like superman.

imagine the odds of the earth being created amongst billions of other planets, imagine the odds of a created earth able to sustain life, imagine the odds of life forming at all, imagine the odds of the life species becoming intelligent/ multi celled/or cell based at all, imagine the odds of a single species among billions, becoming consciously intellectual, imagine the odds of that species becoming intelligent enough to observe and understand its environment, imagine the odds of that species creating theories about life itself, now imagine the odds of those theories being actually what exists outside our perception...

scientists have never been more loose in theory. its simply because we think what we explain to ourselves, in order to compliment our perception and numskull senses; we think everything is actually as we describe them simply because of how we can perceive and see or hear things.

a reply to: odzeandennz
Wow ... with all that imagining, i've increased the local information density and the gravity of the situation sure is increasing.
QED.

a reply to: neoholographic
While I'm in a jovial mood...

There's no volume and everything we see as 3D is really a projection of information on a 2D surface area

OMG... the 'flat-earthers' are almost vindicated.....

a reply to: odzeandennz

we think everything is actually as we describe them simply because of how we can perceive and see or hear things.

If science thought it had all the answers it would cease its drive towards discovery. Obviously we know we don't yet have the perfect description. Hence these theoretical physicists exploring new theories. That said, what the hell else would we be using other than our ability to perceive to formulate these descriptions? Channel the answers from angels?

Here's a video be Erik Verlinde:



This has some serious implications about the nature of what we call "reality." This would mean that information has this ghostly disembodied existence.

If a plane fell into a black hole, the plane would fall into the black hole but information describing the plane would be smeared out and distinctions preserved on the event horizon of the black hole. So the airplne in the black hole would just be a projection or hologram of the information spread out across the 2D event horizon.

So if you were to fall into a black hole, information that describes you down to your brain that makes me distinct from you would have this ghostly existence and nature would preserve it forever while your projected 3D image is falling towards the singularity or what some call the apparent singularity that never forms because of quantum mechanics.

We could actually be inside a black hole now and we're headed towards a big rip.

a reply to: neoholographic

Verlinde could be right when he says Gravity is an emergent property and not a fundamental force. Verlinde's model explains the motion of objects at large scales without the need for dark matter and his theory supports the universe as a hologram.

I've thought this for a long time based on my fields of study and the work that I do.

My take on it has been that gravity is *not* an effect of mass displacing space-time, although that is one of it's properties.

Gravity is a *cause* i.e. already exists without the above. The above is simply a property of that cause.

I did not describe it as eloquently as Dr. Verlinde though.

Emergent property...hmm...I like that. I'll use it going forward in my discussions about this topic.

Glad to see we're moving forward in our understanding.

a reply to: neoholographic

Why would the information be saved, and how would the information be retained?

Properties and characteristics of subatomic particles are not the same for atomic practicals composed of subatomic particles.

The 3d physical universe is constructed out of 2d subatomic particles based on quantum physics?

Falling into a black hole would reduce an object into subatomic particles who's information would be saved in / on the event horizon? The information is saved because the spin of the particles is preserved?

I guess you could say do to the properties, states, and spins of subatomic particles, our universe is one big quantum computer?

But we can predict an objects gravity by knowing it's mass, that alone throws his theory out of the window does it not?

a reply to: muSSang

Remember, atoms and subatomic particles have different governing laws.

www.physlink.com...

In general, the behavior of the sub-atomic particles cannot be described by Netwon's Laws.

The laws which govern the behavior of the sub-atomic particles are completely different. It is impossible to assign a specific position and velocity to a particle. Each particle can be in a superposition of different states, which means that in some sense it is located at the same time in a whole region of space and has a whole range of velocities. If you measure the position (or the velocity) of the particle, you just get one of the values from that range, in random (possibly with different probabilities for each value). However, this is NOT because the particle actually HAD that position and you just hadn't known that, but the particle really HAD a whole range of positions the moment before the measurement. This is something strange and beautiful.

The ability of the particle to be in several different states simultaneously results in a well-known wave-particle duality: the sub-atomic particles (electrons, neutrons and other) can behave like waves and show interference.

originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy
If science thought it had all the answers it would cease its drive towards discovery. Obviously we know we don't yet have the perfect description. Hence these theoretical physicists exploring new theories. That said, what the hell else would we be using other than our ability to perceive to formulate these descriptions? Channel the answers from angels?

A lot of the latest generations of telescopes are built to detect signals that humans can't perceive directly, such as radio, infrared, X-ray etc.

As for Verlinde's idea mentioned in the OP, he says it's not a theory:

www.nytimes.com...

“This is not the basis of a theory,” Dr. Verlinde explained. “I don’t pretend this to be a theory. People should read the words I am saying opposed to the details of equations.”

Dr. Padmanabhan said that he could see little difference between Dr. Verlinde’s and Dr. Jacobson’s papers and that the new element of an entropic force lacked mathematical rigor. “I doubt whether these ideas will stand the test of time,” he wrote in an e-mail message from India. Dr. Jacobson said he couldn’t make sense of it.

So other physicists have had a hard time understanding what Verlinde is talking about, but one thing he can be given credit for is inspiring some creative discussion, even if his ideas don't pan out. It would be great if he's solved the dark matter problem but it's not clear that he has.

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!

Holograms have nothing whatsoever to do with what you see on Star Trek or Star Wars. Crap you see in public CALLED holograms (Tupak etc) aren't holograms either. The physicsuse of the term may not map with the colloquial use.

Anyone can come up with an alternate theory. Let him back this up with some solid maths and people will pay attention. Otherwise, why would/should they?

Anyone can come up with an alternate theory. Let him back this up with some solid maths and people will pay attention. Otherwise, why would/should they?