Slam dunk noble prize unless we find that the theory is not politically correct. That would be a deal killer as Al Gore could explain better than I.
Very interesting stuff. I hope this thread gets some visits from some of our Freeper-Whiz Kids.
Posted on 11/14/2016 3:59:01 AM PST by Eurotwit
A new theory of gravity might explain the curious motions of stars in galaxies. Emergent gravity, as the new theory is called, predicts the exact same deviation of motions that is usually explained by invoking dark matter. Prof. Erik Verlinde, renowned expert in string theory at the University of Amsterdam and the Delta Institute for Theoretical Physics, published a new research paper today in which he expands his groundbreaking views on the nature of gravity.
In 2010, Erik Verlinde surprised the world with a completely new theory of gravity. According to Verlinde, 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. Newton's law from information In his 2010 article (On the origin of gravity and the laws of Newton), Verlinde showed how Newton's famous second law, which describes how apples fall from trees and satellites stay in orbit, can be derived from these underlying microscopic building blocks. Extending his previous work and work done by others, Verlinde now shows how to understand the curious behaviour of stars in galaxies without adding the puzzling dark matter. The outer regions of galaxies, like our own Milky Way, rotate much faster around the centre than can be accounted for by the quantity of ordinary matter like stars, planets and interstellar gasses. Something else has to produce the required amount of gravitational force, so physicists proposed the existence of dark matter. Dark matter seems to dominate our universe, comprising more than 80 percent of all matter. Hitherto, the alleged dark matter particles have never been observed, despite many efforts to detect them. No need for dark matter According to Erik Verlinde, there is no need to add a mysterious dark matter particle to the theory. In a new paper, which appeared today on the ArXiv preprint server, Verlinde shows how his theory of gravity accurately predicts the velocities by which the stars rotate around the center of the Milky Way, as well as the motion of stars inside other galaxies. "We have evidence that this new view of gravity actually agrees with the observations, " says Verlinde. "At large scales, it seems, gravity just doesn't behave the way Einstein's theory predicts." At first glance, Verlinde's theory presents features similar to modified theories of gravity like MOND (modified Newtonian Dynamics, Mordehai Milgrom (1983)). However, where MOND tunes the theory to match the observations, Verlinde's theory starts from first principles. "A totally different starting point," according to Verlinde. Adapting the holographic principle One of the ingredients in Verlinde's theory is an adaptation of the holographic principle, introduced by his tutor Gerard 't Hooft (Nobel Prize 1999, Utrecht University) and Leonard Susskind (Stanford University). According to the holographic principle, all the information in the entire universe can be described on a giant imaginary sphere around it. Verlinde now shows that this idea is not quite correct—part of the information in our universe is contained in space itself. This extra information is required to describe that other dark component of the universe: Dark energy, which is believed to be responsible for the accelerated expansion of the universe. Investigating the effects of this additional information on ordinary matter, Verlinde comes to a stunning conclusion. Whereas ordinary gravity can be encoded using the information on the imaginary sphere around the universe, as he showed in his 2010 work, the result of the additional information in the bulk of space is a force that nicely matches that attributed to dark matter. On the brink of a scientific revolution Gravity is in dire need of new approaches like the one by Verlinde, since it doesn't combine well with quantum physics. Both theories, crown jewels of 20th century physics, cannot be true at the same time. The problems arise in extreme conditions: near black holes, or during the Big Bang. Verlinde says, "Many theoretical physicists like me are working on a revision of the theory, and some major advancements have been made. We might be standing on the brink of a new scientific revolution that will radically change our views on the very nature of space, time and gravity."
Slam dunk noble prize unless we find that the theory is not politically correct. That would be a deal killer as Al Gore could explain better than I.
Very interesting stuff. I hope this thread gets some visits from some of our Freeper-Whiz Kids.
Actually, this new theory is credible because there "is" experimental evidence for it (unlike the "dark matter" hypothesis). It explains the motion of stars better.
So dark matter is just another in a long series of repetitive human engineered ‘fudge factors’ which arise when doctrine is observed to be incomplete.
Nice try Albert.
Kudos to Kurt.
“All models are false (incomplete), some are useful”
“Will this be another theory that predicts you won’t find any evidence for it?”
Exactly. There isnt enough regular matter in the universe to account for things so they theorize “dark matter”. They look for dark matter and cant find it. Now a new type of data data/substance is proposed that does what dark matter is supposed to do. There is no evidence for this either.
In biology this is called a “correction factor” to compensate for consistent errors you cant explain.
I’m not trained in physics, but had the usual courses in high school and college. Ever since I was a kid, the concepts of infinity, the expanding universe (expanding into what?), the conflict between Einstein and quantum physics, dark matter and dark energy have all held my interest. I can’t think in terms of time-space, but I find all of this very interesting. When I express that interest to others, I usually get eye-rolls or that deer-in-the-headlights look. It ain’t easy being a closet geek.
> Both theories, crown jewels of 20th century physics, cannot be true at the same time.
And yet our scientific establishment puts its full authority behind each and ostracizes those who suggest one may be incorrect. Surprised this guy wasn’t run out of town on a rail for suggesting something that would interrupt the dark matter research grant gravy train.
Possibly. But my instincts tell me NO. Dark Matter and Dark Energy are very Newtonian concepts. Relating Information Theory, Information Bits to Gravity is quite another thing. Einstein certainly showed us that space and time, space-time are not quite as simple as cave men imagined. This guy is not just adding a fudge factor to the theory of gravity, he is starting from scratch.
Correct me if I'm wrong. I'm a certainly not able to read the 45 page paper and really grasp it but I'm betting there is some Freeper out there who can. This is interesting stuff. It may even lead to bigger and better bombs.
Yes. I've seen that look myself. Nice to hear from someone else here in Freeper-Land who can see that this might be a big deal. It really could be.
It predicts the death of whales and polar bears.
Easy watching. Short. Have a look at one here:
YouTube: Does this new theory of gravity finally explain dark matter?
That’s really not quite true. The observed deviation of galactic rotation speeds from the speeds expected from relativity led to two pretty much independent lines of thought. One of them, exemplified by the theory discussed in this article is that our prior theory of gravity is not adequate. That gives rise to MOND (short for MOdified Newtonian Dynamics). The theory discussed here is a new attempt at a MOND theory. Yes , there is evidence, but it’s not really all that convincing scientifically. These theories have the departure from expected behavior as a starting point and are formulated specifically to account for that deviation.
That is not a bad thing in and of itself, but the real test for a theory like this is applying it to other observations besides the one it was specifically designed to explain. That’s where the problem comes in for MOND theories. If they are correct, they make predictions about things other than galactic rotation speeds. They predict certain primordial abundances of elements and certain patterns of clustering in the cosmic microwave background. The issue is that these predictions fail to match observations. This newest version of MOND might be more successful, but I am inclined to doubt it.
A second line of reasoning exists therefore to try to explain the deviations. In this line, it is believed that our theory of gravity is essentially right, but that the observed rotational variation is caused by unobserved mass. Of course, that is the dark matter idea. It is true that dark matter does not account quite as well for the variations as MOND, but dark matter does a very good job of explaining observed inhomogenities in the CMB and observed primodial elemental abundances.
The jury is still out - neither theory is entirely adequate. Dark matter will be difficult todetect directly, but the idea does have observational consequences, so it cannot be dismissed out of hand. Nobody has yet developed a MOND theory that adequately explains anything other than galactic rotation speeds, but that does not mean that it won’t ever be done. Dark matter is preferred by the physics community right now because of the wider array of observations it accounts for. A MOND theory that does this job would likely find wide acceptance, though, based on the elimination of the need for an unobserved entity. Just don’t make the mistake of assuming MOND is the better theory because dark matter has not been directly observed. There is plenty of observational evidence pointing toward dark matter.
These theories remind me of a computer program written by someone who has only a basic understanding of programming.
But having always been a bit suspicious that we can only see 4% of the matter and energy in the universe and the rest is just not detectable I am anxious to see a better explanation for gravity than the one offered by Einstein.
One nice thing about this particular theory, according to Verlinde, is that it makes predictions applicable at the molecular level: about strong and weak forces and such. If so, it is testable at that level. If it fits that might do it for me and the Nobel Committee. Even Einstein might approve as would Newton and Mr. Potter, my old physics teacher.
You can hear a little of this in his subtitled YouTube video HERE
Space, imploding out from the infinite expanse, downward and inward, from everywhere, towards everywhere, targeting the ONE infinitesimal Singularity, impacts this anomaly called a particle. The “radiation” caused by this impact is gravity.
Much like in a non-linear PN junction of a semiconductor, when 2 frequencies feed through that junction you get the original two frequencies out but their sum and difference new frequencies are generated. (modulation and de-modulation)
Space at the infinite expanse is pure space and no time. At the infinitesimal Singularity (engaged in infinite velocity AND infinite angular diversity) is only pure time and no space. We are stuck somewhere in the middle of the conversion process where we observe both space and time. The “wake” from the pure infinite kinetics of the one Singularity establishes the existence of the infinite expanse for that kinetics to occur within.
I’ll have to think one these things.
Perhaps an analogy will simplify things. During the late 19th and early 20th century several anomalies were discovered in the motions of planets in our solar system. When the planet Uranus was discovered and its orbit calculated, it was found that its observed motion did not match the calculation. Did this mean that Newton’s law of gravity was wrong? Quite justifiably, astronomers weren’t quite ready to jump to this conclusion. Instead they speculated that another planet further from the sun than Uranus existed and was causing the anomaly. Of course that turned out to be right and Neptune was found right where it was expected to be, vindicating Newtonian gravity.
Around the same time another anomaly was noted. Planets orbit in elliptical orbits, not circular ones. This means that there is a point in the orbit where they are closer to the sun than any other point. This is known as perhelion. (There is also of course another point, aphelion, where the planet is farther from the sun than any other). One might expect that this perhelion occurs at the same point on each orbit, but this is not the case. The perhelion precesses or essentially slowly revolves around the sun. According to Newtonian gravity this occurs only because of the influence of other planets; it would not happen for a single planet orbiting the sun.
With that background in mind, astronomers found that the perhelion of Mercury’s orbit precessed (as expected), but the rate of that precession was unexpectedly high. Did THIS mean that Newtonian gravity was wrong? Guided by the example of Neptune, astronomers speculated that there was a planet Vulcan closer to the sun than Mercury. The orbit of Vulcan was calculated and the search was on. Since nobody learns “Vulcan” as first on the list of planets, it’s pretty obvious that this explanation did not work out. In this case, Newtonian gravity WAS wrong, but the search for Vulcan did not stop until Einstein formulated general relativty, explaining perfectly the procession of Mercury’s perhelion (among other things).
I hope the analogy is clear. The Neptune case is analogous to dark matter - our theory is right, but there’s something unaccounted for. Mercury is analogous to MOND - a new theory is needed. Just like the case of Mercury, a new theory that is effective at explaining a wide range of observations would cause the search for dark matter to cease. Until such a theory exists, though, the current theory is accepted and dark matter is postulated.
Heavy.
I certainly am not ruling out Verlinde’s theory. A MOND theory with applicability wider than just rotation speeds would be preferred to dark matter. Contrary to what many on FR believe, the scientific community is quite willing to accept alternative ideas, but the burden of proof is on the developer of a new idea to show the evidence that the idea is valid, not on the scientific community to disprove it.
I am quite sure Verlinde is well aware of this and will present his evidence. If it is convincing enough, it will be accepted.
"<P>"
and
"<CENTER>" -- "</CENTER>"
are your readers' friends!
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Laziness in the haste to post is inexcusable.
Do over. Or, do not post...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.