Posted on 08/24/2011 2:52:57 PM PDT by Red Badger
The way gravity effects quantum particles proves that it cannot be an emergent phenomenon, says physicist.
One of the most exciting ideas in modern physics is that gravity is not a traditional force, like electromagnetic or nuclear forces. Instead, it is an emergent phenomenon that merely looks like a traditional force.
This approach has been championed by Erik Verlinde at the University of Amsterdam who put forward the idea in 2010. He suggested that gravity is merely a manifestation of entropy in the Universe, which always increases according to the second law of thermodynamics. This causes matter distribute itself in a way that maximises entropy. And the effect of this redistribution looks like a force which we call gravity.
Much of the excitement over Verlinde's idea is that it provides a way to reconcile the contradictions between gravity, which works on a large scale, and quantum mechanics, which works on a tiny scale.
The key idea is that gravity is essentially a statistical effect. As long as each particle is influenced by a statistically large number of other particles, gravity emerges. That's why it's a large-scale phenomenon.
But today, Archil Kobakhidze at The University of Melbourne in Australia points to a serious problem with this approach. He naturally asks how gravity can influence quantum particles.
Kobakhidze argues that since each quantum particle must be described by a large number of other particles, this leads to a particular equation that describes the effect of gravity.
But here's the thing: the conventional view of gravity leads to a different equation.
In other words, the emergent and traditional views of gravity make different predictions about the gravitational force a quantum particle ought to experience. And that opens the way for an experimental test.
As it happens, physicists have been measuring the force of gravity on neutrons for ten yeas or so. And...wait for the drum roll... the results exactly match the predictions of traditional gravitational theory, says Kobakhidze.
"Experiments on gravitational bound states of neutrons unambiguously disprove the entropic origin of gravitation," he says.
That's an impressive piece of physics. It'll be interesting to see how Verlinde and his supporters respond.
Ref: arxiv.org/abs/1108.4161: Once More: Gravity Is Not An Entropic Force
He was the father of Quantum physics, even though he had to be dragged into it kicking and screaming at first. At first, he hated what he found. He didn't want to go there!
No, it's a fact, as it has been observed literally billions of times (subatomic particles in an accelerator decay at a slower rate because of their high speed). They even flew atomic clocks around the globe and demonstrated that they had experienced less time passing. This particular phenomenon is about as ironclad as you get in an experimental science...
Better than the suppository form. But hey, the O Boy will be out of office sooner or later.
I believe they mean "affects".
I'm soooooo glad I stopped doing Acid in the 70's. I highly recommend your at least cutting back.
Those who dabble on the far end of quantum physics, like Peter Wolf, claim love behaves like a photon, and multiplies itself. Hate, on the other hand, is anti-matter. It destroys, and becomes a black hole.
Hey, that’s my line!
Yep, an all purpose transporter would also be an all purpose object synthesizer, in principle. Driving it with sufficient information to synthesize that pretty date you wanted, rather than some rubber doll, might be tricky. Think petabytes or more....
John’s statement that God is love gets deep into the concept that Christians commonly call the trinity, the 3-part nature of a God that exists independently of the universe we know. There is a Son and a Father who can express love towards one another, and a Spirit who acts as a kind of messenger or intermediary, all rolled up into a single omnipotent deity (not the distinct multiple deities of pantheistic systems). Things that God creates (magnetism, etc.) can reflect or illlustrate this love, but they aren’t the same thing as that love.
Enterprise has suffered long term effects from gravity. Trust me on this.
The affects have an effect.....
This deserves your attention.
I have had zero training in physics of any kind unless you call a college course in physical science as something close.
It is always sort of fun to daydream about light and time etc.
One can easily imagine that there is only one force making everything in the universe behave the way it does. that would obviously be God. One thing which does make me wonder is the Universe seems to be limitless just like an omnipotent God.
I did'nt understand what gravity is. After reading this, I don't understand what "influenced" means. This article is muddying the waters and confusing the crap out of me. When I hit a nail with a hammer, I know I influenced the nail. Tell me exactly how these particles are influencing each other without actual contact, to create gravity.
That sounds awfully like ‘ether’.........
An analogy: THIS thread on Free Republic...
But fermions and bosons are not fundamental particles. This is just a description of the symmetry and statistical laws they obey. The particles we have are the quarks, leptons, and gauge bosons: photons, gluons, gravitons, W/Z particles. Combinations of quarks and combinations of leptons can be either bosons or fermions. The gauge particles -- which mediate energy or "force" are all bosons.
Maybe the idea is that the universe is crammed with a network of... something. Something that science doesn’t know about and whose interactions with physical objects that science does know about does not have to conform to the known behavior of these physical objects. It wouldn’t be quite an “ether.” It wouldn’t need to be “supernatural” in the literal sense, but might be difficult to distinguish from such an entity.
“Why couldn’t the quantum, which is eveywhere and in everything, have enough mass, if evenly distributed, to hold things down? It would be sort of like living on a planet surrounded by undectable jello - an energy “aura”.”
What’s the difference between imagining that scenario and concocting a “luminiferous ether” or “dark matter” to make your theory work? Aren’t these just theoretical “fudge factors” used as a crutch to prop up an apparently flawed theory?
It seems like scientists sometimes try to reimagine reality to conform to their theory, rather than reimagine their theory to conform to reality.
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.