New theory of gravity might explain dark matter

Phys.org ^ | November 8, 2016 | Phys.org

[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."

[Brooklyn Attitude]

“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.”

I read the abstract. I’m out.

[BDParrish]

As I try to understand Einstein’s theory, I think of space-time-energy-matter as a “thing”. Everything has to be accounted for all at once. Does MOND do this?

We keep looking for dark matter and it is just not there. Why do they ask us to have blind faith? Will we understand it all in the by-and-by?

For now it makes sense to examine the few bits of what you call “observational evidence for dark matter” and try to explain them without dark matter and see where that goes.

When the day comes to put on cowl and tonsure and just “believe” in dark matter, I expect to be burned at the stake.

[Hostage]

One cannot measure 'consciousness'. If otherwise, it would be possible to make robots have 'understanding' and therefore imbue them with a 'soul', thereby completing and enabling human fleshly matter to enter the godhead which is impossible because of Satan's death sentence to the flesh.

Alternatively and hypothetically, a computer given a 'soul' would replicate its information from one memory device to a surviving one (because matter is temporal and decays) but it would need to transfer its 'understanding' (i.e. its 'soul') which is incomplete. However, information is infinite (or assume otherwise and follow the logical analysis to its unavoidable contradiction) and therefore the transference of consciousness is never complete. Case closed.

Ergo, God exists, God is light.

Reducing consciousness to computation renders it either finite and confined inside the realm of computers (impossible; left as an exercise) or countable in which case it is always incomplete and therefore never transferable. Can consciousness be divided and exist without parts of itself? Of course not. But can it be assembled?

Unless ALL parts of consciousness are salvageable, regenerate (reborn), or otherwise collectible by a 'Messiah' particle that by force of 'creation' (= Alpha and Omega, God is both infinite and a singularity, never confined to the measurable in mass, time or space; never reduced, irreducible) overcomes the jealous 'Satan' particle which seeks to destroy any part of consciousness, no matter how small, then consciousness cannot exist, ergo God is dead, therefore we are dead. Who wins this game? The Creator or the Destroyer? It must be the Creator because of infinity, e.g. George Cantor's Dust. Infinity can't even be consumed by infinity.

The long and short of it is that we are able to 'reduce' a great many things to mathematics, sometimes even catching a glimmer of 'truth' (THE Truth) but our complete understanding is never attainable unless we are one with God, and God is not a fudge factor. How can a fudge factor be infinite? Replace, refine a fudge factor and there will still be a need for a new fudge factor ad infinitum, ad insanitarium (see Cantor sets, Cantor Dust).

So where does all this leave us? It leaves us in need of new forms of entertainment, needing new shiny objects. Verlinde's new game is definitely more intriguing than a NY Times Sunday crossword puzzle. It may even lead to improving our lives by a thousand-fold. Ok great! Now we get to live to 10,000 years of age and travel a good part of the galaxy. Then what? There will always be a Hillary Clinton lurking around the bend, or something worse.

We do it because we care for each other and our children, no other reason except that we are curious apes with a flint of consciousness. God is Love.

Where's our roadmap God? Where's our starmap? C'mon Buddy, we're tired of waiting! We want to hang out with you!

If my angle is impalpable, then watch physicist Sir Roger Penrose try to explain it and pay attention to his mention of the greatest philosopher of the 20th Century and Einstein's best friend and mentor, Kurt Gödel

Kurt Gödel

Sir Roger here:
Sir Roger Penrose On Consciousness

[Wonder Warthog]

Elementary Science —— the hypothesis that explains the most experimental data wins. There is an element in the physics community that thinks “the prettiest theory” wins.

That latter should turn in their academic credentials and go wash dishes.

[Cboldt]

If you haven’t read them yet, the “Hidden in Plain sight” series is a good read. Panned by many physicists, still thought provoking. The author aims to reconcile Einstein and quantum physics, also working from first principles. His notions also predict the intra-galactic motions without resort to dark matter, and the expansion observations without resort to dark energy. 99 cents a book, if you take them in “Kindle” form.

[InterceptPoint]

Thanks for the tip. I’ll have a look.

[depressed in 06]

Not possible. We do not have a Scientific Consensus.

To achieve consensus, we must have federal money.

[zeugma]

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.

That's what I've been looking for. Theories like this aren't really useful unless they are testable. (One of the big problems with a lot of string theory thought that I've read is that they aren't even wrong. If he's making predictions that can be tested and quantified, then I'm all for testing it out. Put it through the crucible of rigorous testing, and see if pure metal emerges.

[stremba]

You completely misunderstand. Nobody has ever said to believe in dark matter based on faith. Dark matter is accepted because nobody has come up with a modified gravity theory that accounts for ALL observations that a theory of gravity must account for. General relativity with dark matter does account well for all observations. That state of affairs is subject to change, and if someone develops a new theory that explains the observations in their totality, it will change and dark matter will join the likes oh phlogiston and the aether as a discarded concept.

No faith needed. Just observational evidence. Let me ask you: do you doubt the existence of electrons? No electrons have ever been observed directly, just like dark matter. Indirect evidence for electrons exists, such as the behavior of electric currents, the behavior of cathode rays, and beta radiation. In like manner the composition of primeval dust clounds and the oldest stars and the fluctuations in the cosmic microwave background point to the existence of dark matter. What rational basis is there to reject one and accept the other?

[RinaseaofDs]

I’ve always hated the notion of dark matter. It’s the great big C at the end of the integral. It’s ketchup, a massive fudge factor.

This is exciting!

[tired&retired]

“One cannot measure ‘consciousness’. If otherwise, it would be possible to make robots have ‘understanding’ and therefore imbue them with a ‘soul’, thereby completing and enabling human fleshly matter to enter the godhead which is impossible because of Satan’s death sentence to the flesh.”

When one is standing in the trenches asleep as we are while in this physical body, what you say is very true. When we allow our consciousness to grow to higher frequencies, what you say is not true. For example, in demonstrating why Jesus taught what He did, I demonstrate in front of groups that our thoughts and stored memories of our life experiences are physical tangible objects by reading people’s souls in detail. Their thoughts and stored memories are physical to my perceptions. (This is why Jesus spoke of the weeds being planted here while we were asleep in Matthew 13.)

I even walk back several feet from a person and knock them off their feet by touching these stored memories in their souls. When you are One with Jesus your perception of reality changes.

Robots can not have a soul as they can only imitate the logical aspect of consciousness and not the feminine emotional component. Narcissists who deny their feminine aspect of consciousness including compassion and empathy also imitate the robotic pattern of consciousness.

Satan can have the flesh, it is the soul that is important.

“God is light.” Yes, God is Light. So is Jesus. When I go deep in meditation through various levels of consciousness, I always perceive the level of consciousness above which I exist as “Light.” Consciousness functions very similar to atomic physics in that just as Neals Bohr discovered that an electron going from an outer orbital to an inner orbital must give off light, so must consciousness coming from a higher level to a lower level.

I see the Holy Spirit as a “Liquid Light” that is brighter than the human soul. I see the Light from Heaven as far brighter when the portal opens up for someone to cross over or enter as they leave their physical bodies. There are many levels of Light, all of which exist within God and are of God.

I need to run as I have much work to do, but will finish this comment later.

There are no such things as miracles, they are just science that we do not currently understand.

The purpose of science is to understand how God works.

God is in control.

[Montana_Sam]

Thanks for posting the link to the video.

This theory seems to give a better explanation for how light propagates as waves of energy through space than the quantum explanation.

[Hostage]

I haven’t looked at the details of Verlinde’s work but note that his formulation was able to better map the rates by which outer fringe stars orbit around the center of the galaxy.

But here are some things I would look for if I was reviewing:

1) First, any equation or any of its candidate forms can be ‘tuned’ to any curve shape by fitting coefficients with basic graph shapes (exponential, hyperbola, inverse, etc.).

2) Second, noting the first fact in 1) above, I would have the concern that Verlinde merely ‘fit a curve’ and called the coefficients out to represent something new when in fact, ....

... he could be replacing one fudge factor with another, calling it a breakthrough.

Remark: I am always leery when science gets in a rut it starts to lower the bar in a search for new ‘heroes’ to extol, because in doing so, a tabloid of attractiveness is created. For example, in the field of social media, look at the phenomenon of Zuckerberg.

3) Third, I would look at the ‘new’ gravitational composition that Verlinde posits and ask if it is fundamentally measurable and not simply calculated from something else that is directly measurable.

Remark: The positing of ‘dark matter’ eerily mimicks the positing of ‘ether’ in the 19th-century investigations of electro-magnetism. Verlinde’s new formulation may be just an exercise in changing the labels or adding a new variable or a composite variable to make an equation fit the data.

All of the above is also subject to overparameterization (over tuning) where a model fits data so well that as soon as new data appear, the model breaks down.

The key to understanding is to observe what are the directly measurable quantities and how they can be arranged in a model to predict where future data should be observed, and then testing the model against new data. If Verlinde is deleting the ‘dark matter’ variable and forming a composite ‘story’ variable borrowing gravitational effects here and mass effects there, then his new variable might tell a good story couched in a good data fit, but could and likely would be nothing more than a magic trick.

If we have only one fundamental breakthrough every century, we are doing great.
If we have only one fundamental breakthrough every 500 years, we are doing well.
If we have only one fundamental breakthrough every millennium, we can and must try to do better.

Science is hard, damned hard.

With the push to publish and the abundance of journals to publish in, and the constant neverending quest for funding, reviewers need to be careful to navigate between reporting and tabloid publicity.

[Unruly Human]

I’m going to wait for the movie....

[minnesota_bound]

I noticed while sitting under an apple tree that apples seem to fall faster then before.

[minnesota_bound]

#13 Dr Sheldon Cooper has become a member of the mud people. He is now a geologist after his string theory was cut.

[Hostage]

> “When one is standing in the trenches asleep as we are while in this physical body, what you say is very true. When we allow our consciousness to grow to higher frequencies, what you say is not true. For example, in demonstrating why Jesus taught what He did, I demonstrate in front of groups that our thoughts and stored memories of our life experiences are physical tangible objects by reading people’s souls in detail. Their thoughts and stored memories are physical to my perceptions. (This is why Jesus spoke of the weeds being planted here while we were asleep in Matthew 13.)”

Afraid you are missing the point there Pastor.

You are talking about what you ‘understand’. Your understanding is not a measurable thing like mass, time, space. If is a thing of ‘consciousness’.

When you say you are ‘tuning to’ or ‘growing to’ ‘higher frequencies’ of consciousness, you are borrowing terms of physical measurement for things which you record in your ‘perceptions’, even describing such things as “physical to my perceptions”, but which are not physically measurable. They are tangible to your perceptions, to your sensibilities, to the framework you’ve developed for your consciousness, but a thermometer cannot measure such things nor could any sensor instrument.

Even if you developed some sort of psycho-social scale such as a Likert scale to measure your congregation’s ‘stories’ and testimonies, you would not be able to formulate a cause-effect relationship that would predict outcomes with a very high degree of confidence such as the launch of a rocket.

Science is about replicating physical results, predicting results by way of calculation.

More importantly, the scientific method can be WRONG and must be testable, meaning capable of yielding wrong results in order to provide value to our knowledge base. Whereas Astrology is by design never wrong.

This sounds confusing. But it’s not.

As a system, astrology is never wrong, it always has an explanation. If it’s not predicting the right outcome, it’s because of ‘operator error’ in for example not taking into account some phase of some moon or some orbit of some planet. It always has an answer, and therefore as a system is able to predict everything as long as its agents, astrologers know how to find the answer and are trained to describe the conditions. It is completely fraudulent and has been proven scientifically to be fraudulent, although people have fun with it as some sort of organizer for their thoughts and ‘perceptions’.

On the other hand, science posits a hypothesis and then devises an experiment or test of that hypothesis. The result can be true, false or inconclusive. Each result yields information and is useful because of the information it provides.

When we are talking about God in Spirit or God in the Flesh, we are no longer talking about science. We are talking about the very essence of consciousness which can never be described by anything computational. Science tries to ‘reduce’ our perceptions, our understandings to computation. So does astrology to some degree. The difference is science CAN BE wrong, whereas astrology arranges itself in a con game of fraud. Christ is ALWAYS true in EVERY INSTANCE. Truth exists but not in astrology. It seems to exist in science but without consciousness, but it doesn’t really exist as truth because it is always and forever INCOMPLETE. But it is useful to us so we tolerate its incompleteness and invest in its growth. Our ideal in science is TRUTH but we never quite get there. The aim in astrology is to wave one’s hands to explain away events and occurrences. Both science and astrology use computation. With Christ, He is never ‘reduced’ to computation, He is the one and only Truth; He is ALWAYS true; we just can’t compute him.

Basic logic is computational. When ‘logic’ states something is true, it means it is true in EVERY INSTANCE. If it returns a true value 999 times and a false value 1 time, then it is NOT true, it is invalid. This is why in science, we say ALL MODELS ARE FALSE, SOME ARE USEFUL. We can devise systems of mathematics or logic that are internally consistent meaning derived forms are valid within the overall axioms and postulates, but such systems are not complete in the sense that these systems do not and can never predict everything. They can be complete within a certain realm of observation, for certain conditions but put under a wider realm, they fail.

Christ is always true in every instance. He is the Only One that is this way. He is True; He is Truth. There is not one instance of him that is false, not one. But He is not scientific, he is not reducible to computation and formulation of physical constants and terms. He is not placeable under our ‘logic’, our scientific methods.

Sir Roger Penrose explains it well. Watch here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EuHORQoauWo

[tired&retired]

“You are talking about what you ‘understand’. Your understanding is not a measurable thing like mass, time, space. If is a thing of ‘consciousness’.”

Consciousness is material and functions in a scientific manner. All you need to do is raise your own consciousness to a level where your perception of reality includes consciousness as physical and material. This is what scientists are missing. It’s the reason Jesus gave us the two “most important” commandments to follow.

You can understand spirituality using a materialistic model, just not at the level of consciousness most people are viewing reality.

“You are talking about what you ‘understand’. Your understanding is not a measurable thing like mass, time, space. If is a thing of ‘consciousness’.”

Consciousness is not only measurable, it has an anatomy & physiology of its own just as the physical body does. Religion(s) are merely theories and philosophies of the anatomy & physiology of the human soul and how it interacts with its environment. That being said, Christianity is very accurate. My experiences have never contradicted what I read in the scriptures, in fact the experiences supported the scriptures and made them easier to understand.

“They are tangible to your perceptions, to your sensibilities, to the framework you’ve developed for your consciousness, but a thermometer cannot measure such things nor could any sensor instrument.”

If I told you as a blind man that all you had to do is open your eyes and see reality, if you had never seen anything you could not comprehend what I was saying. Having experienced sight, it is easy for you to understand.

If you follow Jesus’ teachings and emulate Him rather than just worshiping Him you would find that He is a “perfect example” for us. It’s the reason He said to the disciples when He sent them out, “The things that I do and even more you too shall do in my name.”

Everything Jesus teaches is to help us cleanse our souls and grow to experience God through Him, just as He did during His time in the wilderness.

Even if you developed some sort of psycho-social scale .....”

Just as you hear various tones and pitches in someone’s voice, I perceive consciousness. There are many, many variations to the broadcasts of others.

The key here is understanding the concept of being “Born of the Spirit.” When this truly happens and you realize that just as John 14 states, if we are in Jesus our Father that is also in Jesus is in us. At this time you begin to perceive directly from your soul or spirit rather than being limited to your five senses. In many ways, you are like a walking MRI.

“Science is about replicating physical results, predicting results by way of calculation.”

I am a scientist. After many years as a university professor, I left teaching and returned to the classroom as a student to understand my experiences. I’ll admit, my degree in psychology was pretty much worthless, so I moved on to neuroscience. It is not very difficult to demonstrate what I am saying and to explain it in scientific terms, including the interface between consciousness and the physical body.

I’ll actually be doing an all day program in Phoenix AZ in the beginning of December to demonstrate what I am stating. I use total strangers who are volunteers from the attending group to perform the demonstrations.

“When we are talking about God in Spirit or God in the Flesh, we are no longer talking about science. We are talking about the very essence of consciousness which can never be described by anything computational. “

Not true. Awaken and see for yourself. The things that I do are not me or to promote me, they are merely examples to convince people of the truth in following scriptures. If I am full of myself, then nothing happens as higher consciousness can find no room to enter me.

It is very evident to me that you are a very good person, a Christian, and search for meaning to your life in your Bible scriptures. Seek to understand through reading and studying the Bible and pray on its meaning. No one who asks will be refused guidance. However, sometimes we fight to hold onto our old understanding and resist being moved to a higher level of understanding. The process creates quite a few sleepless nights.

To anyone who feels that I am mis-understanding the process, I only ask that they pray for me that I may gain an accurate understanding of the purpose and process of life. This process is very humbling as in every answered question, there are twenty more unanswered questions. The more you learn, the more you realize that there is much more that you don’t know.

I send a prayerful blessing with this response.

[tired&retired]

I’m listened to Penrose. Thank you for the link.

Penrose is trying to bring the understanding of higher consciousness down to his level where it is very difficult to understand. It is far better to raise our own consciousness to the higher level of consciousness to the higher level and experience it. This is what Jesus was teaching us to do.

You can read all the instruction manuals on riding a bike, but you never really understand the process until you get on a bike and experience it. From the higher level of consciousness there is expanded storage and processing capacity which combined with the increased processing speed of the higher frequency, it becomes simple to understand.

This is what is spoken of concerning Stephen in Acts 6:10

It is also why Peter and John who were unlearned and ignorant men knew so much in Acts 4:13

[BDParrish]

Thanks for your post stremba; I love this and enjoy your thoughts.

I expect this to degenerate into a confusion of terminology. Bringing up electrons was interesting since we do not know what they are. You can see the difference between the actual observations and the presuppositions you have about them. No “unified theory” yet. Calling some stars “oldest” is an example.

Good point about blind faith though. I don’t think you are using that with yourself, I meant instead the blind faith that the cosmology community expects from the population. Only the monks read Latin...

Nothing wrong with presuppositions mind you, if you are honest with yourself about them. Use them and go with them as far as you can. But when all the ad hoc post-it notes just get to be too much, then you are ready for something else. It’s the Wednesday special at Occam’s Style Salon!