PDA

View Full Version : Scientist believes gravity doesn't exist



FGCHENG
07-13-2010, 03:41 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/13/science/13gravity.html?no_interstitial

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2010/07/13/science/13gravity/13gravity-articleLarge.jpg.



It’s hard to imagine a more fundamental and ubiquitous aspect of life on the Earth than gravity, from the moment you first took a step and fell on your diapered bottom to the slow terminal sagging of flesh and dreams.

But what if it’s all an illusion, a sort of cosmic frill, or a side effect of something else going on at deeper levels of reality?

So says Erik Verlinde, 48, a respected string theorist and professor of physics at the University of Amsterdam, whose contention that gravity is indeed an illusion has caused a continuing ruckus among physicists, or at least among those who profess to understand it. Reversing the logic of 300 years of science, he argued in a recent paper, titled “On the Origin of Gravity and the Laws of Newton,” that gravity is a consequence of the venerable laws of thermodynamics, which describe the behavior of heat and gases.

“For me gravity doesn’t exist,” said Dr. Verlinde, who was recently in the United States to explain himself. Not that he can’t fall down, but Dr. Verlinde is among a number of physicists who say that science has been looking at gravity the wrong way and that there is something more basic, from which gravity “emerges,” the way stock markets emerge from the collective behavior of individual investors or that elasticity emerges from the mechanics of atoms.

Looking at gravity from this angle, they say, could shed light on some of the vexing cosmic issues of the day, like the dark energy, a kind of anti-gravity that seems to be speeding up the expansion of the universe, or the dark matter that is supposedly needed to hold galaxies together.

Dr. Verlinde’s argument turns on something you could call the “bad hair day” theory of gravity.

It goes something like this: your hair frizzles in the heat and humidity, because there are more ways for your hair to be curled than to be straight, and nature likes options. So it takes a force to pull hair straight and eliminate nature’s options. Forget curved space or the spooky attraction at a distance described by Isaac Newton’s equations well enough to let us navigate the rings of Saturn, the force we call gravity is simply a byproduct of nature’s propensity to maximize disorder.

Some of the best physicists in the world say they don’t understand Dr. Verlinde’s paper, and many are outright skeptical. But some of those very same physicists say he has provided a fresh perspective on some of the deepest questions in science, namely why space, time and gravity exist at all — even if he has not yet answered them.

“Some people have said it can’t be right, others that it’s right and we already knew it — that it’s right and profound, right and trivial,” Andrew Strominger, a string theorist at Harvard said.

“What you have to say,” he went on, “is that it has inspired a lot of interesting discussions. It’s just a very interesting collection of ideas that touch on things we most profoundly do not understand about our universe. That’s why I liked it.”

Dr. Verlinde is not an obvious candidate to go off the deep end. He and his brother Herman, a Princeton professor, are celebrated twins known more for their mastery of the mathematics of hard-core string theory than for philosophic flights.

Born in Woudenberg, in the Netherlands, in 1962, the brothers got early inspiration from a pair of 1970s television shows about particle physics and black holes. “I was completely captured,” Dr. Verlinde recalled. He and his brother obtained Ph.D’s from the University of Utrecht together in 1988 and then went to Princeton, Erik to the Institute for Advanced Study and Herman to the university. After bouncing back and forth across the ocean, they got tenure at Princeton. And, they married and divorced sisters. Erik left Princeton for Amsterdam to be near his children.

He made his first big splash as a graduate student when he invented Verlinde Algebra and the Verlinde formula, which are important in string theory, the so-called theory of everything, which posits that the world is made of tiny wriggling strings.

You might wonder why a string theorist is interested in Newton’s equations. After all Newton was overturned a century ago by Einstein, who explained gravity as warps in the geometry of space-time, and who some theorists think could be overturned in turn by string theorists.

Over the last 30 years gravity has been “undressed,” in Dr. Verlinde’s words, as a fundamental force.

This disrobing began in the 1970s with the discovery by Jacob Bekenstein of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and Stephen Hawking of Cambridge University, among others, of a mysterious connection between black holes and thermodynamics, culminating in Dr. Hawking’s discovery in 1974 that when quantum effects are taken into account black holes would glow and eventually explode.

In a provocative calculation in 1995, Ted Jacobson, a theorist from the University of Maryland, showed that given a few of these holographic ideas, Einstein’s equations of general relativity are just a another way of stating the laws of thermodynamics.

Those exploding black holes (at least in theory — none has ever been observed) lit up a new strangeness of nature. Black holes, in effect, are holograms — like the 3-D images you see on bank cards. All the information about what has been lost inside them is encoded on their surfaces. Physicists have been wondering ever since how this “holographic principle” — that we are all maybe just shadows on a distant wall — applies to the universe and where it came from.

moosecakes4all
07-13-2010, 03:47 PM
Good post, thanks for that.

Veldy
07-13-2010, 04:23 PM
I'm beginning to enjoy this subforum.
Good read

Evolutionary1
07-13-2010, 04:33 PM
this article has about 3 sentences trying to explain his theory. the rest is useless clutter

Puresweat
07-13-2010, 04:35 PM
Very interesting, any links to his actual paper?

Nocturnal310
07-13-2010, 04:36 PM
not very clearly explained

any further info on the topic?

Heisman2
07-13-2010, 06:30 PM
Very interesting, any links to his actual paper?

Did you even try to google it?

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1001/1001.0785v1.pdf

MiKey4
07-14-2010, 03:39 AM
HOW TO GET PAID:

Scientists:
1. Give research proposal
2. Compete with other proposals based on merit
3. Funding body choses best proposal
4. You do research

STRING THEORISTS: (aka mathematicians)

1. Talk to newspapers
2. Hype up how physics is rubbish at the moment
3. Write layman books
4. Get paid

Irezumi
07-14-2010, 06:11 AM
4 fundemental blocks of everything in the universe:

1. Gravity
2. Electromagnetics
3. Weak forces (W & Z bosons)
4. Strong forces (gluons)

be.BUILT
07-14-2010, 07:10 AM
4 fundemental blocks of everything in the universe:

1. Gravity
2. Electromagnetics
3. Weak forces (W & Z bosons)
4. Strong forces (gluons)

I'm fairly certain most people that come into this subforum are aware of this.
(no jackass)

Irezumi
07-14-2010, 07:39 AM
I'm fairly certain most people that come into this subforum are aware of this.
(no jackass)

Lol, you sure about that? (considering that 90% of the topics here are about video games)

stephano5
07-14-2010, 01:31 PM
gravitron

leafs43
07-14-2010, 01:44 PM
I was actually thinking of gravity and how it is possible earlier today before even reading this.

Just asking myself, "How would you describe why gravity works the way it does?" (assuming you already know the formula for gravity between 2 masses).

You can detect gravity. You can measure it. You can predict it in various simulations. But none of these actually describe why it works. The only thing we have ever been able to do is describe how gravity works.

gekkoboy14
07-14-2010, 02:17 PM
I was actually thinking of gravity and how it is possible earlier today before even reading this.

Just asking myself, "How would you describe why gravity works the way it does?" (assuming you already know the formula for gravity between 2 masses).

You can detect gravity. You can measure it. You can predict it in various simulations. But none of these actually describe why it works. The only thing we have ever been able to do is describe how gravity works.
As with most laws, you observe them.

chlaxman
07-14-2010, 02:38 PM
The article is vague because the paper is vague. It has no math and doesn't try to claim to be a working theory.

Essentially the author is claiming that gravity is not a fundemental force but another form of thermodynamics.

Dertygen
07-15-2010, 04:15 AM
As with most laws, you observe them.

but unlike the other forces, there's nothing tangible to gravity. not one particle, not one wave, nothing, has been found. it's just "there"

we know all this phenomenae surrounding it, many theories and laws that involved gravity were known before "gravity" itself was invoked as the 'source' (ie. time dilation)

MiKey4
07-15-2010, 04:17 AM
None of the other force interaction bosons are tangible either... we know gravity is weaker than all the other forces so its an easy thing to deduce the graviton is much harder to detect. No surprises that we haven't found it yet.

Dertygen
07-15-2010, 04:21 AM
4 fundemental blocks of everything in the universe:

1. Gravity
2. Electromagnetics
3. Weak forces (W & Z bosons)
4. Strong forces (gluons)

congratulations, a 30 y.o. man trying to pass off h.s. basic knowledge ( and to call it "blocks" is mis-guided/ignorant)

yip.
eeh.

strangely enough your post reeks of Investigoogling...

TheOneAboveAll
07-15-2010, 04:31 AM
StringTheoriest/10. Brb answering made up questions.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_Elan1et5KLo/S0HU1dU1AAI/AAAAAAAAAIc/pSxBWBFg8rc/s320/string_theory.png

Dertygen
07-15-2010, 04:32 AM
None of the other force interaction bosons are tangible either... actually we have, and some cases if not directly then with direct evidence of decay products, which is still tangible


we know gravity is weaker than all the other forces so its an easy thing to deduce the graviton is much harder to detect. No surprises that we haven't found it yet. probably won't.

i got money on higgy never showing up either


still repping you on charge, this is a fun discussion

MiKey4
07-15-2010, 04:42 AM
Can you bet on the Higgs being discovered?

I'd put some money against it as well.

But Higgs is not to do with gravity- it is to do with mass. Gravity couples to mass but mass itself is more than just, say, charge is to the electromagnetic field. Mass is much more fundamental because it is the link between force and acceleration. Gravitational mass is not the same as inertial mass, at least conceptually, although so far experiments have shown the two masses are the same to high precision.

TheOneAboveAll
07-15-2010, 04:47 AM
Can you bet on the Higgs being discovered?

I'd put some money against it as well.

But Higgs is not to do with gravity- it is to do with mass. Gravity couples to mass but mass itself is more than just, say, charge is to the electromagnetic field. Mass is much more fundamental because it is the link between force and acceleration. Gravitational mass is not the same as inertial mass, at least conceptually, although so far experiments have shown the two masses are the same to high precision.

They goddamn better find the Higgs boson. The energy levels are high enough to observe it so we NEED to find or else it will disprove that the Higgs field exist. Then it's back to reformulating the standard model. Last time the laws of physics were rewritten, the Pandora's box of quantum physics was opened. Wonder what we will find out this time.

Large_Emu
07-15-2010, 05:01 AM
4 fundemental blocks of everything in the universe:

1. Gravity
2. Electromagnetics
3. Weak forces (W & Z bosons)
4. Strong forces (gluons)

I think what the article is saying is that what we think is gravity is actually something else, he's not saying it isn't real.

Dertygen
07-16-2010, 02:17 AM
Can you bet on the Higgs being discovered?

I'd put some money against it as well.
LOL it's gonna be gud!



But Higgs is not to do with gravity- it is to do with mass. Gravity couples to mass but mass itself is more than just, say, charge is to the electromagnetic field. Mass is much more fundamental because it is the link between force and acceleration. Gravitational mass is not the same as inertial mass, at least conceptually, although so far experiments have shown the two masses are the same to high precision.

well it's conjecture because we need to account for the w z having mass...

They goddamn better find the Higgs boson. The energy levels are high enough to observe it so we NEED to find or else it will disprove that the Higgs field exist. Then it's back to reformulating the standard model. Last time the laws of physics were rewritten, the Pandora's box of quantum physics was opened. Wonder what we will find out this time.

... and which if we don't would be a miraculous surprise

LOL who says we're coming to and end to learning and discovery!!!





PS:

Scientist believes... 07-15-2010 08:31 AM Irezumi shut the **** up ***


u mad?
prolly.

and cowardly as shiit not to post a response publicly. grown man actin' the fool