NASA News Update --"Tabby's Star Case Not Closed!" The Quest Continues: 'A Planet Swallowed by a Star?'
"Indicator of Extraterrestrial Life?" --ALMA Observatory Discovery Update

"Gravity is an Illusion" --The Theory That Predicted Gravitational Waves May Be Wrong (WATCH Today's 'Galaxy' Stream)

 

  MIT-LIGO-3

 

"We have evidence that this new view of gravity actually agrees with the observations, " says Erik Verlinde, a Dutch theoretical physicist and string theorist. "At large scales, it seems, gravity just doesn't behave the way Einstein's theory predicts." The detection of gravitational waves (image above) scooped the 2017 Nobel physics prize. But Verlinde proposes a rather different theory --the theory of emergent gravity."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."


One of those big open questions that we have in physics goes like this. Einstein’s theory of General Relativity is elegant and accurate. It makes many correct predictions, including the prediction of gravitational waves, the observation of which won the Nobel Prize in physics today. Yet if we use General Relativity to predict the motion of galaxies, we get the wrong answer.

The favored response to this is to invent a new form of so-called ‘dark’ matter. Adding the right amount of this to the visible matter in the galaxies brings theory and observation into agreement. But this is not just a minor correction – there needs to be much more of the dark matter around than normal matter.

What is more, dark matter doesn’t seem to be made up of quarks and electrons like all other matter. In fact it doesn’t seem to be made up of any of the particles in the Standard Model of particle physics.

 

 

 

So that’s the big question. To answer it, theorists postulate new extensions to the Standard Model, containing new particles, from which dark matter might be made. We are actively searching for such things, at the Large Hadron Collider at CERN and using sensitive underground detectors.

But there may be another way. Perhaps General Relativity can be modified instead, to give a new theory, in which the motions of galaxies, and the structure of the universe, are correctly predicted, without the need for dark matter. Maybe even the accelerating expansion of the universe, another current conundrum of physics, can be explained in such a theory.

Perhaps dark matter is a mythical beast, a figment of our ignorance which will evaporate as we explore nature more thoroughly.

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.

 

BlackHoleArt66_jb.0

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.

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.

According to Erik Verlinde, there is no need to add a mysterious dark matter particle to the theory. In a new paper, 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.

At first glance, Verlinde's theory presents features similar to modified theories of gravity like MOND (Modified Newtonian Dynamics). 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.

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.

More information: Emergent Gravity and the Dark Universe, E. P. Verlinde, 7 Nov 2016. arxiv.org/abs/1611.02269

The Daily Galaxy via The Perimeter Institute and Delta Institute for Theoretical Physics

Image credit: LIGO/MIT

Comments

Force is constant in the universe. Energy is just a mathematical construct. Force changes form. The force state of a moving object is the common force in which all other forces are expressed. Gravity is dependent on mass. A burning star converts mass into EM radiation, IR, light. These carry force. Their force exerts on objects that they hit - eg. planets are heated by IR radiation thus resulting in higher amplitude oscillations of its particles of its atoms and molecules.

An oscillating system is based on 2 forces at opposite ends with a suspended object to which an impulse force is applied. The force being strongest farther from the ends. Waves are self contained oscillating systems - they are spread over time and consequently distance.

In the universe we have the ends expanding rather than the objects being given an impulse. So our frame of reference is changing. If the universe were oscillating it would thus be more difficult to detect.

Gravity is the result of random quantum entanglement. As one object get closer to
another; random quantum entanglement becomes stronger, as more and more particles become entangled. With strong magnetic attraction increasing, to attract the other object.

Gravity is not a force; it is an opportunity.
gravity gives rise to mass not the other way around.

I think, the gravitation/gravity should be considered as one
of the immanent/in-born/distinguished property of the
matter, like:
- a mass or a weight,
- an inertia,
- a space/volume,
- a structure,
- an electric charge,
- and others, which were discussed in my work:
Kala, T. 2015. “The Gravitational Force Quantum and its Value.”
Journal of Physical Science and Application 5 (4): 288-90.

Respecting the obvious fact, that the
gravitation/gravity is an additive property of matter
objects and taking into account other positivistic
quantities like the mass, and the radius of the Earth, and
other objects of the Sun planetary system and the Pluto,
and the value of the atomic unit of the mass, the author
defined the gravitational force of the atomic unit (or
“Gravitational Force Quantum”) as a gravitational
force which exerts one atomic unit of the objects’ mass
on 1 kg of a mass on the corresponding objects’ surface,
and he calculated their values as for the Mercury
102.1427 × 10-55 N, the Venus 16.60012 × 10-55 N, the
Earth 14.97839 × 10-55 N, the Mars 52.91869 × 10-55 N,
the Jupiter 0.124391 × 10-55 N, the Saturn 0.17929 ×
10-55 N, the Uranus 0.945178 × 10-55 N, the Neptune
1.002845 × 10-55 N, for the Pluto 458.9124 × 10-55 N,
and the Sun 0.001257 × 10-55 N, respectively.

The author defined the Elementary Gravitational
Charge (G) as a force which exerts one atomic unit of
the mass on 1 kg of the mass in the distance of 1 meter,
which value was calculated as 6.079675463 × 10-41 N.
(For more details see: Kala, T. 2015. “The Gravitational
Force Quantum and its Value.” Journal of Physical Science
and Application 5 (6), 396-399.)

The parameter of the Elementary Gravitational
Charge can be supposed to be analogous to the
Elementary (Electric) Charge e =1.6021766208(98)
x10-19 C . Namely, both of the quantities cannot be
divided into smaller parts, both are additive, both can
be measured on the basis of the force effects, both are
well known from their apparent physical features and
practical applications, however, origins and physical
backgrounds of the both phenomena are hidden so far.

The quantity of the Elementary Gravitational Charge
will probably be useful for the further development of
the “quantum mechanical” approach to the description
and to the general notion about the world.

In my mind, the phenomenon of the gravitation might perhaps be
connected with/caused/explained/etc. by the distortion
of the space around the mass objects. It could be one of
the main in-born/decisive/distinguish characteristics of
material objects (or a matter/mass). For further (rather
philosophical) discussion, see ref. Kala, T. 2015 “Comments
on Matter/Mass/Field Categories.” Unitary Theory of the World.
http://www.tomas-kala.net/).

Posted by: Tomas Kala |

Electromagnetic waves , produces sapace time (wavelength) , thats the only reason why masses are atracted , the less velocity in a medium the electromagnetic waves travel in a medium less space-time is produced , so the space is contracted , resulting the so called gravity... it is so simple as that. also the wavelength is the universal frame of reference , were we can know for shure the individual velocity of every particule , ( mass increase or decrease etc.... ) , there is no relativity , each particule can at any moment look at the wavelength and extrapulate
the direction and velocity of his own movement. i have this teory since i was 18 years old
now i am 53 years old , and i do not have any education so sorry :) , but you can prove i am wrong, try it.

Gravity is one of the Phuck Forces. I fell down the stairs and hit my head. Phucking Gravity.

ls there relation between feeling in a accelerating elevator & static gravity?...[등가원리]?.............The accelerating fighter pilot's body of every molecules affected by pulling force.
..........Same force or not?
lf same,,,,......gravity maybe related with space & time.

Hope holographic principle or simulation argument is the final theorem that every college student need to learn.

Now we know that things we see every day are actually projected from 2D plane. If we can know how this projection works, then we project same objects multiple times. It is same like doing copying and pasting in computer. So we can have infinite wines, cars, or houses. It is true scientific revolution.

If we can know how holographic principle works, then we can turn off its collision detection mechanism locally if we need to do so. So Wall penetration is no longer a video game trick.

using "space", not "spacetime" works better, just, because time does not exist.

your time is just a clock, based on earth orbiting arround the sun.

this could not work in quantum scale and is just a mystake of A. Einstein.

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.

You would all be eating your words if this life ended up being a simulation run by some geeky AI from the distant future/present/past , it dosnt matter which as none of it would be real, anyway space is observed and time is a construct which gives space the depth to measure all this other crap that just dosnt ADD up... :)

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)