Abstract in the ArXiv wrote:On the Origin of Gravity and the Laws of Newton - Erik Verlinde 06 Jan 2010
Starting from first principles and general assumptions Newton's law of gravitation is shown to arise naturally and unavoidably in a theory in which space is emergent through a holographic scenario. Gravity is explained as an entropic force caused by changes in the information associated with the positions of material bodies. A relativistic generalization of the presented arguments directly leads to the Einstein equations. When space is emergent even Newton's law of inertia needs to be explained. The equivalence principle leads us to conclude that it is actually this law of inertia whose origin is entropic.
You can download from that link above. No matter how "illustrious" or how "experimentally" verified Einstein's Equations were, they never even tried to explain the origin of this "force of Gravity" that Newton had described mathematically but also never sought to determine it's true origins... centuries earlier. For the very first time, an entirely plausible theory of gravity was proposed that was able to describe how this "wheelwork of nature" actually functioned from the ground up. It gave the same results in general terms to Einstein's Theory but lacked a certain additional elegance to provide more than a glimpse of how things might actually be. As a wonderful theory, it "easily" won the prestigious Spinosa Prize in Physics in 2010, worth 2.5 Million Euro, so it was well worth taking heed of it if for nothing else than it's "pure monetary worth". It was considered "significant" though "incomplete". I can tell you it did impress me. It was a new theory of Gravity called Emergent Entropic Gravity, and it indicated the Universe was a "Hologram" of sorts, and showed that it was possible to "explain", through a process of non-local quantum entanglement, the ultimate source of "Gravity", how it came to be, and that the property of mass becomes what we measure it to be, through the property of quantum entropy and quantum deconfinement since the "Big Bang".
So Erik Verlinde realized there was more to do. He did not have the time so he turned to his ientical twin brother Herman, brought him up to speed and let him manage all the affairs that he was tied to and that released him to work more concertedly on his own theory of Emergent Gravity. This year Erik Verlinde released his new paper which was able to differentiae itself from Einstein's Theory and make it testable. The paper was called:
ArXiv wrote:Emergent Gravity and the Dark Universe - Erik Verlinde
(Submitted on 7 Nov 2016 (v1), last revised 8 Nov 2016 (this version, v2))
Recent theoretical progress indicates that spacetime and gravity emerge together from the entanglement structure of an underlying microscopic theory. These ideas are best understood in Anti-de Sitter space, where they rely on the area law for entanglement entropy. The extension to de Sitter space requires taking into account the entropy and temperature associated with the cosmological horizon. Using insights from string theory, black hole physics and quantum information theory we argue that the positive dark energy leads to a thermal volume law contribution to the entropy that overtakes the area law precisely at the cosmological horizon. Due to the competition between area and volume law entanglement the microscopic de Sitter states do not thermalise at sub-Hubble scales: they exhibit memory effects in the form of an entropy displacement caused by matter. The emergent laws of gravity contain an additional `dark' gravitational force describing the `elastic' response due to the entropy displacement. We derive an estimate of the strength of this extra force in terms of the baryonic mass, Newton's constant and the Hubble acceleration scale a_0 =cH_0, and provide evidence for the fact that this additional `dark gravity~force' explains the observed phenomena in galaxies and clusters currently attributed to dark matter.
The paper is still only a partial solution to the Gravity problem since it is difficult to managfe the cross boundary entanglement between quantum systems. Since this paper a concerted effort has been made to test this newer theory and it has been put to the problem of the Galaxy Rotation Problem... Why spiral galaxies don't "spin like Catherine Wheels" but spin like "Wagon Wheels" illustrated by this illustration from Mordehai Milgrom MOND entry in Wikipedia:
["Right click" then "View Image" to see full picture] Comparison of the observed and expected rotation curves of the typical spiral galaxy M33 - Wikimedia
Notice , aside from a rotating axle, the outer reaches of the Galaxy bear a "straight line relationship" with velocity. This means the "wheel" of the Galaxy moves more or less as a single object rather than "orbiting" a central core where the speeds would fall off with radius like in the solar system for example. In this case "size" does indeed matter. "Pure Einstein" Gravity Theory predicts the lower curve while Milgrom's MOND and now Erik Verlinde's Emergent Gravity Theory predict the upper curve. Both are somewhat correct. AS modification of Einstein's Theory suggests that to correct this prediction we "salt" every galaxy with around four times the mass we actually see there, in a very certain way, to "balance" this "wheel" so it rotates in the way we observe it to. Most of us would feel very uneasy about this because it stinks of jury rigging the data. We put in something not seen to correct a theory that is supposed to work everywhere in the universe without correction. And this "dark matter" is required to continue Einstein's General Relativity further into the 21st Century. This modified theory of Verlinde more or less matches Milgrom's MOND theory with real laboratory physics and using a known phenomenon is able to "balance the books" in favor of a Universe without "dark matter".
So how well is Verlinde's theory scrubbing up so far. Well quite well so far. See: First test of rival to Einstein’s gravity kills off dark matter - New Scientist 15 Dec 2016. It is a theory that has not dealt with absolutely every issue so far, but Verlinde is playing "catch up" while his brother works on doing "dinner engagements" for him. Being his identical twin brother, Herman is fully versed in all his brothers activities and they work on the theory together now from opposite side of the World. In the meantime a paper has been released to show (if not conclusively) that Verlinde's (and Milgrom's) Theory work far better with any special "weighting factors". The paper is called:
So Einstein's Theory is now "past it's used by date". We may have a new contender. There will be insights from this and obviously there will also be additions as well. Time will tell if Einstein has lost his "omniscience" and been demoted to the status of a "lesser G*d". If so it will be due to Einstein being pretty obstinate about the necessary concept of quantum entanglement. This current "Philosophy" is defined, more or less, by the pretty brilliant Paper Recently released by Juan Maldacena and Leonard Susskind called:ArXiv wrote:First test of Verlinde's theory of Emergent Gravity using Weak Gravitational Lensing measurements
Margot M. Brouwer, Manus R. Visser, Andrej Dvornik, Henk Hoekstra, Konrad Kuijken, Edwin A. Valentijn, Maciej Bilicki, Chris Blake, Sarah Brough, Hugo Buddelmeijer, Thomas Erben, Catherine Heymans, Hendrik Hildebrandt, Benne W. Holwerda, Andrew M. Hopkins, Dominik Klaes, Jochen Liske, Jon Loveday, John McFarland, Reiko Nakajima, Cristóbal Sifón, Edward N. Taylor
(Submitted on 9 Dec 2016 (v1), last revised 19 Dec 2016 (this version, v2))
Verlinde (2016) proposed that the observed excess gravity in galaxies and clusters is the consequence of Emergent Gravity (EG). In this theory the standard gravitational laws are modified on galactic and larger scales due to the displacement of dark energy by baryonic matter. EG gives an estimate of the excess gravity (described as an apparent dark matter density) in terms of the baryonic mass distribution and the Hubble parameter. In this work we present the first test of EG using weak gravitational lensing, within the regime of validity of the current model. Although there is no direct description of lensing and cosmology in EG yet, we can make a reasonable estimate of the expected lensing signal of low redshift galaxies by assuming a background LambdaCDM cosmology. We measure the (apparent) average surface mass density profiles of 33,613 isolated central galaxies, and compare them to those predicted by EG based on the galaxies' baryonic masses. To this end we employ the ~180 square degrees overlap of the Kilo-Degree Survey (KiDS) with the spectroscopic Galaxy And Mass Assembly (GAMA) survey. We find that the prediction from EG, despite requiring no free parameters, is in good agreement with the observed galaxy-galaxy lensing profiles in four different stellar mass bins. Although this performance is remarkable, this study is only a first step. Further advancements on both the theoretical framework and observational tests of EG are needed before it can be considered a fully developed and solidly tested theory.
Every Black Hole is not heading down to a singularity... the essence of this is ER = EPR Conjecture (a damn good conjecture) which alludes to two of the papers that Einstein co-wrote suggesting that:ArXiv wrote:Cool horizons for entangled black holes
Juan Maldacena, Leonard Susskind
(Submitted on 3 Jun 2013 (v1), last revised 11 Jul 2013 (this version, v2))
General relativity contains solutions in which two distant black holes are connected through the interior via a wormhole, or Einstein-Rosen bridge. These solutions can be interpreted as maximally entangled states of two black holes that form a complex EPR pair. We suggest that similar bridges might be present for more general entangled states.
In the case of entangled black holes one can formulate versions of the AMPS(S) paradoxes and resolve them. This suggests possible resolutions of the firewall paradoxes for more general situations.
or more succinctly (if less accurately) ER = EPR ie: Einstein-Rosen Bridges or "wormholes" equals "quantum entanglement" (ER). Since then others such as the winner of the Dirac Prize in Physics suggest every sub-atomic particle is a wormhole and this "entanglement" is able to beWikipedia wrote:They proposed that a nontraversable wormhole (Einstein-Rosen bridge) is equivalent to a pair of maximally entangled black holes. EPR refers to quantum entanglement (EPR paradox).
Every event that created the initial particles from the Big Bang forwards is entangled with all the other events in the Universe that directly or indirectly connected with that process of gradual deconfinement over the last 13.8 Billion Years since. Quantum Entangled (QE) with all those entangled events distributed through space connecting to all the galaxies seen way out there and way way down into the sub-atomic particles distributed even in a single grain of sand. Not just that but this entanglement "exists" with it's past in time back to that one "big event" that connects it all together... the "Big Back" and to whatever actually happened in that "phenomenon" at a "point". The local state of "deconfinement" of our Universe "defines" the local amount of "quantum entanglement" and the "entropy" which is a measure of the quantum information that space contains. Entropy has both a classical measure and a quantum measure. In this case Verlinde's Universe is a quantum Universe, the D-Brane theory of String Theories is a quantum theory of confined particles becoming deconfined and "spreading" into a larger and larger volumetric space, we refer to this as Hubble Spreading, the Universe is getting "bigger" at that scale, yet at the same time "matter" is clumping together and eventually forming "Black Holes" or perhaps "Wormholes" and "disappearing" down "bunnyholes" to g*d knows where. So "entropy works in both ways, it is gained in this spreading and it "lost" in black holes, though the "Black Holes" are the most studied objects in Cosmology we are still only at the learning stages in that science.
Of "supreme" importance in Black Hole Physics is the exact nature of the Beckenstein Bound. In every spherically defined volume of spacetime the information content of the enclosed matter and energy is equal to it's cross horizon entangled relationship to the rest of the Universe. It has an equilibrium state. In equilibrium this is "exactly"...
There is a "conservation" of "mass", a "conservation" of energy, a "conservation" of charge, a "conservation" of spin, a "conservation" of momentum, a "conservation" of symmetry, a "conservation" of entropy... and so on for all natural "measurable" and "immeasurable" quantum phenomena for all time and all space. These exist as kinds of ultimate laws that result in various kinds of conservation existing of our Universe leading to the laws of Gravity, Charge, spin fields, Gauss's Laws, Maxwell's Equations, the Standard Model and so on. All of these are an extension of Emmy Noether's Theorem about: "Every differentiable symmetry of the action of a physical system has a corresponding conservation law.." But at the very bottom of this extensive pyramid of conservation is the conservation of quantum information, this one "Ring" is to rule them "all", the ultimate theory of everything is the information concerning "everything". Every single boundary thus defined has a special insight into the entire Universe around/within it... it's all "Holographic", an idea first championed by David Bohm, Einstein's understudy... the deconstructionist point of view of the Universe is wrong... every part of the Universe "reflects" the "glory" of every other part of the entangled Universe and is an expression ofMach's Principle, so dear to Einstein's Inspiration for his General Theory of Relativity. Or stated very succinctly "Local physical laws are determined by the large-scale structure of the universe." The information of the Universe in any place at any time is conserved on the bounding spherical surface in "equilibrium". Crossing that surface is quantum entanglement linking that sub-space to the rest of the Universe. The more information crammed inside that horizon the more information the horizon contained until it reached the size or enclosed a "Black Hole". And they are "everywhere" in one form or another. Every sub-atomic particle is a "kind of Black Hole" in it's own right, not necessarily a traversible one. See: ‘Elementary particles may be thought of as small black holes’ - 21 August 2014 - The Hindu. So says the prize winning Indian scientist, Ashoke Sen, who in 1994 wrote this paper...
This is worth a very prestigious medal in Physics and has led to great insights.ArXiv wrote:'EXTREMAL BLACK HOLES AND ELEMENTARY STRING STATES' - Ashoke Sen.
(Submitted on 28 Apr 1995 (v1), last revised 6 May 1995 (this version, v2))
Some of the extremal black hole solutions in string theory have the same quantum numbers as the Bogomol'nyi saturated elementary string states. We explore the possibility that these black holes can be identified to elementary string excitations. It is shown that stringy effects could correct the Bekenstein-Hawking formula for the black hole entropy in such a way that it correctly reproduces the logarithm of the density of elementary string states. In particular, this entropy has the correct dependence on three independent parameters, the mass and the left-handed charge of the black hole, and the string coupling constant.
There is a Body of Mathematical Theory, called Quantum Field Theory, that suggests that every single particle has it's own "universal" wavefunction, the value of that wavefunction "channels" the properties of those particles everywhere this wavefunction has a positive definite character. It is responsible for the Standard Model of Particles. There is a wavefunction for the proton, the electron, the neutron all and each anti-particle anll and each boson and fermion everywhere. This quantum entanglement is the "fabric of the Universe" and holds it all together. It's the warp and woof of "Einstein's Spacetime". The Standard Model does not naturally contain the mass of particles and "predicts" all particles to be "massless". To get the masses "Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking" is proposed. Interestingly the "Bestower of Mass" Particle... the Higgs Boson... accounts for only 1% of the mass of the protons and neutrons in the Standard Model... and mass in the larger scale comes from "virtual particles" permanently entrapped inside the protons and neutrons. This "stinks" of the same problem as "Dark Matter"... the answer may very well be that "Dark Matter" = "Virtual Particles" "seen" inside of the "Black Hole" all the particles around us entangled in the more distant Universe. These "Black Holes" are "wormholes" of "character" defined by the particles they are connecting to and then connecting to the other particles in the outer Universe this particular particle under observation is currently connected with through a process of Universal Quantum Entanglement. Other than the most primitive event of Bariogenesis these events are "mostly" entanglement events cause by intimate sharing of properties of a single quantum stte non-locally.... even between galaxies.
These images above come from New Scientist. See:Quark ages: How these particles are the key to new physics - New Scientist - 07 Jun 2015 (paywalled) it is only "half right" regarding the last image in that series. When you attempt to extract "quarks" through the wormhole... new particles are created since these particular sub-atomic "wormholes" are physically unsuitable for "wormhole travel". On the other hand some atoms states in liquid Heavy Hydrogen do indeed "channel" wormhole transport for neutrons and possibly others states as well. Just don't think of going for a trip to Alpha Centauri yet!! Einstein could not accept that such a "fabric" existed, along and down it's "threads" that connect all entangled particles together according to each "personal history". To Einstein this was "Spooky action at a distance". It was inconceivable to Einstein that such a connection could exist. Not possible and something in the quantum physics was "missing". Though there were many things "missing", and still are to this day, this would truly be his most regrettable mistake, though nobody knew, or could prove it at the time. His Universe was one of disconnection into smaller and smaller units and ultimately a knowledge of those units would be the ultimate and only knowledge we would ever have of the ultimate nature of the Cosmos. It was a "bleak" perspective. All knowledge, in time, is lost and in the end nothing ever mattered.
"Strings" at the Planck Length... that is "hocus pocus"... it is a mathematical tool employed to circumvent the maths problems caused by "infinity". The smaller a "particle" is the larger the energy needed to create it. The particles in the Standard Model are a "push over" to create, but to create one string would require the energy of an entire exploding Universe... not to mention "the others" needed to create all the other particles (and their strings) in the Universe we know about... everywhere. It is a nonsense of the "singularity", everybody knows it, just nobody ever says it. The idea is at this "limit" this infinitely massive "particle" string is matched by it's "dual" whose mass was "zero". You could use some "hocus pocus" later to explain it all away through "spontaneous symmetry breaking" leading to particles and their super-symmetric partners... nobody ever thought there are no super-symmetric partners. That "escape clause" is now firmly "done" and "dusted".Wikipedia wrote: This scenario is called a brane cosmology. The force of gravity is not due to open strings; the gravitons which carry gravitational forces are vibrational states of closed strings. Because closed strings do not have to be attached to D-branes, gravitational effects could depend upon the extra dimensions orthogonal to the brane.
These "extra dimensions" came from "unpacking" quanta from the "Big Bang". Lets think of the "Big Bang"... a place in time and in space where T = 0 and S = 0. A "place" in which "events" as we know them cannot happen since there are "zero dimensions"... a singularity. Another way of understanding this "state" is a "place" in "time" where everything happened at once with no separation... a true point... to get that "separation" both time and space needed to be increased to give events an place to "be" in space and time. Not I don't want to "debate" the "true" nature of that actual singularity, indeed if a true infinity at all could exist within any Universe, but to suggest this state of affairs did not remain long after this "event". For "events" as we understand them the "Big Bang" is effectively a "non-event" since there is no space and no time in which it could "exist" in order to happen. We do know a very short time after this "event" T shifted from T=0 to a positive number and S shifted into a Hilbert Space, an infinite dimensional space, in which "our space" and "time" are now embedded. Many Physicists want to argue the point about how many dimensions of space. Every event that leads to particles of any kind will lead to some additional space and each event is a "tick" of a "universal clock" that is moving us away from that point where S=0 and T=0. This increases the number of dimensions in which events are able to proceed. However String Theory is not necessary to explain this property, though a lot of mathematically complicated papers have been written to confuse and confound most people getting to grips with these ideas.
This story is not finished yet. Check out On the weight of entanglement - David Edward Bruschi - 04 Feb 2016, mass is that bestowed property due to entanglement... well mostly. "Spacetime" (Quantum Entanglement) and Mass are linked to each other creating the observable properties as John Wheeler famously put it: "Spacetime tells matter how to move; matter tells spacetime how to curve". I would suggest you read some of my other threads here to get an inkling of where this is going. Check out:Verlinde's new theory of gravity passes first test - PhysOrg - 16 Dec 2016 In particular some of my comments there. I also would like to call your attention to Edward Witten's new Paper on "Fuzzy Dark Matter" or FDM... On the hypothesis that cosmological dark matter is composed of ultra-light bosons -Lam Hui, Jeremiah P. Ostriker, Scott Tremaine, Edward Witten - 26 Oct 2016 which indicates the Galaxy is held together by dense swarms of "fuzzy dark matter", which are "bosons" or at higher frequencies are "light", and whose individual quantum sizes are 3000 light years across and larger. And this one: At Multiverse Impasse, a New Theory of Scale - Quanta Mag. - 18 Aug 2016 See also Scale Relativity espoused by Garnet Ord, and Laurent Nottale. As above so below. As Mongo said in the Mel Brooks Movie Blazing Saddles "Mongo is small cog in great wheel of life". More to come soon.