Verlinde's new theory of gravity passes first test

December 16, 2016, Netherlands Research School for Astronomy
The gravity of galaxies bends space, such that the light traveling through this space is bent. This bending of light allows astronomers to measure the distribution of gravity around galaxies, even up to distances a hundred times larger than the galaxy itself. Credit: APS/Alan Stonebraker; galaxy images from STScI/AURA, NASA, ESA, and the Hubble Heritage Team

A team led by astronomer Margot Brouwer (Leiden Observatory, The Netherlands) has tested the new theory of theoretical physicist Erik Verlinde (University of Amsterdam) for the first time through the lensing effect of gravity. Brouwer and her team measured the distribution of gravity around more than 33,000 galaxies to put Verlinde's prediction to the test. She concludes that Verlinde's theory agrees well with the measured gravity distribution. The results have been accepted for publication in the British journal Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society.

The gravity of galaxies bends space, such that the light traveling through this space is bent, as through a lens. Background galaxies that are situated far behind a foreground galaxy (the lens), thereby seem slightly distorted. This effect can be measured in order to determine the distribution of gravity around a foreground-galaxy. Astronomers have measured, however, that at distances up to a hundred times the radius of the galaxy, the force of gravity is much stronger than Einstein's of gravity predicts. The existing theory only works when invisible particles, the so-called dark matter, are added.

Verlinde now claims that he not only explains the mechanism behind gravity with his alternative to Einstein's theory, but also the origin of the mysterious extra gravity, which astronomers currently attribute to dark matter. Verlinde's new theory predicts how much gravity there must be, based only on the mass of the .

Brouwer calculated Verlinde's prediction for the gravity of 33,613 galaxies, based only on their visible mass. She compared this prediction to the distribution of gravity measured by gravitational lensing, in order to test Verlinde's theory. Her conclusion is that his prediction agrees well with the observed distribution, but she emphasizes that dark matter could also explain the extra gravitational force. However, the mass of the dark matter is a free parameter, which must be adjusted to the observation. Verlinde's theory provides a direct , without free parameters.

Credit: Astronomie.nl

The new theory is currently only applicable to isolated, spherical and static systems, while the universe is dynamic and complex. Many observations cannot yet be explained by the new theory, so is still in the race. Brouwer: "The question now is how the theory develops, and how it can be further tested. But the result of this first test definitely looks interesting."

Explore further: New theory of gravity might explain dark matter

More information: Margot M. Brouwer et al. First test of Verlinde's theory of Emergent Gravity using Weak Gravitational Lensing measurements, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society (2016). DOI: 10.1093/mnras/stw3192 , On Arxiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/1612.03034

Related Stories

New theory of gravity might explain dark matter

November 8, 2016

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. ...

Huge new survey to shine light on dark matter

July 9, 2015

The first results have been released from a major new dark matter survey of the southern skies using ESO's VLT Survey Telescope (VST) at the Paranal Observatory in Chile. The VST KiDS survey will allow astronomers to make ...

Light from galaxy clusters confirms theory of relativity

September 28, 2011

All observations in astronomy are based on light emitted from stars and galaxies and, according to the general theory of relativity, the light will be affected by gravity. At the same time all interpretations in astronomy ...

Recommended for you

Hunting molecules to find new planets

June 19, 2018

It's impossible to obtain direct images of exoplanets as they are masked by the high luminous intensity of their stars. However, astronomers led by UNIGE propose detecting molecules present in the exoplanet's atmosphere in ...

Exploring planetary plasma environments from your laptop

June 15, 2018

A new database of plasma simulations, combined with observational data and powerful visualisation tools, is providing planetary scientists with an unprecedented way to explore some of the Solar System's most interesting plasma ...

NASA encounters the perfect storm for science

June 14, 2018

One of the thickest dust storms ever observed on Mars has been spreading for the past week and a half. The storm has caused NASA's Opportunity rover to suspend science operations, but also offers a window for four other spacecraft ...

183 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

dogbert
4.4 / 5 (14) Dec 16, 2016
Finally, real efforts to explain observations without imaginary matter.
Benni
1.8 / 5 (19) Dec 16, 2016
"Astronomers have measured, however, that at distances up to a hundred times the radius of the galaxy, the force of gravity is much stronger than Einstein's theory of gravity predicts. The existing theory only works when invisible particles, the so-called dark matter, are added."


.....and doesn't this just say it all.

The cockamamie theory this bunch has conjured up only works to supplant Einstein's calculations when they create some whimsical model that adds enough mass constituting what would be found within 100 times more than the radius of the observable galactic mass. But consider the source, these are not Nuclear Physicists doing these calculations, just Astronomers who have never seen a Differential Equation in General Relativity that they could solve.

So, how does this bunch know the radius of the extent of DM must be 100 times more than what is observed when they don't even know what the density of the baryonic galactic halo is within that same radii?
Sigh
4.7 / 5 (14) Dec 16, 2016
So, how does this bunch know the radius of the extent of DM must be 100 times more than what is observed

That's not what the article says:
Astronomers have measured, however, that at distances up to a hundred times the radius of the galaxy, the force of gravity is much stronger than Einstein's theory of gravity predicts

Benni
1.3 / 5 (17) Dec 16, 2016
So, how does this bunch know the radius of the extent of DM must be 100 times more than what is observed


That's not what the article says:
Astronomers have measured, however, that at distances up to a hundred times the radius of the galaxy, the force of gravity is much stronger than Einstein's theory of gravity predicts


Oh how I must sigh.........Yes, that is in fact what it says. You're just trying to be overly clever with your semantics because you're so tightly entwined in Dark Matter Narratives that you don't know how to extricate yourself from them.

Brouwer made absolutely no attempt to factor into her "100 radius" number the quantity of visible matter residing within the galactic halo which stretches far beyond the luminous observable masses of the galaxies in question. But according to you & her, factoring the quantity of non-luminous baryonic matter isn't a useful calculation because the total gravity of that mass detracts from the DM Narrative.
antialias_physorg
4.2 / 5 (19) Dec 16, 2016
The gravity of galaxies bends space, such that the light traveling through this space is bent, as through a lens.

This is a bit misleading: Light travels ina straight line (it's how 'straight' is defined in 4-dimensional spacetime). This means that space is bent. Not the path of light. That's the entire point of the speed of light being a constant.
Benni
1.3 / 5 (15) Dec 16, 2016
This means that space is bent. Not the path of light


You absolutely don't have a clue as to what you're talking about, and the reason you don't is because you've never studied the Photon Deflection section of Einstein's General Relativity in which he made photon deflection (gravitational lensing} calculations which calculates how much a photon bends within any field of gravity.

That's the entire point of the speed of light being a constant.
The velocity of light has absolutely nothing to do with calculating photon deflection. If you had ever in your life comprehended anything about Einstein's calculations for photon deflection in GR you would never have brought up anything about "the speed of light". I know ap.....math is tough for biologists such as yourself.

wduckss
1 / 5 (10) Dec 16, 2016
Gentlemen lives and thinking in two dimensions. What do they know about volume and how or where gravity bending volume?
 
Spiral galaxies have a slower rotation of elliptical galaxies. The entire truth is in it.
JongDan
1 / 5 (4) Dec 16, 2016
How does this account for those few dark galaxies though?
JongDan
3 / 5 (8) Dec 16, 2016
This is a bit misleading: Light travels ina straight line (it's how 'straight' is defined in 4-dimensional spacetime). This means that space is bent. Not the path of light. That's the entire point of the speed of light being a constant.

Nope, which one is bent and which one isn't depends completely on your choice of coordinates. But usually you use direction of light to define straight lines, as this is the most "natural" definition.
Benni
1 / 5 (7) Dec 16, 2016
Spiral galaxies have a slower rotation of elliptical galaxies. The entire truth is in it.
.....No, just the reverse.
rogerdallas
4 / 5 (4) Dec 16, 2016
At least Verlinde's theory is not ad hoc. But I forget the justification for the holographic representation, and his theory modifies that representation-- "empty" space also contains information, and from that it seems that a modified gravity must follow. I'm assuming that this theory will allow some unification with QM?
RNP
4.5 / 5 (10) Dec 16, 2016
@wduckss, @Benni
Actually, spiral galaxies (generally) rotate faster than ellipticals. However, Benni is right in the sense that stellar velocities are (again, generally) faster in elliptical galaxies. The difference between the two classes of galaxies is that the motion in spirals is *ordered*, in the sense the stars are all moving in roughly the same direction, resulting in a large net rotation. In ellipticals, being generally more massive, the velocities are faster, but stellar motions are *disordered*, i.e. stars moving in all directions result in a small net rotation.
antialias_physorg
4.4 / 5 (13) Dec 16, 2016
Nope, which one is bent and which one isn't depends completely on your choice of coordinates

It depends on the observer. But the only 'natural' point of view for the motion of an object is the object itself. From the POV of light it moves in a straight line. Always. Otherwise you'd run into all kinds of problems with conservation of momentum and whatnot.
Ultron
1.6 / 5 (8) Dec 16, 2016
The gravity of galaxies bends space, such that the light traveling through this space is bent, as through a lens.

This is a bit misleading: Light travels ina straight line (it's how 'straight' is defined in 4-dimensional spacetime). This means that space is bent. Not the path of light. That's the entire point of the speed of light being a constant.


This mainstream "geometric" interpretation of GR is not based on solid observational confirmations because for example bending of light around Sun can be easily explained by gravitational attraction of photon with relativistic mass to Sun and adjusted by time dilation to get right double bending compared to bending predicted by Newton gravity. What is even more important this "geometric" interpretation does not explain why and how is mass bending space and how to combine it with graviton particles. This is why the quantum gravity research is fruitless for decades.
Bigbangcon
1 / 5 (9) Dec 16, 2016
The ontological validity of four-dimensional "spacetime" having tangible physical attributes, is not supported by any materialist philosophical perspective. Hence any conclusion based on this abstract geometrical concept (bending et.) does not have any meaning:

"The Philosophy of Space-Time: Whence Cometh Matter and Motion?":
https://www.amazo...4041884X

This book offers a dialectical perspective of the internal dynamics of Space-Time-Matter-Motion of the infinite universe, mediated by the virtual particles of the quantum vacuum. It is at the same time a refutation of the finite, non-material and abstract four dimensional spacetime geometric manifold as the ontological basis of objective reality, proposed by Minkowski and Einstein.

Benni
1.3 / 5 (13) Dec 16, 2016
Actually, spiral galaxies (generally) rotate faster than ellipticals


No, Rguy, Ellipticals do not have Roatation Curves as you suggest by your use of "rotate", RCs are specifically associated with Spirals. The outermost orbitals of Ellipticals ORBIT the host galaxy at rates varying between 2-50 Km/sec, this compared to the radial arms of Spirals at 2-300 km/sec.

in ellipticals, being generally more massive, the velocities are faster, but stellar motions are *disordered*, i.e. stars moving in all directions result in a small net rotation
......this is total incoherency , even you don't know what you just wrote.

RNP
4.6 / 5 (10) Dec 16, 2016
@Benni
No Bguy. Rotation is often seen in ellipticals. Here is a paper showing it to be so:

https://arxiv.org...72v1.pdf

You will note that most of these 11 early type type galaxies have significant rotation curves. The numbers you quote bear no relation to reality either.
wduckss
1.4 / 5 (10) Dec 16, 2016
@RNP
@wduckss, @Benni
However, Benni is right in the sense that stellar velocities are (again, generally) faster in elliptical galaxies.


A little math.
Sun closed circle of ~ 26 days, Mercury orbit for ~ 88 days ...
How "that stellar velocities are (again, generally) faster and elliptical galaxies" connect with math? If central body faster, the faster they orbit. What is unclear here?
RNP
4.6 / 5 (11) Dec 16, 2016
@wduckss
LEARN SOME PHYSICS (and perhaps some English). Your comments and questions on this site will continue to be incomprehensible nonsense until you do.

@Benni
If you found some of my description "incoherent", it is most probably because you do not understand the subject.
Benni
1.6 / 5 (13) Dec 16, 2016
@Benni
No Bguy. Rotation is often seen in ellipticals. Here is a paper showing it to be so:

https://arxiv.org...72v1.pdf

You will note that most of these 11 early type type galaxies have significant rotation curves. The numbers you quote bear no relation to reality either.


Phys1, you & your favorite handpicked AUTHORS are as dense as the singularities of black holes.

Ellipticals function in perfect symmetry with regard to the mechanics of Newtonian Gravity. The mechanics of ROTATION of the radial arms of Spirals is what sets them apart from Ellipticals.

The only reason cosmologists TRY to create ROTATION CURVES for Ellipticals is because they need DM everywhere in the Universe for the perpetuation of their 80-95% Missing Matter Narrative. They can't reach the goal of that narrative with 2/3 of the mass of the Universe tied up inside Elliptical galaxies functioning in perfect accord with the mechanics of Newtonian Gravity calculations.
tblakely1357
5 / 5 (3) Dec 16, 2016
This is interesting. Dark matter and dark energy struck me as a kludge solution to keep our current theories relevant kind of like epicycles for the Ptolemaic system.
baudrunner
not rated yet Dec 16, 2016
I'm pretty sure that there is more mass in the propagating medium closer and in proportion to a source of gravity and this causes light to be refracted. In 1850 Foucault showed that light "moves slower" through denser mediums like water and glass. This causes refraction. There is no sudden transition between a body and space, but a gradual tapering off of particle density, so that the actual distance for a given length A to B, covered by a light ray, changes in proportion to the density of the medium *for a given time frame*. It's simple. No need to complicate things. The amount of lensing is proportional to the proximity of a massive body. There is all the proof you need. Gravity keeps particles close, but by itself does not affect light directly.
Whydening Gyre
3.7 / 5 (3) Dec 16, 2016
I'm pretty sure that there is more mass in the propagating medium closer and in proportion to a source of gravity and this causes light to be refracted. In 1850 Foucault showed that light "moves slower" through denser mediums like water and glass. This causes refraction. There is no sudden transition between a body and space, but a gradual tapering off of particle density, so that the actual distance for a given length A to B, covered by a light ray, changes in proportion to the density of the medium *for a given time frame*. It's simple. No need to complicate things. The amount of lensing is proportional to the proximity of a massive body. There is all the proof you need. Gravity keeps particles close, but by itself does not affect light directly.

So... you're saying particle density is the reason for light "bending" around a gravitational source?
Benni
1.8 / 5 (10) Dec 16, 2016
Gravity keeps particles close, but by itself does not affect light directly.
......sure it does, here, read the contemporary article on Micro-lensing:

http://phys.org/n...ass.html

When a photon passes by any body of mass, the photon is gravitationally tugging on the mass & vice versa, this is because photons are not MASSLESS & because & they do have inherent fields of gravity. If photons were MASSLESS, then gravitational lensing could not occur, it's just that for the sake of computational simplicity the mass of a photon is so minute compared to that of an atom that the photon mass is simply ignored, exactly what Einstein did in GR when he calculated the Photon Deflection of a photon as it passes the immediate periphery of the Sun's disc.

gcdaigle
3 / 5 (2) Dec 16, 2016
It is interesting that at least 3 theories have been proposed that go against conventional theories of dark matter that depend upon exotic baryonic matter.

Another paper was described in PhysOrg on dark matter in hidden sectors in spacetime.

Verlinde states, that "the standard gravitational laws are modified on galactic and larger scales due to the displacement of dark energy by baryonic matter". Yet the same was said by W. Dröscher in "Reality of Gravity-Like Fields?" in 2014 (Journal of Space Exploration, Vol 3, Issue 2).

In a 2015 book Dröscher and his co-author Hauser addressed the polarization effect of baryonic (visible) matter on the distribution of dark energy, another point made by Verlinde. But unlike Verlinde they give a derivation for the modified gravitational law (i.e, an explanation for the MOND acceleration).
wduckss
2.4 / 5 (8) Dec 17, 2016
@RNP
"@wduckss
LEARN SOME PHYSICS (and perhaps some English). Your comments and questions on this site will continue to be incomprehensible nonsense until you do."

Physics is clear. The faster rotation of the central body creates faster orbit around a central body of the body.
Rapidly rotating stars (so-called proto and white dwarfs with very rapid rotation) emitted in the south and the north pole bursts of matter and light. Identical is the quasars that are connected for elliptic galaxies.
Rapidly rotating stars create disk (gas), elliptical galaxies create disk.
Unlike you I create physics I do not prescribe. I cite evidence that are not doodling from the Universe with two dimensions.
In the future, I will speak slowly so that you can understand.

RNP
4.6 / 5 (9) Dec 17, 2016
@Benni
The only reason cosmologists TRY to create ROTATION CURVES for Ellipticals is because they need DM everywhere in the Universe for the perpetuation of their 80-95% Missing Matter Narrative.


What ARE you talking about? The rotation curves in the paper are OBSERVATIONS, they were not "created" by anyone. Trying to distract us with more of your obfuscating DM nonsense is a waste of the time you would be better served using to actually learn some astrophysics.
RNP
4.6 / 5 (9) Dec 17, 2016
@RNP
@wduckss, @Benni
However, Benni is right in the sense that stellar velocities are (again, generally) faster in elliptical galaxies.
A little math.
Sun closed circle of ~ 26 days, Mercury orbit for ~ 88 days ...
How "that stellar velocities are (again, generally) faster and elliptical galaxies" connect with math? If central body faster, the faster they orbit. What is unclear here?


I will tell you what is unclear here: It is where you get this nonsense from. Orbital speeds have NOTHING to do with the rotation speed of the "central body". Again, LEARN SOME PHYSICS.
AmritSorli
2 / 5 (4) Dec 17, 2016
Is Verlind theory also explaining precession of the planets ?
Without this it has not much validity and can not replace GR.
We calculate precession of the planets on the base of our model
and got exactly the same result as Einstein,
see my book ADVANCED RELATIVITY.
https://www.amazo...37704826
Reg Mundy
2.5 / 5 (8) Dec 17, 2016
@tblakely1357
This is interesting. Dark matter and dark energy struck me as a kludge solution to keep our current theories relevant kind of like epicycles for the Ptolemaic system.

This realisation occurs to many thinking people at some point in their lives. You suddenly realise that you have been fed a load of crap by vested interests (in this case, the self-appointing priesthood of establishment science wanting to protect their sinecure jobs and well-funded "projects"). However, you will get little thanks for pointing this out to other people, and will be subjected to endless vituperation by ignorant myrmidons such as, on this site, Irate, Cap'n Strumpy, Physwun, etc. And whatever you do, do not propose any alternatives to the establishment view, as this will send them into a frenzy of spite.
Or you can just get on with it, and ignore them, as I do.
Benni
1 / 5 (9) Dec 17, 2016
@Benni

The only reason cosmologists TRY to create ROTATION CURVES for Ellipticals is because they need DM everywhere in the Universe for the perpetuation of their 80-95% Missing Matter Narrative.


What ARE you talking about? The rotation curves in the paper are OBSERVATIONS, they were not "created" by anyone. Trying to distract us with more of your obfuscating DM nonsense is a waste of the time you would be better served using to actually learn some astrophysics.


Look Phys 1......again you are totally clueless about the mechanics of Rotation Curves & what your handpicked authors are trying to pass off as RCs within the structures of Elliptical galaxies.

You need to learn some Nuclear Physics & take some appropriate math courses or you'll never come to a cogent comprehension as to why Zwicky was never able to pass off his zany theories to his contemporary colleagues even way back in the last century.
RNP
4.6 / 5 (9) Dec 17, 2016
@Benni
You continue to show your ignorance. Suggesting that the paper I linked was "handpicked" (which I presume you meant was not typical) clearly demonstrates that you do not understand this topic.

Here I link a highly cited, peer reviewed paper that is number 9 in series of currently 19 on this topic:
http://www.eso.or..._401.pdf

Otherwise try the following that actually mention rotating ellipticals in their titles/abstracts:
https://arxiv.org.../0504595
https://arxiv.org...02.04267

There are many more if you look for them. This demonstrates that it is YOU that does not understand the kinematics of galaxies, which can be considered a combination of rotation and random motions. Discs are dominated by rotation, but also have a small random component, while for ellipticals the converse is true. For as long as you continue to make your false claims I, or someone else, will always be able to keep providing evidence of your ignorance.
Benni
1 / 5 (7) Dec 17, 2016
@Benni
You continue to show your ignorance. Suggesting that the paper I linked was "handpicked" typical) clearly demonstrates that you do not understand this topic.


Well Phys1, just continue meandering down the zany Zwicky pathway that was rejected in the last century.

You've been on here before espousing a totally backwards application of the Inverse Square Law for the perpetuation of Black Hole Math, you love Tired Light Theories, and now you've collected papers of a small minded cadre of funny farm pseudo-scientists who are trying to convince Nuclear Physicists that Elliptical Galaxies could not exist in the absence of gravitational Envelopes of Dark Matter.

Look Rguy, take off the tinfoil hat & stop reading what others in the tinfoil hat crowd claim exists within the contents of Special & General Relativity. I understand this will come with great challenges for you, but it's the same problem most Cosmologists have, Differential Equations.

RNP
4.5 / 5 (8) Dec 17, 2016
@Benni
...just continue meandering down the zany Zwicky pathway that was rejected in the last century.

What has Zwicky got to do with the observation of rotation in elliptical galaxies?

...you've collected papers of a small minded cadre of funny farm pseudo-scientists...

Rotation in ellipticals is bountifully documented, and is therefore a well recognized fact among EVERYBODY that knows the subject. I have already provided info that links to a multitude of serious, peer reviewed papers. I could continue to link more, but I do not think even that would convince you. Why don't you try to link ONE that supports your claims?

...who are trying to convince Nuclear Physicists that Elliptical Galaxies could not exist in the absence of gravitational Envelopes of Dark Matter.

WHAT! I said NOTHING about dark matter. Why are you obsessing on it here?. This is about rotation in ellipticals. I think you have things seriously confused.
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (10) Dec 17, 2016
Verlinde's conjecture (perhaps now a hypothesis since it has apparently, according to this article, made a successful postdiction) is interesting, but rather impenetrable at the moment. What's missing is a differentiating prediction from the dark matter hypothesis.
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (8) Dec 17, 2016
@Benni
...just continue meandering down the zany Zwicky pathway that was rejected in the last century.

What has Zwicky got to do with the observation of rotation in elliptical galaxies?
Lenni doesn't "get" the difference between galaxies and galaxy clusters, and doesn't understand that these are not just one but two extensive data sets that both show there's something more there than what we can see.

On the other hand, you're correct that it has little or nothing to do with rotating ellipticals. Lenni's not really very facile with group behaviors and averages, to say nothing of calculus and gravity physics.
Benni
1 / 5 (8) Dec 17, 2016
....two extensive data sets that both show there's something more there than what we can see
......and Spectroscopy data from nearby galaxies has conclusively proven that it is non-luminous baryonic matter, most frequently referred to as Interstellar Dust.

Schneibo...........still waiting for you to produce those pictures of Black Holes you claim to have seen. When you put those pictures up, kindly attach a pic of the telescope through which those pics were made.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4 / 5 (8) Dec 17, 2016
Well heres a load of rubbish;
The ontological validity of four-dimensional "spacetime" having tangible physical attributes, is not supported by any materialist philosophical perspective. Hence any conclusion based on this abstract geometrical concept (bending et.) does not have any meaning:

"The Philosophy of Space-Time: Whence Cometh Matter and Motion?":
https://www.amazo...4041884X

This book offers a dialectical perspective of the internal dynamics of Space-Time-Matter-Motion of the infinite universe, mediated by the virtual particles of the quantum vacuum. It is at the same time a refutation of the finite, non-material and abstract four dimensional spacetime geometric manifold as the ontological basis of objective reality, proposed by Minkowski and Einstein
-That you noumenon?
GoodElf
3.7 / 5 (3) Dec 18, 2016
Verlinde's Theory is based on entropy through entanglement. When particles "unpack" in space they gain additional degrees of freedom but quantum entanglement is responsible for the forces that hold spacetime together, like cobwebs tying all quanta forming the fabric of the Universe. This acts as stretchy "gravity". Measurement differentiates this quantum universe from the classical universe. "Quantum states", smaller than a "variable" size undergo quantum superposition, while classical objects larger than that scale "usually" choose from one of the many possibilities and forms a single classical history of the Universe as sequential classical states. Interestingly above a certain "upper" scale this history can once again undergo quantum "unpacking" processes. Galaxies are entrained as Bose-Einstein Condensate solitons whose states are composed of "large" numbers of ultra low energy overlapping bosons whose energy range from 1-10 X 10^-22 eV, whose size range up to 1-10 kpc see Witten.
baudrunner
not rated yet Dec 18, 2016
So... you're saying particle density is the reason for light "bending" around a gravitational source?
..that's exactly right. Any effect that gravity might have is on possibly distorting the shape of the particle taking part in the transmission of photonic energy, in the direction of the source of gravity, but photons themselves exist only as a unit whereby we can quantify the amount of light and the intensity. Because those factors are variable for a given reaction, such as an electron jumping to a higher state, or just just passing on information to another electron belonging to a different carrier, we conclude that there is no such a thing as a constant unit for the photon. Conclusions drawn from experimentation, such as the isolation of a single photon, are based on observation of the carrier particle, and not an actual photon particle. One could conceivably confine a bundle of energy that is equal to the energy of a single photon exchange between information carriers.
Benni
1 / 5 (2) Dec 18, 2016
...... there is no such a thing as a constant unit for the photon.
What is a "constant unit"?
Whydening Gyre
3 / 5 (2) Dec 18, 2016
So... you're saying particle density is the reason for light "bending" around a gravitational source?
..that's exactly right. Any effect that gravity might have is on possibly distorting the shape of the particle taking part in the transmission of photonic energy, in the direction of the source of gravity, but ... . Conclusions drawn from experimentation, such as the isolation of a single photon, are based on observation of the carrier particle, and not an actual photon particle. One could conceivably confine a bundle of energy that is equal to the energy of a single photon exchange between information carriers.

Gravitational polarization, then...
savvys84
1 / 5 (1) Dec 19, 2016
verlinde says ' gravity does not exist '.
what bloody rubbish
savvys84
1 / 5 (2) Dec 19, 2016
Is Verlind theory also explaining precession of the planets ?
Without this it has not much validity and can not replace GR.
We calculate precession of the planets on the base of our model
and got exactly the same result as Einstein,
see my book ADVANCED RELATIVITY.
https://www.amazo...37704826]https://www.amazo...37704826[/url]

Einstein's or for that matter Verlinde's GR are a load of poppycock

Is Verlind theory also explaining precession of the planets ?
Without this it has not much validity and can not replace GR.
We calculate precession of the planets on the base of our model
and got exactly the same result as Einstein,
see my book ADVANCED RELATIVITY.
https://www.amazo...37704826]https://www.amazo...37704826[/url]

BubbaNicholson
3.7 / 5 (3) Dec 19, 2016
Anything is better than phlogiston.
someone11235813
5 / 5 (2) Dec 19, 2016
The new theory is currently only applicable to isolated, spherical and static systems


That reminds me of that old joke where a farmer gets a physicist to work on a problem, "OK now imagine this sphere is a cow..."
entrance
1 / 5 (1) Dec 19, 2016
When particles "unpack" in space they gain additional degrees of freedom but quantum entanglement is responsible for the forces that hold spacetime together, like cobwebs tying all quanta forming the fabric of the Universe. ... . Interestingly above a certain "upper" scale this history can once again undergo quantum "unpacking" processes. Galaxies are entrained as Bose-Einstein Condensate solitons whose states are composed of "large" numbers of ultra low energy overlapping bosons whose energy range from 1-10 X 10^-22 eV, whose size range up to 1-10 kpc

There is only a small bandwidth, where quanta are being "packed", so that there is something concrete existing for us? Have i understood that correctly?
antialias_physorg
4 / 5 (8) Dec 19, 2016
Well, I checked out this Verlinde guy, and it looks like he's done some seriously impressive stuff so far. So I wouldn't put him into the crackpot category.

Note that this theory is not yet complete, as he notes in the abstract of the paper
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.

(More specificially - as further noted in paper - it's currently only formalized in de Sitter space.)
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (5) Dec 19, 2016
verlinde says ' gravity does not exist '.
what bloody rubbish

I've been saying that for years, and usually received the same response as you provide for Verlinde! Surely you can see that the "laws of gravity" do not work, and there is absolutely no evidence that such a force exists. The same so-called evidence for gravity is equally evidence for other explanations, but this is dismissed out of hand by those who simply refuse to think about it.
howhot3
5 / 5 (2) Dec 19, 2016
Certainly the best theory of gravity currently available. If your into physics, Verlinde is must read. If you want the simplified version, wikipedia has and entry called "Entropic Gravity", but I think that is kind of misleading. Certainly the math applies, but it's not clear conceptually how entropy is linked to gravity in the wikipedia story or how a particle's entropy can modify and bend a unit of space-time.
swordsman
5 / 5 (1) Dec 19, 2016
In direct conflict with the Law of Superposition. Nonsensical.
GoodElf
3.3 / 5 (3) Dec 19, 2016
Verlinde is saying that "gravity" is an effect of quantum entropy and not a "force" intermediated by a by a exchange force carrier like the other three forces. Specifically.. no "gravitons". They have been "penciled in" by the theoreticians. In the same way Einstein said that gravity is a "pseudo-force" he was dead right in that respect and flys in the face of "unproven theories" of quantum gravity. There is no true "force" of attraction only entropy effects due to the confinement or deconfinement of quantum states. John Wheeler put it this way "Spacetime tells matter how to move; matter tells spacetime how to curve."

Verlinde says that quantum entanglement is the main bestower of mass through non-local quantum entanglement and is the fundamental structure in which everything is contained... that is spacetime. If a rock rolls downhill it lowers the overall energy of the system. Entropy is altered and the rock will not "fall uphill". It is not pulled there by "gravitational force".
SiaoX
3 / 5 (2) Dec 19, 2016
So how the gravity is formed in Verlinde theory? Why the entropy changes around massive bodies?
Whydening Gyre
4 / 5 (4) Dec 19, 2016
Verlinde says that quantum entanglement ... is the fundamental structure in which everything is contained... that is spacetime. If a rock rolls downhill it lowers the overall energy of the system. Entropy is altered and the rock will not "fall uphill". It is not pulled there by "gravitational force".

However, if the rock is round enough and the hill is long enough, then the rock WILL roll up the next hill (at least partially)...
Whydening Gyre
3.7 / 5 (3) Dec 19, 2016
So how the gravity is formed in Verlinde theory? Why the entropy changes around massive bodies?

Because they are in motion in space(time). And their gravitational field is affected by the gravitational field of OTHER massive bodies, both near and far, which are ALSO - in motion...
iharbury
3 / 5 (2) Dec 19, 2016
But the only 'natural' point of view for the motion of an object is the object itself. From the POV of light it moves in a straight line.


From the point of view of an object the object does not move at all. From the point of view of light the light does not even exist because it has no time.
GoodElf
3.7 / 5 (3) Dec 19, 2016
So how the gravity is formed in Verlinde theory? Why the entropy changes around massive bodies?
Bodies are not "massive", they are the result of a theory that says all particles - Fermions and Bosons - are ALL massless. Mass is a "BESTOWED" property gained from entanglement to all other quanta in the Universe and the wavefunction of the one kind of particle. So all protons have one mass and electrons have another, and photons have no mass. But they all "fall" at the one rate in space. Mass is from a process called "spontaneous symmetry breaking". Einsteins Equivalence Principle not "gravity"..

Verlinde is saying while the Standard Model suggest 10% of the mass of atoms come from the quarks and gluons, and the rest comes from "virtual particles" "inside" the atom, he says this extra mass (perhaps all) comes from entanglement "outside" ... from the distant Universe... Einstein called Mach's Principle.

ER = EPR.. primordial entanglement "wormholes" at all scales.
GoodElf
3.7 / 5 (3) Dec 19, 2016
Think of this... fill a hessian bag full of fast spinning toy gyroscopes and swing it around your head, there is an additional amount of reluctance to be accelerated in that "circle" than if the bag contained the same gyroscopes not spinning at all. That is "pseudo-inertia", as if the bag got heavier under acceleration. It is also a "force" that allows planes to travel in a straight line and keeps a bicycle from falling over (well... sort of). Ignoring complex decomposition of forces then this is an obvious demonstration of "Mach's Principle" and is the "M" in Newtons F= Ma. Specifically "Local physical laws are determined by the large-scale structure of the universe." The "system" is not heavier if you take into account forces under your feet but entropy is acting in that "system". Check out Wikipedia. On the other hand... everything has a quantum explanation because everything is composed of quanta. The quantum information content of a system is a description of the system.
Benni
1 / 5 (5) Dec 19, 2016
and photons have no mass.


GE........this is not true.

The mass of a photon is simply so minute that for practical applications in Nuclear Physics we ignore it because it doesn't create significant error within the final result.

But when you start adding up the quantity of energy pervading intergalactic space, you'd be talking about a lot of photon mass via which gravitational attraction of electro-magnetism becomes a hugely significant factor.

If photons had no mass, gravitational lensing calculated by Einstein in the Photon Deflection section of GR could not occur, this is because gravity is Mass Dependent whether in the form of transformed mass or particle mass.
savvys84
1 / 5 (1) Dec 20, 2016
verlinde says ' gravity does not exist '.
what bloody rubbish

I've been saying that for years, and usually received the same response as you provide for Verlinde! Surely you can see that the "laws of gravity" do not work, and there is absolutely no evidence that such a force exists. The same so-called evidence for gravity is equally evidence for other explanations, but this is dismissed out of hand by those who simply refuse to think about it.

do we not feel the affect of gravity 24/7? So gravity is definitely a force . watch
https://www.youtu...g68VE-Ys
GoodElf
3.7 / 5 (3) Dec 20, 2016
Hi Benni,
"GE........this is not true."
No. Photons have ZERO rest mass see Wiki. "Spacetime tells matter how to move; matter tells spacetime how to curve." - JWheeler. Photons (light) "deflect" according to "gravitational attraction" by the same amount as matter moving about a massive body. Photons of all frequency are always "seen" to move at the SPEED of light, towards, away or tangential to a massive body like a black hole (of course you do not actually "see" photons en route). Being "attracted" to a massive body, light does not change it's "speed" but it's vectoral "velocity", it travels a longer path just like light through a lens but without the optical aberration... a deflection is a longer path than a straight line. A proton, neutron, or object etc might travel at only a number of meters per second or even less, tangential to a massive external body. But ALL, neutron, proton & chunk of stuff etc. "fall" or deflect towards the massive body exactly the same as photons.
GoodElf
3.7 / 5 (3) Dec 20, 2016
Hi Maryylife,
"How does this account for those few dark galaxies though?"
Reading Wiki, "dark galaxies" are still not discernible from other massive "dark" objects. A large number of very small black holes around 10 to 100 times the solar mass would be difficult to determine since black holes with significant effects contain millions of solar masses eg.Einstein Rings etc. Verlinde says there is no "dark matter" so this "dark galaxy" is the result of some other process such as the collision of galaxies leaving a gaseous nebula core salted with lots of small black holes behind, or something else such as quark stars or other exotic sources of mass.

There may be lots of "small" black holes in our galaxy and these may be only 10 Km across, "invisible" to telescopes but having a large mass. It would be "very difficult" to image them but every now and again an event like those found to be detected by LIGO would happen where one of the larger black holes swallows one of the smaller ones.
GoodElf
1 / 5 (1) Dec 20, 2016
Hi savvys84,
Verlinde does not suggest there is no such thing as gravity. It's not a "force" like electromagnetism, the "strong" force or the "weak" force, since "gravitons" do not exist but there is quantum entanglement. It is a theory about the underlying nature of "Einstein's Spacetime" which is "woven" from this entanglement. I point out neither Newton's Theory of Gravity, nor Einstein's Theory of Special or General Relativity, suggest a mechanism by which gravity asserts itself. Verlinde discusses quantum events rather than "particle" events. After all we are nearly 100% influenced by optical phenomena, we can't see gravity. Humans have developed through evolution along those lines and it is a "natural" perspective. "Spacetime" is a zero point quantum superfluid similar to the properties of type II superconductors or similar to Bose-Einstein Condensates of Condensed Matter Theory.or even Quark-Gluon Plasmas. "The Universe" & "us" are an epiphenomenon in a "droplet" surface.
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (2) Dec 20, 2016
@GodElpus
"Spacetime" is a zero point quantum superfluid similar to the properties of type II superconductors or similar to Bose-Einstein Condensates of Condensed Matter Theory.or even Quark-Gluon Plasmas. "The Universe" & "us" are an epiphenomenon in a "droplet" surface.

Say, are you a scriptwriter for "Stargate -SG1"?
Benni
2 / 5 (4) Dec 20, 2016
Hi Benni,
"GE........this is not true."
No. Photons have ZERO rest mass
.....of course they have zero rest mass, or they wouldn't be photons which can travel at only one speed. But just because they have zero rest mass doesn't mean that as Transformed Mass that gravity ceases to exist when transformation of a particle of mass to energy occurs? Did you think it did?
Whydening Gyre
Dec 20, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
GoodElf
1 / 5 (1) Dec 20, 2016
Benni,
"..of course they have zero rest mass, or they wouldn't be photons which can travel at only one speed. But just because they have zero rest mass doesn't mean that as Transformed Mass that gravity ceases to exist when transformation of a particle of mass to energy occurs? Did you think it did?"

Spacetime curvature is what directs the motion of photons, even though photons "propagate" at the speed of light it's local curvature will deflect them. Photons are electromagnetic phenomena so they are affected by many things including intergalactic magnetic fields, dust etc.. The also spread via ISL but are also "seen" as single photon events. Those final events indicate the path of photons do not travel in a straight line but curve. Spacetime is composed of quantum entanglement. There would be no particles at all if there were no spacetime. The same if there were no Quark-Gluon Plasma from which to form particles. Condensed Matter Physics is the ultimate "model" for our Universe.
savvys84
1 / 5 (2) Dec 21, 2016
Hi savvys84,
Verlinde does not suggest there is no such thing as gravity. It's not a "force" like electromagnetism, the "strong" force or the "weak" force, since "gravitons" do not exist but there is quantum entanglement. It is a theory about the underlying nature of "Einstein's Spacetime" which is "woven" from this entanglement. I point out neither Newton's Theory of Gravity, nor Einstein's Theory of Special or General Relativity, suggest a mechanism by which gravity asserts itself. Verlinde discusses quantum events rather than "particle" events.

Hi Good elf . thanks for yr post.
my own research and experimental results lead me to believe that gravitons exit
GoodElf
1 / 5 (2) Dec 21, 2016
@savvys84,
"Hi Good elf . thanks for yr post.
my own research and experimental results lead me to believe that gravitons exit"

I appreciate that. In Verlinde's case gravitons are unnecessary but would result in a deconstructionist outcome for sure. In Emergent Entropic Gravity, we end up with a Holographic outcome. It is still impossible to reconcile the Galactic Spiral Motion using ONLY Einstein's Theory. The "salting" of the Universe with unseen mass in all the right places with the right amounts or even Supersymmetry Theory... both appear implausible. MOND is still a contender along with Verlinde's Theory. Both give the same result. It is my "bet" they are "both right". Einstein's shortcomings down to his rejection of non-local quantum entanglement, his "spooky action at a distance". One point I would put forward is the graviton "work function" compared with the photon work function. The graviton's extreme low energy won't allow escape from an evanescent field to infinity.
savvys84
1 / 5 (2) Dec 21, 2016
@savvys84,
"Hi Good elf . thanks for yr post.
my own research and experimental results lead me to believe that gravitons exit"

I appreciate that. In Verlinde's case gravitons are unnecessary but would result in a deconstructionist outcome for sure. In Emergent Entropic Gravity, we end up with a Holographic outcome. It is still impossible to reconcile the Galactic Spiral Motion using ONLY Einstein's Theory.

@GoodElf
I doubt galatic spiral motion will be explained convincingly by anyone, now or it the future.
My own gut feeling is that it has something to do with ' Ambient Time '
Seeker2
1 / 5 (2) Dec 24, 2016
@antialias
The gravity of galaxies bends space,
Gravity changes the refractive index of space. That is gravity stretches it or warps it from the pull of gravity. So it takes it longer to go from point A to point B since the speed of light is invariant. As in a medium of higher refractive index. The gravitational field changes smoothly so it just looks like it bends.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (2) Dec 24, 2016
@antialias
(More specificially - as further noted in paper - it's currently only formalized in de Sitter space.)
I would formalize Newtonian gravity in Hilbert space because that allows you to formalize the expansion of space due to dark energy - the real source of N. gravity as I see it. de Sitter space might be appropriate for gravitational waves but I don't really know enough about it to say.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (3) Dec 24, 2016
@Benni
..these are not Nuclear Physicists doing these calculations, just Astronomers who have never seen a Differential Equation in General Relativity that they could solve.
Nuclear Physicists are worthless as far as the dark matter problem goes because the gravitational force they're talking about doesn't come from any type of particle - rather from variations in the density of spacetime and so the dark energy. These variations lead to the formation of galaxies as seen in the minute variations in the cosmic microwave background.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (3) Dec 24, 2016
@Benni
...in ellipticals, being generally more massive, the velocities are faster, but stellar motions are *disordered*, i.e. stars moving in all directions result in a small net rotation
......this is total incoherency , even you don't know what you just wrote.
He's just saying motions are too fast and random to fall into elliptical orbits. Not that anybody really cares, but I see spiral galaxies arising from doughnut-shaped forms of compressed spacetime. Like smoke rings blown by big bang turbulence. Ellipticals would be formed more from spherical distributions of compressed spacetime.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (3) Dec 24, 2016
cont
OBTW My roommate and I used to sit in French class with our feet propped up on the desk in front of us and blow smoke rings up onto the blackboard. You had to stick your tongue out when blowing. We got pretty good at it but never made summa cum laude.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (3) Dec 24, 2016
cont
Actually it was remedial French if you really must know.
Benni
1 / 5 (2) Dec 24, 2016
Nuclear Physicists are worthless as far as the dark matter problem goes because the gravitational force they're talking about doesn't come from any type of particle - rather from variations in the density of spacetime


Gravity is MASS dependent, it's impossible to prove differently, Einstein proved this in the Photon Deflection section of General Relativity when he did the calculations for Photon Deflection at 1.75 arcseconds as a photon passes the immediate peripheral disc of the Sun, no refraction involved.

I don't know what you mean by"variations in the density of spacetime"......simply sounds like another variation of the concept of INFERRED PHYSICS, the kind of psycho-babble that RNP likes to engage in when spewing out DM Narratives, all because he's totally illiterate in the contents of Special & General Relativity.
Seeker2
1.7 / 5 (3) Dec 24, 2016
@Benni
Gravity is MASS dependent,
Could be. Anyway quantized mass, or matter, contains a fixed or quantized amount of energy. No additional dark energy is allowed to foment inside this quantized region of energy. Of course you can have kinetic energy. Otherwise dark energy is pressing in and matter exerts no back pressure and reduces the density of dark energy. So matter gets the squeeze. I don't think you could gain enough kinetic energy to offset the dark energy. Probably a relativistic effect.
Seeker2
2 / 5 (2) Dec 24, 2016
@Benni
Gravity is MASS dependent, it's impossible to prove differently, Einstein proved this in the Photon Deflection section of General Relativity when he did the calculations for Photon Deflection at 1.75 arcseconds as a photon passes the immediate peripheral disc of the Sun, no refraction involved.
The force of gravity increases near the Sun. Spacetime is warped or stretched by gravity. So it takes the photon more time to get from point A to point B. Same effect as refraction in lensing where it takes longer for the photon to get around the atoms in the lens. Or so it would seem.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (1) Dec 24, 2016
@Benni
I don't know what you mean by"variations in the density of spacetime"
I mean turbulence in whatever it was that was spit out at the big bang. And it's still coming. We see it as dark energy or gravity or the expansion of spacetime. Counter-intuitive I know. Merry Ho-Ho-Ho by the way.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (1) Dec 24, 2016
@Benni
He's just saying motions are too fast and random to fall into elliptical orbits.
Let's walk that back just a tad. To fall into spiral arms would be better.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (1) Dec 24, 2016
To fall into spiral arms would be better.
OBTW our solar system lies between spiral arms I think I saw on the science channel. If not the radiation would be too hot and we'd lose our water. Or something like that. So looking for ET life in the spirals arms might not be the thing to do.
Whydening Gyre
3.7 / 5 (3) Dec 24, 2016
@Benni
He's just saying motions are too fast and random to fall into elliptical orbits.
Let's walk that back just a tad. To fall into spiral arms would be better.

which are also spiraling(rotating?), I think I read somewhere, too...
Seeker2
3 / 5 (2) Dec 25, 2016
@WG
@Benni
He's just saying motions are too fast and random to fall into elliptical orbits.
Let's walk that back just a tad. To fall into spiral arms would be better.
which are also spiraling(rotating?), I think I read somewhere, too...
Think of dark matter as tread on your tires. If you lose your tread I don't think you would get any braking action. Just a guess though.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (3) Dec 25, 2016
I have had a thought.

Verlinde's idea may not preclude the existence and eventual detection of gravitons. It may, instead, *explain* them. It may also explain the other three force bosons. This may be how entropy manifests itself in our universe.

Verlinde's statement that "gravity does not exist" may be instead interpreted as "none of the forces actually exist, they are merely manifestations of entropy, caused by entanglement." One would then expect that Verlinde is merely saying that forces as we see them are reducible to a single underlying principle, entropy mediated by entanglement.

I am still working on this idea. I'll have to think about it for a while.
Whydening Gyre
3 / 5 (2) Dec 25, 2016
I have had a thought.

Verlinde's idea may not preclude the existence and eventual detection of gravitons. It may, instead, *explain* them. It may also explain the other three force bosons. This may be how entropy manifests itself in our universe.

Verlinde's statement that "gravity does not exist" may be instead interpreted as "none of the forces actually exist, they are merely manifestations of entropy, caused by entanglement." One would then expect that Verlinde is merely saying that forces as we see them are reducible to a single underlying principle, entropy mediated by entanglement.

I am still working on this idea. I'll have to think about it for a while.

I like it... But then you have to describe entropic mechanic..
My own idea is as it adds to others groupings of force, that initial force gains sufficient entropic energy reaches a "critical mass" and then becomes the next force up on the scale (ie - weak force, strong force, electromagnetism, gravity, etc.)
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (3) Dec 25, 2016
I like it... But then you have to describe entropic mechanic..
My own idea is as it adds to others groupings of force, that initial force gains sufficient entropic energy reaches a "critical mass" and then becomes the next force up on the scale (ie - weak force, strong force, electromagnetism, gravity, etc.)

Careful, these wild flights of fantasy will result in you being labelled a crackpot. By thinking, you are making yourself a target for abuse from Irate, Strumpy, Fizwun, etc.
GoodElf
1 / 5 (1) Dec 25, 2016
@Da Schneib
I have had a thought.

Verlinde's idea may not preclude the existence and eventual detection of gravitons. It may, instead, *explain* them... [..] ... Verlinde's statement that "gravity does not exist" may be instead interpreted as "none of the forces actually exist, they are merely manifestations of entropy.
I am still working on this idea. I'll have to think about it for a while.
My interpretation of these matters is only "Exchange Force" defined by the other three forces do not exist. This is exactly what Einstein thought. But entanglement entropy is NOT what Einstein thought. He "missed" that one. But he was right to say Gravity was a "pseudo-force". In that sense, like dark matter, gravitons do not exist. This does not mean "waves" in "spacetime" composed of entanglement do not exist any more than "waves" on the membrane of a bouncy trampoline "don't exist"... of course they do. They propagate the same way through "elastic processes" in/of "spacetime".
GoodElf
3 / 5 (2) Dec 25, 2016
@Reg Mundy
I like it... But then you have to describe entropic mechanic..
My own idea is as it adds to others groupings of force, that initial force gains sufficient entropic energy reaches a "critical mass" and then becomes the next force up on the scale (ie - weak force, strong force, electromagnetism, gravity, etc.)

Careful, these wild flights of fantasy will result in you being labelled a crackpot. By thinking, you are making yourself a target for abuse from Irate, Strumpy, Fizwun, etc.
So Ed Witten is a "crackpot"? The Theory is called Scale Symmetric Theory, Witten thinks Fuzzy Dark Matter is on that larger scale of bosons or fermions at the kpc (3000 LY) scale and fundamental to our galactic structure, and "we" embed/cohabit that "quanta" in a similar way to the way matter in Bose-Einstein Condensates embed/support both particle states. The Universe is a superfluid and entanglement is it's post Big Bang "spacetime". Superfluids like 3He support both vortices.
savvys84
2.3 / 5 (3) Dec 25, 2016
Finally, real efforts to explain observations without imaginary matter.

The bloke who espoused the imaginary mass theory has even got a nobel prize. Lol wtf is going on
savvys84
1 / 5 (3) Dec 25, 2016
Witten thinks Fuzzy Dark Matter is on that larger scale of bosons or fermions at the kpc (3000 LY) scale and fundamental to our galactic structure, and "we" embed/cohabit that "quanta" in

My own experimental results indicate that dark matter is nothing more than electrons in the ' Time Domain '
Whydening Gyre
4.4 / 5 (7) Dec 25, 2016
I like it... But then you have to describe entropic mechanic..
My own idea is as it adds to others groupings of force, that initial force gains sufficient entropic energy reaches a "critical mass" and then becomes the next force up on the scale (ie - weak force, strong force, electromagnetism, gravity, etc.)

Careful, these wild flights of fantasy will result in you being labelled a crackpot. By thinking, you are making yourself a target for abuse from Irate, Strumpy, Fizwun, etc.

Actually, reg, concept ideas don't make them irate. Those are fun thought experiments.
It's pronouncements that the old (experimentally proven) ideas are impossible and your replacement idea is the only one that can possibly be right, that bother them...
Whydening Gyre
3 / 5 (2) Dec 25, 2016
That said,
Gravity. being the "weakest" of the known forces, might even just be the result of adding together ALL the strongest force - EM (both negative and positive aspects) - dipolar entanglements and averaging it. within the collective set of the Universal "Locality"...

How's THAT for crackpot...:-)?
Seeker2
1 / 5 (1) Dec 26, 2016
@WG
That said,
Gravity. being the "weakest" of the known forces,
Bowl sheet. Gravity is the dark force - It's energy makes up 75% of all the energy in the U. It's strong enough to generate black hole jets which can interact with galactic dust and create galaxies. Listen up, crackpots!
Seeker2
1 / 5 (1) Dec 26, 2016
@GoodElf
...what Einstein thought. He "missed" that one. But he was right to say Gravity was a "pseudo-force". In that sense, like dark matter, gravitons do not exist. This does not mean "waves" in "spacetime" composed of entanglement do not exist any more than "waves" on the membrane of a bouncy trampoline "don't exist"... of course they do. They propagate the same way through "elastic processes" in/of "spacetime".
I don't think Newtonian gravity propagates. It's just a state of warped spacetime It's there waiting on you when you get there. So it's instantaneous. But kinetic energy radiates like gravitational waves propagated by gravitons traveling at the speed of light. Or so it seems.
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (2) Dec 26, 2016
That said,
Gravity. being the "weakest" of the known forces, might even just be the result of adding together ALL the strongest force - EM (both negative and positive aspects) - dipolar entanglements and averaging it. within the collective set of the Universal "Locality"...

How's THAT for crackpot...:-)?

Getting there, my boy, definitely getting there.....
Seeker2
1 / 5 (1) Dec 26, 2016
It's strong enough to generate black hole jets which can interact with galactic dust and create galaxies.
Let's make that inter-galactic dust. Thanks.
GoodElf
1 / 5 (1) Dec 26, 2016
@Seeker2
I don't think Newtonian gravity propagates. It's just a state of warped spacetime It's there waiting on you when you get there. So it's instantaneous. But kinetic energy radiates like gravitational waves propagated by gravitons traveling at the speed of light. Or so it seems.
Quantum Entanglement (QE) is "instantaneous" and "IS" spacetime, but reacts across it's "surface" (as waves) at the speed of propagation of the electromagnetic force. The amount of bulk quantum entanglement through a patch of spacetime determines mass, and less non-local entanglement means "stretchier spacetime" acting on a lower mass. At some point, in the future, it is likely this "bubble will burst" in a "rip". It may be trillions of years time? Because QE is globally instantaneous you will not realize it happened. In the "Big Bang" this "material" was the precursor to and then became the quark-gluon Plasma, it's now QE and it has been cooling and "stretching" ever since. "We" are made of it.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (1) Dec 26, 2016
@Goodelf
I don't think spacetime is stretchier. I think it's just stretched. Or warped. Or twisted. Or compressed in the case of mass. In the case of matter it would be twisted and compressed (quantized). Antimatter would be twisted in the opposite direction. Also quantized.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (1) Dec 26, 2016
cont
The compressed idea is actually reletive to the state of expansion. During barygenesis the average matter density for particles and antiparticles was the same as that of spacetime. Antimatter having less than average spacetime density, matter more. The result of this minute density is why we don't see much antimatter around - at least that fromed during baryogenesis. Its lower density caused it to be expelled into the outer reaches of spacetime after its formation. Not compressed, only twisted and then quantized or trapped into its various forms depending on the state of expansion of spacetime at the time of formation. Now we see it as compressed because the density of spacetime is much less than during the formation of matter. Nowadays we compress it in accelerators or with laser beams. An interesting question is are neutrinos a form of compressed spacetime or only twisted spacetime.
Whydening Gyre
3 / 5 (2) Dec 26, 2016
@WG
That said,
Gravity. being the "weakest" of the known forces,
Bowl sheet. Gravity is the dark force - It's energy makes up 75% of all the energy in the U. It's strong enough to generate black hole jets which can interact with galactic dust and create galaxies. Listen up, crackpots!

Just a matter of locality and scale...
It's considered the weakest at molecular and atomic scale.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (1) Dec 26, 2016
cont
rather the minute density difference. Really got me on a roll here. Actually the density difference between a miniature black hole and a miniature white hole possibly sharing the same event horizons. Just a guess though.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (1) Dec 26, 2016
@WG
It's considered the weakest at molecular and atomic scale.
Good. point. It could even be zero as in the case of weightlessness. And if it's too great your molecules and atoms get compressed back into something like a quark-gluon plasma inside a black hole.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (1) Dec 26, 2016
The result of this minute density (difference) is why we don't see much antimatter around - at least that (formed) during baryogenesis. Its lower density caused it to be expelled into the outer reaches of spacetime after its formation.
Note during baryogenesis the outer reaches of spacetime weren't really that far away and radiation could travel anywhere in a short amount of time. This radiation mixing causing antimatter to be expelled and also caused the matter to be distributed very evenly inside the matter distribution. This very even distribution is what we see as the cosmic wave background, with the minute density differences causing the early formation of black holes and subsequent formation of galaxies. As I see it anyway.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (1) Dec 26, 2016
cont
Note antimatter would also be very evenly distributed but at the edges of spacetime and the minute density differences we pick up might include some from antimatter.
donald347
1 / 5 (1) Dec 27, 2016
So basically gravity is still effective at distances at which it's effects would be negligible. Meaning as distance is increased, the effect is does lower but only to a point.
That really more debunks dark matter, more than it does explain gravity, by my reading at least.
Whydening Gyre
3 / 5 (2) Dec 27, 2016
@WG
It's considered the weakest at molecular and atomic scale.
Good. point. It could even be zero as in the case of weightlessness. And if it's too great your molecules and atoms get compressed back into something like a quark-gluon plasma inside a black hole.

It is NEVER zero.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (1) Dec 27, 2016
@WG
...(gravity)...It is NEVER zero.
So which way does it point at the center of the earth? Wait. Don't tell me. Down. I should have known. A penny for the old guy :)
Seeker2
1 / 5 (1) Dec 28, 2016
OBTW which way does gravity point at the L1 LaGrange point? And the answer is - UP!
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (2) Dec 28, 2016
OBTW which way does gravity point at the L1 LaGrange point? And the answer is - UP!

Ain't no gravity.....
Seeker2
1 / 5 (1) Dec 28, 2016
OBTW which way does gravity point at the L1 LaGrange point? And the answer is - UP!
Ain't no gravity.....
Yep. Makes it tricky to find which way is up. You could get lost up there real easy.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (1) Dec 28, 2016
...kinetic energy radiates like gravitational waves propagated by gravitons traveling at the speed of light. Or so it seems.
Verlinde calls it phonons not gravitons. I'll go with that.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (1) Dec 28, 2016
...Think of dark matter as tread on your tires. If you lose your tread I don't think you would get any braking action. Just a guess though.
Not a bad guess. Galaxy rotation does not depend on dark matter distribution as discussed at https://arxiv.org...0.08981.
GoodElf
1 / 5 (1) Dec 29, 2016
@Seeker2
...Think of dark matter as tread on your tires...
Not a bad guess. Galaxy rotation does not depend on dark matter distribution as discussed at https://arxiv.org...0.08981.
"DM" is shorthand used to describe the "Problem of DM"... baryons or no baryons at all. Data does not dispute Fuzzy DM, just disputes Cold DM. The Flat Galaxy Rotation curve remains, and it "fits" the "ansatz" Milgrom MOND Model, similar to Verlinde. The paper does not specifically test Verlinde's Theory but does reflect flat Galactic rotation on all 9 dex scales. "One law to rule them all".

If QE is the reason matter "mostly" has mass, then due to the expansion of the Universe over time you would see a breaking/thinning of cross linking QE between galaxies. This fits "new" data. It is an odd theory that suggests mass is "going away and disappearing" due to expansion over time. I think Witten's Fuzzy DM model his "boson" BEC model supports Verlinde. A "thinning out" of "spacetime".
Whydening Gyre
3 / 5 (2) Dec 29, 2016
@WG
...(gravity)...It is NEVER zero.
So which way does it point at the center of the earth? Wait. Don't tell me. Down. I should have known. A penny for the old guy :)

Since gravity is a emergent property of (all forms of) matter - out...
Seeker2
1 / 5 (1) Dec 29, 2016
@GoodElf
9 dex scales
9 what?
Seeker2
1 / 5 (1) Dec 29, 2016
@WG
Since gravity is a emergent property of (all forms of) matter - out...
Gravity emerges from matter? Interesting.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (1) Dec 29, 2016
@GoodElf
9 dex scales
9 what?
Decades I guess. New one on me.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (1) Dec 29, 2016
@GoodElf
"One law to rule them all".
As stated in the Dec. APSNEWS, "A newly derived universal law shows that the rotation of disk galaxies is determined entirely by the visible matter they contain, even if they are mostly filled by dark matter." They interpret dex as orders of magnitude. So apparently DM just spreads out spacetime. In this case metric would be a good synonym for spacetime. It just means a change of scale, apparently.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (1) Dec 30, 2016
cont
Here's the big deal. Spin a mass of density m on the end of a string of radius R. The centripetal force is mv^2/R. Stretch out the string and mass so that the length of the string is 2R and the mass density at the end of the string is m/2. Then the centripetal force is m/2*v^2/R/2 = mv^2/R. Same centripetal force so same angular momentum and sane rotational rate. Give the dog a bone. :)
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (2) Dec 30, 2016
cont
Here's the big deal. Spin a mass of density m on the end of a string of radius R. The centripetal force is mv^2/R. Stretch out the string and mass so that the length of the string is 2R and the mass density at the end of the string is m/2. Then the centripetal force is m/2*v^2/R/2 = mv^2/R. Same centripetal force so same angular momentum and sane rotational rate. Give the dog a bone. :)

Any dog is better than no dog, and no dog is better than mine....An old game shooting saw.
Whydening Gyre
3 / 5 (2) Dec 30, 2016
@WG
Since gravity is a emergent property of (all forms of) matter - out...
Gravity emerges from matter? Interesting.

Gravity is a field dependent on the collective quantity of collected matter in a given locality.
No matter w/mass - no gravity.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (1) Dec 30, 2016
@WG
Gravity is a field dependent on the collective quantity of collected matter in a given locality.
So you have to collect it first. Interesting. I just wonder how it got collected in the first place. Maybe just by chance?
GoodElf
1 / 5 (1) Dec 31, 2016
@WG & Seeker2,
The Standard Model does strongly suggest "matter" came first and mass, which is not part of the Model, came later. It is conceivable that between T=0 and some "small positive" value of T, the speed of particles being emitted from the Big Bang was at the speed of Light, "spreading" into a void that was due to Bariogenesis event itself. The "matter" and "anti-matter" being separated by their different quantum states by the Feynman–Stueckelberg interpretation of anti-matter. That is all A-M flowed into a negative time foliation which is separate from the positive time foliation in which matter formed. A-M in negative Time Foliation is functionally identical to Matter in Time Foliation. The era of "broken mass symmetry" instantly slowing all down. This "latter phase" would be due to onset of global "quantum entanglement" if Verlinde is to be believed. "Today" this negative time foliation is a long time ago and any recent A-M will annihilate before ever getting there.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (1) Dec 31, 2016
@GoodElf
The Standard Model does strongly suggest "matter" came first and mass, which is not part of the Model, came later.
Wow. And here I thought matter was quantized mass. Must have been fooled by some misinformation campaign.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (1) Dec 31, 2016
@GoodElf
The Standard Model does strongly suggest "matter" came first and mass, which is not part of the Model, came later.
So mass is not part of the Standard Model but matter is. I get it.
GoodElf
3 / 5 (2) Dec 31, 2016
@WG & Seeker2,
Matter is certainly quantized, and "most probably" takes on the values of "mass" through "soft" spontaneous symmetry breaking dictated by the Quantum Entanglement density (which is spacetime) in our region of the Universe. More mass means more "confinement" means more Mass Density. Less mass is deconfinement is less MD. The relative mass of particles remain the same locally while the Universe expands entropically, spacetime as QE stretches like a "web". Breaking entanglement reduces mass.
So mass is not part of the Standard Model but matter is. I get it.
Yes. Standard Model does not contain "mass" as a natural feature and is tooled in with many independent variables. The standard model is actually much simpler and well understood with "no mass". But it totally ignores global entanglement. This may be a "missing piece" for the "Jigsaw". A possibility is Scale (fractal) Relativity, a "MOND" incorporating Verlinde's Entropic Gravity. "Mass" depends on scale. See Wiki
Seeker2
1 / 5 (1) Dec 31, 2016
@GoodElf
,,,the speed of particles being emitted from the Big Bang was at the speed of Light,
Well maybe the speed of neutrinos.
"spreading" into a void that was due to Bariogenesis event itself.
Particles don't really spread during baryogenesis. They bubble up you might say anywhere in the field of radiation. And the radiation field was extremely uniform as in the cosmic microwave background with some non-uniformities eventually resulting in galaxy formation. The uniformity was enforced by the speed of photon mixing. Photons didn't have far to travel to reach the ends of spacetune at that time.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (1) Dec 31, 2016
cont
Low density regions leading to galaxy formation because expanding spacetime pushes into these regions causing gravity which is what we're discovering now. Better late than never I guess. :)
Seeker2
1 / 5 (1) Dec 31, 2016
That dynamic would work for elliptical galaxies. But there's something about spinning spiral galaxies which have an even less density ring of spacetime (dark matter halo) around them. Maybe it has to do with frame dragging.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (1) Dec 31, 2016
The whole scenario depends on spacetime having a limiting (elastic) boundary. We see a whole lot of this elasticity in the warping of spacetime - gravity or the uneven expansion of spacetime. So when radiation hits that boundary it leaves a bit or so of information. It can't be absorbed by the boundary otherwise radiation mixing wound not happen. Anyway by the time radiation has done its mixing it has left some kind of a record on the spacetime boundary. So the complete history of what's happening inside the boundary is eventually encoded into bits of information on the boundary. They call it the holographic principle I believe. You could perhaps see the information encoded in layers so you could even decode event times.
GoodElf
1 / 5 (1) Jan 01, 2017
Quantum Information has "scale", so the ability to "read" QI depends on collapsing the wavefunction, at scale to read it. According to some "Einstein's Spacetime" is actual QE. Stretching spacetime is breaking QE and is "Hubble Expansion" and the entropy increase of the Universe seen from the "inside" (incr. degs. of freedom)... an anti-de Sitter (AdS) POV. From "outside the Universe" is the "de Sitter" (dS) POV. The 4 Dimensional curvature of spacetime is "Gravity" inside AdS Space, but also measures local mass density has both spatial and temporal extent. Matter's mass depends on "local" mass density. Broken symmetry allows matter to "clump" locally reducing entropy and "causes" formation of Black Holes and "particles". The boundary of "spacetime" is still "the closed but unbounded edge of the Universe" on an dS - AdS boundary. The Beckenstein Bound, White Hole - Black Hole boundary, the Fourier Space and Time vs stationary Reciprocal Space and Frequency POVs. All due to "mass".
Seeker2
1 / 5 (1) Jan 01, 2017
@GoodElf
Matter's mass depends on "local" mass density.
I thought matter was quantified. I keep getting confused on this issue.
GoodElf
1 / 5 (1) Jan 03, 2017
Verlinde does not say "gravity" does not "exist" but that it is an effect of entropy not a "separate force of nature". Classical "Systems" raise or lower energy such as making ice lowers the entropy of a quantity of liquid water because the degrees of freedom are less in ice and greater for steam. To change a systems classical state you need to do work on it. The energy is needed but is now "internal". Individual quantum states have both an exact history and current description other than just a bulk property, so the total atoms in your body (for example) are "assigned" a mean statistical value or bulk property rather than trying to describe each and every quantum state as the absolute numerical vector sum of all the motions position and momentum of all it's individual atoms, electrons, subatomic particle at all times. These internal "relative motions" are assigned "zero" in classical systems and this unavailable quantum energy is called "entropy", energy is still there but not used.
GoodElf
1 / 5 (1) Jan 03, 2017
@Seeker2
Matter's mass depends on "local" mass density... I thought matter was quantified?
The mass of a planet is not the same as the sum of the mass of all internal quantum states. It depends on the "springy stuff" of "spacetime" it "rests on". This "stuff" is raw Quantum Entanglement. The assumption is the sum of all "internal" individual quantum states is the same as the sum of whole. This is Deconstructionism. We have ignored the contribution of QE to all things beyond... to the rest of the Universe... Mach's Principle. Through QE this local property of mass depends on things nearby "a bit", but things nearby are just a small part of the total "effect of the Universe"... the bulk of this "effect" comes from far away, with everything this planet is still distantly entangled through this fabric of spacetime. While individual entanglement to a distant particle is "weak", the total effect is "vast" in every cubic centimeter of apparently "empty space". Unseen entropic energy.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (1) Jan 03, 2017
@GoodElf
The mass of a planet is not the same as the sum of the mass of all internal quantum states.
So the mass of a particle depends on its quantum state? Just checking.
GoodElf
1 / 5 (1) Jan 03, 2017
Not really according to Verlinde. A quantum particle does have a quantum state but it's mass is not an intrinsic property because it is not a separate "force", but an emergent extrinsic property of other forces. I probably mentioned at the one "spot" everything "falls" at the same rate in a "gravity field". This even includes photons even though photons have no "mass"... they still "fall". It is not due to "attraction". Bending of spacetime is caused by the mass of the rest of the Universe. As Wheeler said... "Spacetime tells matter how to move; matter tells spacetime how to curve". Still true. For example Electromagnetism is 10^39 times stronger than Gravity. Particles move "downhill" due to spacetime curvature. Hypothetically speaking... if we break all QE a body has with the rest of the Universe it loses all of it's mass derived "extrinsically". If there was a Universe with just one quantum particle (one quantum state)... it would have no mass derived from the rest of the Universe.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (1) Jan 04, 2017
@GoodElf
As Wheeler said... "Spacetime tells matter how to move; matter tells spacetime how to curve". Still true. For example Electromagnetism is 10^39 times stronger than Gravity.
You mean stronger than a supernova? Strong stuff indeed.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (1) Jan 04, 2017
cont
Here's another good quote: "Time is what keeps everything from happening at once."
GoodElf
1 / 5 (1) Jan 04, 2017
@GoodElf
For example Electromagnetism is 10^39 times stronger than Gravity.
You mean stronger than a supernova? Strong stuff indeed.
That is because a supernova is based on the "Strong Force" which is even stronger than Electromagnetism. "Gravity" is only a "fuse" used to ignite the "nuclear bomb".

Regarding Verlinde, perhaps this story might be illuminating.
Can the conflict between dark matter and gravity be resolved? Extreme Tech:
https://www.extre...s_thread
Seeker2
1 / 5 (1) Jan 04, 2017
@GoodElf
You mean stronger than a supernova? Strong stuff indeed.
That is because a supernova is based on the "Strong Force" which is even stronger than Electromagnetism...
.Of course. How could I have missed that one?
Seeker2
1 / 5 (1) Jan 04, 2017
@GoodElf
...the conflict between dark matter and gravity...
Conflict? Wow. Another one I missed.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (1) Jan 04, 2017
@GoodElf
,,.a supernova is based on the "Strong Force" which is even stronger than Electromagnetism...
Of course. How could I have missed that one?
OBTW what happens to the strong force inside a black hole? I thought the strong force was an attractive force. Maybe I got that one wrong too.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (1) Jan 04, 2017
@GoodElf
OBTW what happens to the strong force inside a black hole?
Suppose it's dissolved. Then its dissolution must be due to gravity. Get my drift?
GoodElf
1 / 5 (1) Jan 04, 2017
@Seeker2
The article is a partial summary on Verlinde's ideas.

Obviously nobody really knows what's "inside" a Black Hole... it may be a wormhole to someplace else... perhaps everywhere "out there" in the Universe connects to it thru QE. This is because QE does connect to "everything" it is entangled with instantaneously. Though it may not be an actual "traversible wormhole". We still know swat about QE except it certainly exists as "usable technology".

The Holographic Universe is a necessary part of Verlinde's Theory. Not willing to speculate further on that one. But there is a strong similarity between all "real" forces. "The Three" appear in some way to resemble each other on different scales. The "hope" is at high energy where all "three real forces" merge as one, result in an Electro-strong Unification. But according to Verlinde's Theory of "Gravity" and "Mass", is just not currently a part of this theory. Spacetime as QE holds everything together & makes it act "as one".
Seeker2
1 / 5 (1) Jan 04, 2017
@GoodElf
...Spacetime as QE holds everything together & makes it act "as one".
Really? Must be lots of it inside a black hole then.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (1) Jan 04, 2017
@GoodElf
...Spacetime as QE holds everything together & makes it act "as one".
Really? Must be lots of it inside a black hole then.
Wrong. It's outside the singularity and pushing everything together through the dark force. Counterintuitive. That's what singularity means - no spacetime.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (1) Jan 04, 2017
@GoodElf
...It's outside the singularity and pushing everything together through the dark force.
Ergo the dark force IS QE. Spacetime collects itself and everything else gets the squeeze - back to electro-strong unification. As for gravity - emergent - things get even stranger.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (1) Jan 04, 2017
cont
So gravity emerges from the collection process. Or so it seems.
GoodElf
3 / 5 (2) Jan 04, 2017
With Verlinde you look at it for his scientific worth & experimental success. There is a fair degree of both. I am not interested in opinion with this until there is additional experimental support (though "radical", some aspects successfully exceed a straightforward application of Einstein's Theory). Your term "Dark force" is not a known "Physics Item" being discussed here unless you are talking about "Darth Vader". "Black Holes" have several "theoretical" components. Nothing to be found "in" a singularity, if one ever truly exists. It is not certain that on entering a Black Hole, what or when things happen. BHs are "real" & are an entropy product of Einstein's Gravitation which fail to adequately explain the actual Rotation Curves of billions of Galaxies. That's a pretty "big & visible" problem to ignore, one of the "biggest" kinds. Verlinde provides a solution in a "quite natural" way & is a Quantum Information Theory not a Classical Theory & is a theory of "Dark Energy".
Seeker2
1 / 5 (1) Jan 04, 2017
With Verlinde you look at it for his scientific worth & experimental success.
Personally I'm looking at it for plausibility. Curvature of spacetime is an unfortunate anachronism IMO. Sure the path of light is bent but not because spacetime is curved - only because the refractive index of the medium is changed when its density is changed by gravity.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (1) Jan 04, 2017
Your term "Dark force" is not a known "Physics Item" being discussed here unless you are talking about "Darth Vader".
Now that's really a sad story. I'm thinking dark energy must be doing work meaning it is moving (actually expanding) something - spacetime - through some distance. For this to occur I believe there needs to be some applied force, call it whatever you wish. No problem here.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (1) Jan 04, 2017
"Black Holes" have several "theoretical" components. Nothing to be found "in" a singularity, if one ever truly exists.
Well no spacetime anyway. Only electro-strong unification energy.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (1) Jan 04, 2017
BHs are "real" & are an entropy product of Einstein's Gravitation which fail to adequately explain the actual Rotation Curves of billions of Galaxies.
I believe BH jets in the neighborhood of sufficient galactic dust form galaxies. Some of these BHs would have spinning jets. Jets spinning primarily on one galactic plane may be forming planar galaxies with rotation. So it should be possible for astrophysicists to determine some likely characteristics of the spin of their black holes from the form of their galaxies if this is not already being done and I'm just not aware of it. I'm just a DIY observer of astrophysics. Anyway as far as I can tell all these rotation studies have found is when you stretch out the matter distribution you also decrease its density resulting in no change in rotation rate.
GoodElf
1 / 5 (1) Jan 04, 2017
@Seeker2
"Anyway as far as I can tell all these rotation studies have found is when you stretch out the matter distribution you also decrease its density resulting in no change in rotation rate."

Correct. Stretching may be due to Universal Hubble Expansion. Spiral Galaxies all "turn" like wagon wheels with bent spokes.
It is Dark Energy but not Dark Matter. That energy is trapped in "spacetime". Naturally "energy" is basically "invisible". Some of this energy is "flywheel energy", a lot of mass spinning around there. Other energy is "elastic" energy stored in spacetime due to stretching. Because it is not currently capable of doing work for us is apparently "inert"... so called "zero point energy". Step back and this system can be seen as quantum energy stored in the evanescent field of the galaxy. See Ed Witten et al's Paper:
On the hypothesis that cosmological dark matter is composed of ultra-light bosons
https://arxiv.org...10.08297
"DM" are "big fuzzy" photons.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (1) Jan 04, 2017
@GoodElf
"Anyway as far as I can tell all these rotation studies have found is when you stretch out the matter distribution you also decrease its density resulting in no change in rotation rate."
Correct. Stretching may be due to Universal Hubble Expansion.
I believe Hubble Expansion applies to expansion between galaxies. Hubble expansion within galaxies is actually reduced because matter displaces Hubble expansion. This results in gravitational attraction between galaxies. This stretching results in what some see as dark matter filaments. So expansion of galaxies is generally attributed to a dark matter halo around the galaxy, if indeed there is such a thing as dark matter.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (1) Jan 04, 2017
So expansion of galaxies is generally attributed to a dark matter halo around the galaxy
Let's walk that back to stretching of galaxies.

Cosmologists seem to instinctively see the minute gradients in the cosmic microwave background as the source of galaxy (probably better yet BH) formation. I suppose they associate these variations to spacetime density fluctuations but generally fail to understand gravity as to be directly due to these density fluctuations and so search for other explanations in dark matter. Einstein's first cut at GR identified gravity as the negative gradient of what I would call spacetime density - others call it the metric. Anyway correlating these variations in spacetime density leading to gravitational potential wells causing galaxy formation should forego the need for dark matter IMO. We shall see.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (1) Jan 04, 2017
Hubble expansion within galaxies is actually reduced because matter displaces Hubble expansion. This results in gravitational attraction between galaxies.
Well yes but gravitational attraction is also due to the gravitational pull between potential wells observed as the minute fluctuations in the cosmic microwave background. We'll get it right yet I hope.
GoodElf
1 / 5 (1) Jan 05, 2017
@Seeker2
"I believe Hubble Expansion applies to expansion between galaxies."
Correct. Matter is also disappearing down Black Holes as well so it is also part of the overall process too. That would be a kind of adiabatic compression of quantum states. Quantum Entropy is increasing thru Hubble Expansion, the space between points everywhere is overall increasing, and Quantum Entropy is partially reduced through Black Hole quantum "compactification", matter going down the "cosmic drainhole". But QE still remains. That happens inside the core of galaxies. It is "assumed" that overall Entropy increases. "Empty" space is where the energy is mostly stored, in one sense it is all empty, there is a lot of pure "empty space" way out there and also inside matter too. If something squeezes out the "empty space" then this must reduce the overall quantum degrees of freedom.

I noticed Verlinde in his Dark Universe Paper referred to a "'dark' gravitational force", so Darth Vader is real.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (1) Jan 05, 2017
@GoodElf
Matter is also disappearing down Black Holes...
Of course. How do you think they get their gravity and hold galaxies together?
...Quantum Entropy...
You mean entropy is quantized? Just checking.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (1) Jan 06, 2017
@GoodElf
Matter is also disappearing down Black Holes...
Of course. How do you think they get their gravity and hold galaxies together?
I hear there's a sucker born every minute. What do you think?
Seeker2
1 / 5 (1) Jan 06, 2017
@Mihael
Dark matter - is not material. Its other physical properties. It existed before the Big Bang. It still exists today.
I heard 5% of dark matter has disappeared since the BB. Wonder where that was.
Anyway since it's not material it just goes poof. Makes sense actually.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (1) Jan 06, 2017
cont
Actually dark matter is variations in spacetime density. In time variations average out. Like about 5% since the BB. It's like mixing dark matter and dark anti-matter.
GoodElf
1 / 5 (1) Jan 06, 2017
@Seeker2
"You mean entropy is quantized? Just checking."
Well... quantum information is quantized as qubits. Quantum Entropy is pure quantum information loss or gain... but once "created", the information content can't be destroyed, but it can becomes irretrievably altered and "functionally unusable". Take a chicken egg, under the right conditions the quantum information in that egg can be made to form a full sized living chicken. Now boil the egg. The bulk quantum information content is the same but "scrambled" (well hard boiled actually), a chemical change, the quantum information content as qubits is lost, "projected" as "bits", is "dead", and it can't make a living chicken anymore (though it is quite tasty!). That energy in matter (the egg for example) is still there as a bird or as a hard boiled egg, but with quantum entropy the information just goes somewhere where it can't be (normally) used anymore.
GoodElf
1 / 5 (1) Jan 06, 2017
@Seeker
"I heard 5% of dark matter has disappeared since the BB. Wonder where that was.
Anyway since it's not material it just goes poof. Makes sense actually."
If "Dark Matter" is the measured phenomena shadowing the expansion of Galaxies, then this loss is due to the expansion of the Universe and the breaking of some of the "early" quantum entanglement with the rest of the Universe since the Big Bang. As I have noted above that it may one day "give way" entirely, and the current false vacuum of the Universe will instantly go "pop"... "Goodnight nurse!" They call it "The Big Rip". Or it might not... nobody knows. An alternative is the Fractal Universe of Scale Symmetric Theory. Or more and more quantum entanglement is "healing" this "rip" on a more local, smaller "Galactic" scale, as new Universes appearing inside Black Holes. It is all speculation. Verlinde is "not entirely" speculation but he is on experimental ground now.

"As Above, So Below"
Seeker2
1 / 5 (1) Jan 07, 2017
"I heard 5% of dark matter has disappeared since the BB. Wonder where that was.
Anyway since it's not material it just goes poof. Makes sense actually."
Actually expansion of the U means reduction in the force of gravity per Newton's law of gravity. So less DM would be required to account for any unexplained gravity.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (1) Jan 07, 2017
cont
Note as I understand the dark force (resulting from dark energy) is the gravitational constant in Newtonian gravity and it must remain constant to sustain exponential expansion. So a reduction in the gravitational force does not mean a reduction in the gravitational constant.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (1) Jan 07, 2017
"Verlinde's new theory of gravity passes first test"

There is no new physics predicted by Verlinde's theory so any testing will actually be a testing of GR. Verlinde only offers an alternate explanation. Now if he offers an alternate explanation for DM that would be great but nothing clicks in my mind yet.
GoodElf
1 / 5 (1) Jan 07, 2017
@Seeker2
"Verlinde's new theory of gravity passes first test"

There is no new physics predicted by Verlinde's theory so any testing will actually be a testing of GR. Verlinde only offers an alternate explanation. Now if he offers an alternate explanation for DM that would be great but nothing clicks in my mind yet.
We have probably exhausted this topic for now. With one qualification, you may need to examine Verlinde's "Dark Universe" Paper, arXiv:1611.02269, and you will be able to assess the possibility of new Physics. This "simple" test leads to not so simple conclusions. For example the information content of any spherical volume of space is massively and redundantly "over-specified" in current alternative models of our Universe. There is no doubt in my mind that if true, will lead to radically different Physics in the longer term. Any "Holographic Theory" or it's "temporal" aspects will lead to a "big change" both technically and philosophically.
Cheers for now.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (1) Jan 07, 2017
@GoodElf
Any "Holographic Theory" or it's "temporal" aspects will lead to a "big change" both technically and philosophically.
Really? Anything measureable? Hope springs eternal I guess.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (1) Jan 09, 2017
Per https://en.m.wiki...gravity, Newtonian gravity is derived from entropic gravity. But at arXiv:1611.02269 p. 15 we find: "We propose that this force leads to the excess gravity that is currently attributed to dark matter." Doesn't sound like Newtonian gravity to me. Help!
Seeker2
1 / 5 (1) Jan 09, 2017
cont
I think Verlinde started out looking for silver but he found gold instead. Which would be indicated by the title of the paper - Emergent Gravity and the Dark Universe :(
Seeker2
1 / 5 (1) Jan 09, 2017
In other words
...at arXiv:1611.02269 p. 15 we find:...
,,,a much better explanation than mine for Newtonian gravity but not much help on dark matter.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (1) Jan 10, 2017
In other words ...at arXiv:1611.02269 p. 15 we find:...a much better explanation than mine for Newtonian gravity but not much help on dark matter.
Let's walk that back just a tad. As I understand entropic gravity matter reduces entanglement to produce the gravitational force. Now is this the only possible reason for some reduction in entanglement? In other words in the absence of matter would entanglement be perfectly uniform? Is anything in the macroscopic world perfectly uniform? I think not. And the result appears as gravity which we can't explain without matter so we call it dark matter. I'd think there may be some other reason and we need to look for it in its pattern of formation.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (1) Jan 10, 2017
cont
So speculation raises its ugly head again in the field of astrophysics. Probably not the last time either.
savvys84
not rated yet Jan 12, 2017
Wow. And here I thought matter was quantized mass. Must have been fooled by some misinformation campaign

no you were not fooled. matter is quantized mass. watch
https://www.youtu...g68VE-Ys
Seeker2
not rated yet Jan 14, 2017
Per https://en.m.wiki...gravity, Newtonian gravity is derived from entropic gravity. But at arXiv:1611.02269 p. 15 we find: "We propose that this force leads to the excess gravity that is currently attributed to dark matter." Doesn't sound like Newtonian gravity to me. Help!
Ok. Newtonian gravity gets stronger in the outer regions of galaxies because there is less visible mass to reduce the dark energy density from which gravity emerges. So we do have a testable prediction which has been confirmed in this first test.
AmritSorli
5 / 5 (1) Jan 21, 2017
gravity has origin in variable energy density of quantum vacuum.
Seeker2
not rated yet Jan 21, 2017
@Da Schneib
Verlinde's idea may not preclude the existence and eventual detection of gravitons. It may, instead, *explain* them.
Someone asked him about gravitons in a video I watched. He said gravitational waves were actually phonons in spacetime.
Seeker2
not rated yet Jan 21, 2017
@Goodelf
I don't think spacetime is stretchier. I think it's just stretched. Or warped. Or twisted. Or compressed in the case of mass.
I take that back about mass stretching spacetime. Matter displaces spacetime. Since spacetime is expanding the pressure of expansion in regions of matter is reduced. This difference in pressure between regions of different spacetime density is what I see as gravity. Just for the record.
nikola_milovic_378
Feb 01, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
nikola_milovic_378
Feb 01, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
nikola_milovic_378
Feb 01, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.