|
|
Woland Special user 680 Posts |
You think?
Quote:
A few month's ago, Erik Verlinde at the the University of Amsterdam put forward one such idea which has taken the world of physics by storm. Verlinde suggested that gravity is merely a manifestation of entropy in the Universe. His idea is based on the second law of thermodynamics, that entropy always increases over time. It suggests that differences in entropy between parts of the Universe generates a force that redistributes matter in a way that maximises entropy. This is the force we call gravity. |
Pakar Ilusi Inner circle 5777 Posts |
Wow..
I just felt stupid. I did not understand that. Well may the Force be with you. Gravity that is.
"Dreams aren't a matter of Chance but a matter of Choice." -DC-
|
Magnus Eisengrim Inner circle Sulla placed heads on 1053 Posts |
Anyone on the Café competent enough to have an opinion on this? I think the story is about a year old now. I certainly don't know enough physics to say anything about Verlinde's idea.
For those who like such things, here is Verlinde's paper. John
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned; The best lack all conviction, while the worst Are full of passionate intensity.--Yeats |
MobilityBundle Regular user Las Vegas/Boston 120 Posts |
I've skimmed this paper a bit. I'm a mathematician with some passing familiarity (but by no means great expertise) in the more advanced physics topics of the paper -- namely, the holography principle and AdS/CFT correspondence. So all I can really offer is high-level thoughts.
The result of the paper is intriguing, though by no means groundbreaking. In fact, it may even be unsurprising. By way of background, there's a "deep thought" in physics called holography. (The phrase doesn't refer literally to actual, physical holograms, but rather refers to an analogous phenomenon at a more abstract level). The details of holography aren't particularly important. The important part is that the holography idea originally was obtained as a *consequence* of "normal" physics. Here, "normal" physics includes things like the existence of space, and the physics of gravity. The author of this paper reverses the logical hierarchy of things. Rather than assuming anything about the physics of gravity, or even the existence of space, he assumes holography as a first principle. He is then able to recover the existence of space and the physics of gravity as a consequence, using reasoning similar to classical thermodynamics. (Except, instead of heat being the conserved quantity as in thermodynamics, information is the conserved quantity.) In a sense, this kind of thing is unsurprising... mathematicians do it all the time. In fact, there's a field called "reverse mathematics" where this is the central question. (Mathematics takes postulates and proves theorems. Reverse mathematics takes theorems and asks what postulates are necessary to prove the chosen theorems.) In any case, that's my high-level read. Hope that moves the ball a little bit. |
Jonathan Townsend Eternal Order Ossining, NY 27297 Posts |
Quote:
s incorrect oscilations will devolve central locallities by magnesium dialoguing instrumental delusions gravity centrals by harmonic periods that reconstruct Undefined locations to correct universal corrections this is defined ordr to chaotic parralleling unifed order stream of genetic parradoxies thus transmitting an orderly motion to emotional constraints by the periodic system replinished by nothing and nothingness of hyphonics perionics and omnivasions for triumphantly osmic solar perplexing the bubble elastic membrains of general flaws parralelling the members of undefined solid malnurished genetic parralels http://scientificstrings.blogspot.co... I didn't do it. I swear. My brother, six years younger, has shown an ability to do that kind of babbling though. And don't go blaming it on being half Irish.
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
Jonathan Townsend Eternal Order Ossining, NY 27297 Posts |
@MobilityBundle I recall some connecting of gravity, NRQM and information by way of Fred Kantor's Information Mechanics. That then Wheeler's "it from bit" approach make this latest announcement seem less than novel.
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
Magnus Eisengrim Inner circle Sulla placed heads on 1053 Posts |
Quote:
On 2011-01-07 15:11, MobilityBundle wrote: Thank you. That is a nicely lucid summary. John
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned; The best lack all conviction, while the worst Are full of passionate intensity.--Yeats |
ringmaster Inner circle Memphis, Down in Dixie 1974 Posts |
Quote: Has this been published in a peer reviewed journal ?On 2010-12-29 18:08, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
One of the last living 10-in-one performers. I wanted to be in show business the worst way, and that was it.
|
MobilityBundle Regular user Las Vegas/Boston 120 Posts |
@Jonathan Townsend,
I actually haven't heard of Kantor or Information Mechanics prior to your post. After a little investigation, it seems (at least to a first approximation) in line with a philosophy called "Digital Physics." See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_physics I'm vaguely familiar with the ideas, although not so familiar with specific results. But you're right, the Verlinde paper cited above seems to be in this ideological camp, from what I can tell. Story time: When I was a student, I was extremely enthusiastic about problems like this. I was attracted to problems that dealt with fundamental questions, like the nature or limits of the physical universe, the nature or limits of mathematics, etc. Separately but relatedly, I also really liked abstract stuff. I just got a kick out of studying things that were esoteric. Then some time in grad school, I took an unexpected and violent 180 degree turn. Over a very short period of time (on the order of a few weeks), I became less interested in, then uninterested in, then repulsed by, then almost disgusted at esoteric or abstract topics. I went back to enjoying explicit computations instead of slick existential proofs or other "deep thoughts." And then a short time after that, I called it quits in mathematics entirely and just went to law school. I'm a little better now. The deep, abstract, esoteric stuff doesn't bother me as much. But I'm still kind of a practical guy, so I don't take too much note of this stuff, interesting though it may be. |
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » Newtonian Lawsa of Gravity Emerge From Entropy (0 Likes) |
[ Top of Page ] |
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.03 seconds requiring 5 database queries. |
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic. > Privacy Statement < |