Is Entropic Gravity the Future of Physics?

[Fra]

A new Mathematical framework (less rigid) is than needed, maybe something transcending nowadays mathematics ?..

Yes, exactly.

That's not to say we don't need mathematics. It just means that we can't expect to view physics as a timeless axiomatic system. It would rather have to be an evolving axiomatic systems, where axioms can be created and destroyed.

Essentially some intelligent learning framework.

/Fredrik

 

[friend]

A new Mathematical framework (less rigid) is than needed, maybe something transcending nowadays mathematics ?..

If mathematics can be derived from logic, then you'd have to transcend reason (logic) in order to transcend mathematics. I assume that whatever ultimate laws of physics are, they are reasonable, consistent, and logical. It remains to see how to describe the logical laws of physics with the use of mathematics.

 

[Fra]

If mathematics can be derived from logic, then you'd have to transcend reason (logic) in order to transcend mathematics. I assume that whatever ultimate laws of physics are, they are reasonable, consistent, and logical. It remains to see how to describe the logical laws of physics with the use of mathematics.

As ET Jaynes phrased it, probability theory is an extension of logic, and a basis for rational reasoning.

Also two systems can reason perfectly rational, from their perspective, yet enter into a mutual inconsistency. This inconsistency we can classify as an interaction between the two. But the classification of the interactions is also observer dependent, as the inconsistency will be described differently depending on the context. There is no perfect external view.

The main problem as I see it, is that "logical inferences" or "rational inferences" are in fact not unique or objective. There are different possible mathematical models. WE need to consider the physical process wherby the axioms are CHOSEN, only then may we see that they aren't chosen randomly from an infinite set of possible axioms, they have evolved as constructively emerging self-preserving structures. (analog to biology)

This is why I don't think it's viable to think of mathematical descriptions as timeless or objective, because there seems to be no rational basis for that expectation. The remaining option seems to be to look for an evolving system of interacting "logical systems", where each logical system represents an observer or subsystem of the universe.

/Fredrik

 

[John86]

Does evolution by your means always incorporates growing complexity in the sense that at some moment there must be some starting point, where the evolution or cutoff moment starts.

Or is it tree like where branches seperating

 

[Fra]

Does evolution by your means always incorporates growing complexity in the sense that at some moment there must be some starting point, where the evolution or cutoff moment starts.

If we picture observers or arbitrary complexity, then the evolution I envision has to include mechanism for increasing, as well as decreasing complexity. I picture this process closely related to generation of mass.

In the gaming analogies, this can be assocaited to how one player, by beeing more clever and sometimes also having luck, can conquer control over it's environment and "grow" in it's quest for self-preservation.

It's this mechanis, where two systems try to conquer each othre that is responsible for the attractive force of gravit in my view. Their constant communication makes the information distance between them shrink, and thus the distance in between them shrinks.

But evolution process isn't just the complexity. When the complexity has reached a steady state for a given observer, there is still an ongoing evolution which can be interpreted as a redisposition and remapping of available resources.

So, no it does not always increase complexity, as in an monotonous increasing function. That would make no sense. The point is that complexity growth or decreasing are very SLOW processes as compared to the redisposition processes. this is why on a short time scale, these "gravitational like" effects can be accounted for my constants.

Edit: In my picture the PART of evolution having to do with scaling complexity, is the thing that I associated closests to "gravity". The part of evolution that is superimposed ontop on, or taking place within the constant complexity domain, are what I associate to the other forces (non-gravitational ones). Still I'm quite convinced that even the understanding of the forces, in particular their unification, requires an analysis of also the complexity scaling processes. Most certainly, something closely related to, or even exactly equivalent to Quantum mechanics as we know it, is the result when complexity is frozen. But this is clearly a special case, and interesting insight await if we understand the general case.

/Fredrik

 

[John86]

Thank you, very illuminating, i'ts what i wanted to hear.

I hope these idea will be worked out in the near future, it will have impact how we think of nature.

 

[dantsmith]

It appears to me that Verlinde is headed in the direction of idealism, not to mention the Strong version of the Anthropic principle.

[BTW, is there likely to be a more active discussion of Erik, than on this forum?]

I'm a bit surprised that this discussion already seems to have died down. I only learned of his arXiv paper a few days ago, after reading the recent NYT review.

I can easily understand why the physics community is taking a wary approach to his radical ideas. It goes strongly against the Pythagorean/Platonic dispositions of most of my former colleagues, that being one reason why I left the field, in pursuit of a stronger take on anthropics. No until Erik, have I seen such support from physics.

I am more than a bit concerned that if I make too much of Erik's idea(lism) that it may only serve to foment more resistance, but be that as it may.

To use another dirty-word, might he not also be seen as a post-modern Newton?

Do we not recall the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair" ? It would seem that Verlinde constitutes a partial reprise of that affair, even down to the dialectic, but this time the dialectic is more after the mode of Hegel than of Marx.




(cont.)

 

[MTd2]

Idealism in Erik's gravity? I don't get it.

 

[marcus]

It appears to me that Verlinde is headed in the direction of idealism, not to mention the Strong version of the Anthropic principle.

[BTW, is there likely to be a more active discussion of Erik, than on this forum?]

I'm a bit surprised that this discussion already seems to have died down. I only learned of his arXiv paper a few days ago, after reading the recent NYT review.

Dan, a lot of people when they use words like Strong Anthropic, they are heading into a relgious discussion and they have in mind things like God and Intelligent Design.

I don't think there is much new in what Verlinde has offered so far. More hype than substance. Much of what he is making noise about was covered already by Jacobson (1995) and Padmanabhan.
I don't think there is any "Strong Anthropery" in what Verlinde is publicizing. That would be very much your own spin.

I can easily understand why the physics community is taking a wary approach to his very radical ideas. It goes very strongly against the Pythagorean/Platonic dispositions of most of my former colleagues, that being one reason why I left the field, in pursuit of a stronger take on anthropics. Not until Erik, have I seen such support from physics.

I am more than a bit concerned that if I make too much of Erik's idea(lism) that I may only, be fomenting more resistance, but be that as it may.
(cont.)

Sounds like delusion, Dan. Erik Verlinde is not "supporting" your "pursuit of a stronger take on anthropics". He is just stirring up hype for a not-too-radical career leap.

AFAICS there is no need for you to be concerned about "fomenting more resistance". I could be wrong but I doubt anything you could say would change physicists' views of Verlinde's initiative.

Don't get me wrong. Except in the media and popularization department Verlinde is a minor player, he represents the overcrowding in the current string doldrums, and the need felt by stranded theorists to find something new to be enthusiastic about. They are looking for bridges out of main core string. But that said, the thermodynamic study of gravity is, I think, highly important. Specifically, the thermodynamics of spacetime geometry.
This is what people like Jacobson and Padmanabhan have written seminal papers about. I expect research in this to grow and get quite interesting over the next 5 years or so.

 

[dantsmith]

Marcus,

Thank you for your prompt and thoughtful response.

Yes, it is true that I left the groves of physics for the loftier climes of metaphysics, and have only been lurking down here, since.

Now, I do not wish to make a nuisance of myself, in a very academically inclined venue, BUT, I might be able to make a few useful, interesting, and even amusing, observations, that are triggered, in part, by poor Erik's attempt to achieve a semblance of notoriety and/or job security, although these do seem like conflicting motives.

But first, I have been scrounging in the philosophy and religion forums looking for a place to discuss alternative cosmologies, with very little success. I have been active mainly at something called Open Minds forum for the last several years, to which I will return, after testing other waters.
---------------------

Upon further inspection, perhaps I should head over to the philosophy section and start a thread there...

Again, Marcus, thank you for your polite and thoughtful reception to a newbie!

 

[marcus]

...
Upon further inspection, perhaps I should head over to the philosophy section and start a thread there...

That's not a bad idea. I see you now have done so!
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=417688
Good luck with it!

 

[jaquecusto]

I wonder if it is possible to conceive a cosmic machine, capable of running without gravity, using only tested physical concepts. For example, a planet is attracted by a star by the Bernoulli effect.

 

[John86]

I found this update by Johannes Koelman today.
Erik Verlinde is working o a new paper about Entropic Gravity !.


http://www.science20.com/hammock_physicist/blog/entropic_gravity_snatches_spinoza_prize-79902