- #1
- 14,373
- 6,866
This seems to be a strong argument against the Verlinde proposal that gravity is an entropic force:
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/1004.0877
What do you think?
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/1004.0877
What do you think?
MTd2 said:...the fundamental quantity for gravity is entropy, not temperature.
That is certainly wrong. A system out of thermal equilibrium does not have a temperature, but still has an entropy. Of course, one should distinguish thermodynamic entropy from a more general notion of statistical entropy.vacuumcell said:but my understanding is that any physical system with entropy must also have temperature and vice versa.
They were probably not aware of the paper above. In fact, this paper perhaps did not even exist when they said what they said.Naty1 said:Here is a NY Times review of Verlinde's theory:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/13/science/13gravity.html?_r=1&8dpc
Lots of comments from other physicsts...but I did not see anyone claiming the idea is "dead".
Starting from rst principles and general assumptions Newton's law of gravitation is shown to arise naturally and unavoidably in a theory in which space is emergent through a holographic scenario. Gravity is explained as an entropic force caused by changes in the information associated with the positions of material bodies. A relativistic generalization of the presented arguments directly leads to the Einstein equations. When space is emergent even Newton's law of inertia needs to be explained. The equivalence principle leads us to conclude that it is actually this law of inertia whose origin is entropic.
Demystifier said:They were probably not aware of the paper above. In fact, this paper perhaps did not even exist when they said what they said.
The NY article seemed much more pessimistic than that paper. People there simply didn't acknoledge there was any clear idea behind Verlinde. Even he somehow acknoledged that.
rod_worth said:"CAN THE HOLOGRAPHIC PRINCIPLE EXIST AND/OR BE CORRECT WITHOUT A STRING THEORY AND/OR QUANTUM GRAVITY INTERPRETATION OF IT?"
MTd2 said:Looks like so. If gravity is just a side effect of entropy, looking for a quantum theory of gravity is just wrong, or so it seems. So, no to string theory or LQG.
MTd2 said:Well, trying to quantize gravity does not make sense in this case, much less using string theory. He could mean try to quantize space time, without gravity, but that is not string theory, I think...
ensabah6 said:IF so then is quantizing it a viable project?
ensabah6 said:in GR there are gravitational waves and in QM where there are waves there are particles.
rod_worth said:"CAN THE HOLOGRAPHIC PRINCIPLE EXIST AND/OR BE CORRECT WITHOUT A STRING THEORY AND/OR QUANTUM GRAVITY INTERPRETATION OF IT?"
"CAN THE HOLOGRAPHIC PRINCIPLE EXIST AND/OR BE CORRECT WITHOUT A STRING THEORY
MTd2 said:If gravity is just a side effect of entropy, looking for a quantum theory of gravity is just wrong, or so it seems. So, no to ... LQG.
marcus said:Huh? Smolin's January 2010 paper deriving Newton from LQG in Verlinde's manner.
Showed LQG can provide a basis for the "entropic force" picture of Newtonian gravity.
So as far as we know LQG is compatible with Verlinde's derivation of Newton.
LQG and allied QG approaches are about geometry. For geometry to have entropy it MUST have microscopic degrees of freedom. This opens up a big field of investigation (where Loop is already an active program) namely what are the underlying degrees of freedom of geometric relationships. String researchers can be expected to follow suit.
Focus on spatial measurements like area and volume, not on "fundamental force" or "gravitons". The spin networks of LQG are the eigenvectors of the area and volume observables. So you are looking at a clear bid for the role of underlying DoF.
Of course different depictions, or pictorializations, are not necessarily exclusive. Feynman pointed out that your picture of quantum reality simply indicates how you plan to calculate. Rovelli expressed similar view. Two pictures/calculations can be compatible if leading to the same expectation values, same operator spectra.
Showed LQG can provide a basis for the "entropic force" picture of Newtonian gravity.
marcus said:Huh? Smolin's January 2010 paper deriving Newton from LQG in Verlinde's manner.
Showed LQG can provide a basis for the "entropic force" picture of Newtonian gravity.
MTd2 said:Verlinde said that there is no gravity in the NYT article.
marcus said:Huh? Smolin's January 2010 paper deriving Newton from LQG in Verlinde's manner.
Showed LQG can provide a basis for the "entropic force" picture of Newtonian gravity.
So as far as we know LQG is compatible with Verlinde's derivation of Newton.
LQG and allied QG approaches are about geometry. For geometry to have entropy it MUST have microscopic degrees of freedom. This opens up a big field of investigation (where Loop is already an active program) namely what are the underlying degrees of freedom of geometric relationships. String researchers can be expected to follow suit.
Focus on spatial measurements like area and volume, not on "fundamental force" or "gravitons". The spin networks of LQG are the eigenvectors of the area and volume observables. So you are looking at a clear bid for the role of underlying DoF.
Of course different depictions, or pictorializations, are not necessarily exclusive. Feynman pointed out that your picture of quantum reality simply indicates how you plan to calculate. Rovelli expressed similar view. Two pictures/calculations can be compatible if leading to the same expectation values, same operator spectra.
ensabah6 said:Verlinde's argument requires the holographic principle. Is there a well stated version of this in LQG?...
marcus said:The aim of Verlinde was not to derive inflation. It was simply to derive Newton gravity. A much simplified approximation to GR (the framework in which inflation is normally formulated). If the picture Verlinde used to derive Newton happens to run into trouble when you try to force inflation into it, so what? What is the big deal? It is just a derivation of Newton.
atyy said:...
And Li and Pang claim a no-go for the derivation of the Einstein equations http://arxiv.org/abs/1004.0877 : "we prove that it is impossible to find a proper new definition of temperature to derive the Einstein equations."
Of course, the deep relation between gravity and thermodynamics is not in question, regardless of Verlinde's claim.
...
Of course, the deep relation between gravity and thermodynamics is not in question, regardless of Verlinde's claim.
MTd2 said:Marcus, the NYT is more recent than his paper, so I suppose he has a clearer picture on his mind. If he just says that there is no gravity, it means there is no gravity to quantize. So, it looks like one should look for how quantized fields affect space-time and forget quantum gravity.
marcus said:In any case, if you seriously credit the idea that one should not quantize geometry, then you must be willing to make predictions. Perhaps you would like to predict a decline in QG publication/cites. And an increase in research where one looks at "how quantum fields affect classical geometry".
marcus said:research where one looks at "how quantum fields affect classical geometry".