Gravity defies the standard model; a new approach (Introduction)

by David Turell @, Friday, January 22, 2010, 16:24 (5215 days ago)

The following article presents a new approach to a theory of gravity, suggesting how it might emerge:-http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20527443.800-the-entropy-force-a-new-direction-for-gravity.html

Gravity defies the standard model; a new approach

by xeno6696 @, Sonoran Desert, Saturday, January 23, 2010, 01:12 (5215 days ago) @ David Turell

The following article presents a new approach to a theory of gravity, suggesting how it might emerge:
> 
> http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20527443.800-the-entropy-force-a-new-direction-fo... see what wins out--I have no idea the current experimental status of Seth Lloyd's ideas--this guy's sounds an awful lot like Seth's. Maybe we're watching two dogs chasing the same thing. Either way, it certainly sounds more promising than String Theory.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

Gravity defies the standard model; a new approach

by George Jelliss ⌂ @, Crewe, Sunday, January 24, 2010, 11:44 (5214 days ago) @ David Turell

This looks good! But it's not going to make dhw happy:-Quote: Then, using statistics to consider all possible movements of the small mass and the energy changes involved, Verlinde finds movements toward the bigger mass are thermodynamically more likely than others. This effect can be seen as a net force pulling both masses together. Physicists call this an entropic force, as it originates in the most likely changes in information content.-It's all down to chance, dhw's bugbear.

--
GPJ

Gravity defies the standard model; a new approach

by dhw, Monday, January 25, 2010, 11:56 (5213 days ago) @ George Jelliss

George quotes Verlinde's new approach to explaining gravity, and for some reason finishes his quote:-"It's all down to chance, dhw's bugbear."-First of all, dhw's bugbear is not chance. Dhw's bugbear is people who insist that certain so far unexplained phenomena are the product of chance when they have no evidence of this other than their own faith in materialism. (Well, no, let's not go overboard. I really enjoy my discussions with you, George, and I have just as much respect for your personal faith as I do for David's, BBella's, Frank's and Mark's. It would be nice if you were able to show them similar respect.)-Secondly, the new approach has not yet even reached theory status. -Thirdly, even if/when it does, how will that prove that it's all down to chance? I'm reminded of someone who held the opposite faith to yours, and was equally confident that he was right:-"Gravity explains the motion of the planets, but it cannot explain who set the planets in motion."-His name was Isaac Newton.

RSS Feed of thread
powered by my little forum