Skip to content
Back to the collection

On the Origin of Gravity and the Laws of Newton

Erik P. Verlinde

2010 · arXiv

Read the paper
HN score
1.5
Mentions
7
Readers
7
Months
4
What’s in a score?

From the abstract

Starting from first 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.

Metadata: arXiv. Abstracts retain their original authors’ rights.

In the conversation

Original HN comments, with labels from simple text rules. A label describes the whole comment and may miss context or irony. Read the discussion to make up your own mind. About the labels

7 selected excerpts · 7 total mentions

mikhailfranco
Strong recommendation · rule
As referenced in the paper, Verlinde proposed that gravity is an entropic force: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropic_gravity I highly recommend Verlinde's brilliant paper, it's an easy read: http://arxiv.org/abs/1001.0785 The theory remains controversial, but it's a valuable attempt to put holographic principles center stage.
DonaldFisk
Neutral mention · rule
He's well-qualified. His background is in string theory. His theory is described in this paper: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1001.0785v1.pdf And the Wikipedia article about it is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropic_gravity It's argued here that there's observational evidence against it: https://www.technologyreview.com/s/425220/experiments-show-g... I'm not familiar with the areas of physics the theory draws on. I am familiar with General Relativity, which agrees very well with observations, and (I think) makes fewer assumptions.
davidweir
Neutral mention · rule
Useful to note that parent's Ref. 0 has been peer-reviewed and is published in JHEP, a respectable high energy physics journal. Sadly, articles like those linked often do not check the authors' credentials or whether the research being summarised has been successfully published somewhere rather than just put on the arXiv. The BBC (and possibly others) go further, asking rival or independent researchers to comment on new work; this approach (check for peer review and also seeking critical comment from third parties) should be the expected standard in scientific news reporting for a lay audience. DOI link: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/JHEP04(2011)029
Original comment Parent story unavailable in snapshot
claudius
Neutral mention · rule
Original paper at [0], some corrections/comments at [1,2]. [3] argues that the proposed new ideas and the classical (Newtonian, If I understood this correctly) concept of gravity are actually identical, given suitable identifications of various entities. [0] http://arxiv.org/abs/1001.0785 [1] http://arxiv.org/abs/1012.5858 [2] http://arxiv.org/abs/1002.3876 [3] http://arxiv.org/abs/1003.1015
hammock
Neutral mention · rule
Gravitons are the kookiest theoretical particle I have ever heard of. I had an intuition that they were kooky and contrived when I first heard of them as a child, and now that I know more about them and gravity, I have even more disbelief in them. Why people still believe in them I will never know. Here's the latest thing I have seen, btw: http://arxiv.org/abs/1001.0785 Pop science interpretation of it: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/13/science/13gravity.html
Maro
Neutral mention · rule
Original paper (degree in Physics needed): http://arxiv.org/abs/1001.0785 Discusion of the paper: http://badphysics.wordpress.com/2010/01/11/%E2%80%9Con-the-o... Reply(s) by the author, Verlinde: http://staff.science.uva.nl/~erikv/page20/page18/page18.html

Keep following the thread.

More in Physics

More from the same topics.