Physicist proposes new theory of gravity, arguig that gravity doesn't exist(epochtim.es)
epochtim.es
Physicist proposes new theory of gravity, arguig that gravity doesn't exist
http://epochtim.es/eA2
9 comments
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
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
Submission from a lousy, link-baiting source with no informative details. This doesn't really belong on Hacker News, as this is not news, nor does it "gratify curiosity."
See also this (much better) interview with the same guy: http://bigthink.com/videos/gravity-doesnt-exist
I was almost convinced this was a spoof of "Physicist proposes new way to think about intelligence." Not only is the title nearly the same, but both are essentially boiling the subject down to entropy.
And both are firmly within crackpot territory.
> This may be why astronomers often find it difficult to explain gravitational movement’s of distant celestial bodies and have to introduce the concept of “dark matter” to help balance the equations.
This is not really accurate. While it could well be that our understanding of gravity is not complete at very large scales, it's unlikely at this that dark matter and dark energy are artifacts of our models.
>“We’ve known for a long time gravity doesn’t exist,” Dr. Verlinde said, “It’s time to yell it.”
At this point there is no compelling evidence in favor of that theory. This would also mean that General Relativity is wrong, which is unlikely given the mountain of observational data in favor of it.
> This may be why astronomers often find it difficult to explain gravitational movement’s of distant celestial bodies and have to introduce the concept of “dark matter” to help balance the equations.
This is not really accurate. While it could well be that our understanding of gravity is not complete at very large scales, it's unlikely at this that dark matter and dark energy are artifacts of our models.
>“We’ve known for a long time gravity doesn’t exist,” Dr. Verlinde said, “It’s time to yell it.”
At this point there is no compelling evidence in favor of that theory. This would also mean that General Relativity is wrong, which is unlikely given the mountain of observational data in favor of it.
When someone proposes something wrong in a field where they are validly an expert, they are simply wrong, not a crackpot. The man has 70 peer reviewed publications in theoretical physics:
http://staff.science.uva.nl/~erikv/page1/page1.html
http://staff.science.uva.nl/~erikv/page1/page1.html
Whether the guy is an authority or not, it's still exceedingly unlikely this hypothesis is correct. And yes, papers "proving Einstein wrong" are usually crackpot material. What that guy published in the past is not the subject here.
Papers that question Einstein are just science. That is the core of the scientific method - to keep refining the models, improving our knowledge and question everything. And yes, even Einstein. Those papers might turn out to be wrong, but not because they were trying to disprove Einstein.
Those "scientist" who believe that Einstein's theories are infallible, cannot call themselves scientists. They are just believers in a different kind of a religion.
Those "scientist" who believe that Einstein's theories are infallible, cannot call themselves scientists. They are just believers in a different kind of a religion.
I think you misunderstood my comment.
All of the observational data in favor of general relativity is also in favor of Verlinde's entropic gravity, since the former can be derived from the latter.
Let's say for one moment that was true, which is anything but certain. How is that hypothesis testable?
I'm not sure I understand your question. If the general relativity can be derived from another, broader theoretical framework, there's no need to test anything. It's just math.
Now you have to test the predictions of the new framework, that relativity did not touch.
Now you have to test the predictions of the new framework, that relativity did not touch.
I've always found it a far more compelling argument that gravity is a side effect of time dilation due to the greater informational and interactive density brought about by matter.
Epoch Times is known as the paper associated with the Falun Gong movement, casting doubt on its integrity and credibility.
I'm sure you can find stronger evidence than "associated with Falun Gong movement." Outside of the PRC, they are considered just another belief system and hardly considered a cult.
It's fairly relevant when it comes to reporting issues associated with China. The paper is known to be biased and sensationalist, that would impact its credibility.
Actually not towing the party's line on anything automatically lends the paper some credibility that may not be justified. Such is the mistrust for the PRC propaganda machine.
I'm not saying that your conclusion isn't true, but you don't need to use loaded evidence to get there.
I'm not saying that your conclusion isn't true, but you don't need to use loaded evidence to get there.
So gravity doesn't exist or gravity is more complex than we thought? Can someone explain it? Thanks.
Put succinitly, it is idea is that gravity is not a fundamental force, but emerging property of a more fundamental force and if I'm not mistaken its entropy.
[deleted]
He's saying that gravity is an emergent property, just like temperature or the marble in a stack of envelopes.
A lot of hand waving. Not so many concrete results.
I must say this is a tasteless comment:
Gravity must exist...my crap falls in the toilet every time! Amazing!
Gravity must exist...my crap falls in the toilet every time! Amazing!
[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