Is Gravity Real? A Scientist Takes On Newton
nytimes.com
Is Gravity Real? A Scientist Takes On Newton
1–10 of 30 posts
Re: Is Gravity Real? A Scientist Takes On Newton
#2I would like to respectfully say that this article is only superficially appealing and therefore not proper for HN. This is just a hypothesis without mathematical basis. All you really need to read is the last few paragraphs to see that there isn't any mathematical rigor to it. This is a whole article about speculation about gravity, and it wastes a lot of time trying to hype up a physicist that won't flush out his math.
Re: Is Gravity Real? A Scientist Takes On Newton
#3I would like to respectfully say that this article is only superficially appealing and therefore not proper for HN. This is just a hypothesis without mathematical basis. All you really need to read is the last few paragraphs to see that there isn't any mathematical rigor to it. This is a whole article about speculation about gravity, and it wastes a lot of time trying to hype up a physicist that won't flush out his m…
I haven't had a chance to go through the paper yet (http://arxiv.org/abs/1001.0785), but it seems that he does make some derivations and proof sketches. Can someone verify this?
Re: Is Gravity Real? A Scientist Takes On Newton
#4I haven't read the Verlinde paper, but wanted to mention one of the papers it apparently builds on. That's Ted Jacobson's remarkable paper showing that gravity is a consequence of (1) thermodynamics and (2) the black hole entropy law. The paper is http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9504004
Sabine Hossenfelder has some useful comments on Verlinde's work here: http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2010/03/gravity-is-entropy-...
Re: Is Gravity Real? A Scientist Takes On Newton
#5I would like to respectfully say that this article is only superficially appealing and therefore not proper for HN. This is just a hypothesis without mathematical basis. All you really need to read is the last few paragraphs to see that there isn't any mathematical rigor to it. This is a whole article about speculation about gravity, and it wastes a lot of time trying to hype up a physicist that won't flush out his m…
I haven't had a chance to go through the paper yet ( http://arxiv.org/abs/1001.0785 ), but it seems that he does make some derivations and proof sketches. Can someone verify this?
I got through page 11 before loosing the plot, and it seems to be a very light mathematical treatment of the subject. More of a "what if we thought about it this way?" then a "here's the proof" type paper.
Re: Is Gravity Real? A Scientist Takes On Newton
#6Earlier quoted context omitted.
I haven't had a chance to go through the paper yet ( http://arxiv.org/abs/1001.0785 ), but it seems that he does make some derivations and proof sketches. Can someone verify this?
I got through page 11 before loosing the plot, and it seems to be a very light mathematical treatment of the subject. More of a "what if we thought about it this way?" then a "here's the proof" type paper.
Relativity started with "what if we thought about it this way?". Just saying.
Re: Is Gravity Real? A Scientist Takes On Newton
#7Earlier quoted context omitted.
I got through page 11 before loosing the plot, and it seems to be a very light mathematical treatment of the subject. More of a "what if we thought about it this way?" then a "here's the proof" type paper.
Relativity started with "what if we thought about it this way?". Just saying.
Yeah part of the process, because of this new paper someone might get an idea they wouldn't have had to expand upon it.
You see articles stating that something broke the laws of physics when really it just didn't fit our current model of understanding.
Re: Is Gravity Real? A Scientist Takes On Newton
#8We are at a point where belief in a god is probably at an all time low due to our greater understanding of science without the basics being to complex. Gravity is currently a simple enough concept that most people can understand it in a local context.
It will be interesting to see if in the future it is found that the laws of nature are much more complex than most of us can comprehend do more people again proclaim a god as the answer. Of course it could go the other way and we find nice formulas to better describe the universe.
Re: Is Gravity Real? A Scientist Takes On Newton
#9I haven't read the Verlinde paper, but wanted to mention one of the papers it apparently builds on. That's Ted Jacobson's remarkable paper showing that gravity is a consequence of (1) thermodynamics and (2) the black hole entropy law. The paper is http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9504004 Sabine Hossenfelder has some useful comments on Verlinde's work here: http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2010/03/gravity-is-entropy-...
You can also get more links from Verlinde himself http://twitter.com/erikverlinde but as he twitts
Tomorrow I have to teach. Third year students. They also want to hear about emergent gravity. It is going to be tough to explain it to them...
Re: Is Gravity Real? A Scientist Takes On Newton
#10I would like to respectfully say that this article is only superficially appealing and therefore not proper for HN. This is just a hypothesis without mathematical basis. All you really need to read is the last few paragraphs to see that there isn't any mathematical rigor to it. This is a whole article about speculation about gravity, and it wastes a lot of time trying to hype up a physicist that won't flush out his m…
Since when does HN need mathematical rigor for hypotheses? I have never seen this standard applied to blog posts about how to be a leader, pitching your ideas, how to program, etc. All of which usually don't come with the statistical proof with which they should come if they want to make a scientific claim... It's all just insights and thoughts.