A dutch scientist discovered a method to explain gravity. Not only that. But Newtons equations can actually be derived from this theory.
Now here's the kicker, he uses the information stored in the quantum field as the driving force. All objects subject to gravity (you!) would have to have such an information field around them... I use the term "around" loosely. Because it's a holographic field which is non local. The force of gravity is the result of the information densities of the objects being different from the space in between.
Now if I understand correctly, matter is simply it's interaction with force and gravity.
He might be on to something
Unfortunately the article is in dutch. I also get the idea he hasn't published on his discoveries yet. If there's interest I'll do a translation.
I keep getting reminded of the unseen university in the Terry Pratchett books. They have the biggest library in the disc world there and at some points the information density is so thick that it actually warps space and time. And also of Mila from the green beautiful who is able to listen to cd's by reading their fields.
So many things coming together these days. The news is really quite interesting.
Interesting. I wonder how his theory relates to Dewey Larson's.
But just like our makeup is the result of what our DNA makes it, so is matter is made up by what light/frequency makes it.
Gravity is an acceleration. Empirically it does cause things to accelerate. This is true, whether gravity results from information stored in the quantum field or not.
It would be interesting to see the article, if the author wants to release it. Dutch isn't such a problem; translate.google.com can probably handle it.
(12-17-2009, 12:23 AM)artichoke Wrote: [ -> ]Dutch isn't such a problem; translate.google.com can probably handle it.
I'm not so sure about that. Google Translation is designed around every day speech patterns. Having worked in chemical engineering with a heavy lean towards fluids makeup and dynamics for the last 19 years, I have tried Google translation a few times, but it does not do well with scientific or specific terminology type terminology or phrasing.
http://staff.science.uva.nl/~erikv/page13/page13.html Wrote:GRAVITY IS NOT A FORCE
The last few weeks he's had moments of cycling through Amsterdam with a grin on his face the theoretical phycisist, Erik Verlinde (47) international expert in string theory, admits. Inside was the mixture of disbelief and euphoria. After all, how often as a physicist do you get the idea that you really discovered something no man has ever seen? And this with only a ridiculously little amount of calculus.
The only thing that's now becoming scary is the idea that someone else could beat me to publishing it, he says slightly nervous. "My friends tell me I should hurry up. But I have to be precise. I'm sticking my neck out pretty far."
Last wednesday Verlinde gave his first complete review to his dutch colleagues on a meeting at the Spinoza-institute for theoretical physics in Utrecht. The lions den, home base of nobel price winner Gerard 't Hooft, who is Verlinde's old Promotor.
In certain ways a baptism by fire for a potentially revolutionary new insight, Verlinde says. Especially because he partly bases himself on ideas by his Promotor about space, time and black holes.
On the blackboard in his study on the Roetersisland in Amsterdam Verlinde with chalk in hand told us the story in 10 minutes with an astonishing punch line in the form of a very well known formula: Newton's law of gravity. The formula states that the mass between two masses is equal to the product of both masses divided by the square root of their distance.
Isaac Newton wrote down the formula in 1687 for the first time, together with two other fundamental laws for force and motion. He based himself on planetary orbits like Johannes Kepler described them in 1609 for the first time.
Since that moment all school kids over the whole world learn to use it for calculations. Only in 1916 Albert Einstein added the relativistic dimension to it, where gravity is described in terms of a curvature of space and time.
Beautifull physics, Verlinde says, but with one fundamental problem: Physicists can completely describe gravity, but no one knows what this attraction really is. How it works is known, but why do two masses attract each other? And why does this force refuse to be described by the theory for the other forces between particles? Verlinde's revolutionary claim is that this because gravity is not a basic element of the universe.
According to his theory force exists because of a concentration differential in information in the empty space between two masses and outside of them. Verlinde: "I don't see gravity as something fundamental. It is an emergent property that arises from a deeper microscopic reality. On the tiniest level the laws of Newton play no part, but they do for apples and planets. Compare this to the pressure of a gas: molecules themselves have no pressure, but a container full of gass does. Or water. Watermolecules are not wet, yet a drop or a glass of them is.
Verlines derivation of this insight is not easy to follow for a laymen, but for colleague theoretical phyisicists it is almost ridiculously simple. With only a few basic insights from quantum physics and ideas about black holes, and without any serious math, Newtons formulas just show up.
"People who I show, in the first instance become a little giddy", Verlinde tells, "as if I'm pulling a phrank on them."
But this isn't true, he is convinced of this after months of thought and reexamining, among others in discussions with his twin Herman, also a prominent physicist and connected to Princeton University.
Now that he's putting the last hand to an as elegant as possible explanation and a quick publication, his thoughts also head out towards the large problems surrounding physics, which physics still knows.
Big bang.
Hopefully, Verlinde says, his interpretation of gravity can give us a more acceptable image of the big bang. Right now the supposition that the whole galagy started with infinite density in a single point. For a theorist this is an uneasy fact, Verlinde says. We don't calculate well with infinity. He has not figured out an alternative yet.
Another matter is the so called dark energy, a kind of anti gravity which seems to cause the universe to rapidly expand, but of which no one knows what it is. The information theory of gravity must also be examined in this light he expects.
"If it will yield results I do not know", verlinde says. It's certain that physics with the current insights had not come closer to a real solution for this cosmological riddle.
Interesting, but especially ironic, is that the laws of gravity turn out not being a fundamental theory, but rather a statistical theory about the behavior of a collective of individual parts, like thermodynamics or quantum theory. Verlinde: "I think einstein will roll over in his grave. God does not play dice he said. And now even his beloved gravity turns out to be a statistical representation of something deeper.
It is big insights with complicated consequences, twin brother Herman states from Princeton. "But this certainly is a very deep idea."
Theorist and KNAW-president Robbert Dijkgraaf: "Erik puts the world upside down. Known formulas are derrived from new physics. But that is exactly what you need for a breakthrough."
Last news is that 't Hooft called the work intriguing. Verlinde is clearly relieved about this.
TAKE ONE BLACK HOLE AND ONE HOLOGRAM
Erik Verlindes derivation of Newtons classical mechanics depends on an older idea of his tutor and Nobel price winner (1999) Gerard 't Hooft: All information about all parts in a physical system are as it were stored in a hologram in a ball around it. This prediction touches the theories of Stephen Hawking about the surface of black holes.
Take a black hole, a mass so big that even light cannot escape from it if it crosses a certain horizon. According to the theories of Hawking this spherical horizon has a surface which is equal to the amount of information that vanished into the black hole. This horzion is not mathematically smooth; there is a minimal uncertainty about where it is. This is because in the quantum world nothing is exactly certain. This uncertainty, Hawking explained in a famous claim that black holes have a temperature and therefore radiate energy.
According to 't Hooft in the same way around each mass M a kind of hologram can be envisioned, a screen on which all the information about it's content is stored in the shape of bits. The energy inside the sphere is neatly divided across the bits on the screen. For this reason even the imaginary holographic screen has a temperature. This imaginary temperature is, according to Erik Verlinde, the key to gravity that a mass m experiences from a mass M.
If a particle with mass m moves from one side of the imaginary screen to the other side, the infomration-content of the sphere changes with one bit. This change times the temperature of the screen according to Verlinde is the energy transfer of the system. This energy change must be created during transfer. He who wants to move the particle, always feels this as a force towards mass M.
So far the conceptual story, which completely depends on thoughts about information and energy within a physical system and what changes mean in such a system. The crucial fact is that transfer of mass causes information change which costs energy, and this expresses itself in gravity.
Verlinde combines some simple formulas for energy, information-content, temperature, surface and bitcounts, and discovers almost immediately two classical laws by Newton.
The first is the law of acceleration F=ma: force equals mass times acceleration of a particle with mass m.
The second is Newtons gravity law which states that masses M and m attract each other on a distance R with a force related to the masses and inversely related to the square of the distance.
M. van Calmthout
A quick translation, I think I stayed true to the information. But I may have made some specific field related translation errors here and there. This is an article from a dutch newspaper as it appears on Verlinde's site.
Google translate was a little off. WOW thanks for the find Ali!
You are welcome. As the dutch say: "For your education and enjoyment"
"The bullet is through the church". Only the Dutch will understand that
Well, as long as it didn't leave the church before singing then eh?
What are your thoughts people? Does this come close to what Dewey Larson explained?
I haven't read Dewey Larson. But I think the key assertion here is that one can go from a simple representation of quantum informational density, through the described transformation, to the simple formulation that is Newton's laws. Like the way one describes thermodynamics as the macro manifestation of statistical mechanics (micro, quantum.) It even uses the stat. mech. based concept of "temperature" so it sounds like an extension of statistical mechanics.
As 't Hooft says, it sounds intriguing. Unlike 't Hooft who has seen already, we have to wait for the publication to see it explicitly.
(12-18-2009, 01:39 PM)Ali Quadir Wrote: [ -> ]What are your thoughts people? Does this come close to what Dewey Larson explained?
Hi Ali,
Larson says that gravity is an artifact of the vectoral expansion of the universe at unit speed (which is the speed of light), versus the rotational velocities that cause light to become more dense and form matter. Don Elkins alludes to this in the following dialog:
Law of One, Book II, Session 29 Wrote:Questioner: I believe that Love creates the vibration in space/time in order to form the photon. Is this correct?
Ra: I am Ra. This is essentially correct.
Questioner: Then the continued application of Love—I will assume that this is directed by a sub-Logos or a sub-sub-Logos—creates rotations of these vibrations which are in discrete units of angular velocity. This then creates chemical elements in our physical illusion and I will assume the elements in the nonphysical or other densities in the illusion. Is this correct?
Ra: I am Ra. The Logos creates all densities. Your question was unclear.
However, we shall state the Logos does create both the space/time densities and the accompanying time/space densities.
Questioner: What I am assuming is that quantized incremental rotations of the vibrations show up as a material of these densities. Is this correct?
Ra: I am Ra. This is essentially correct.
Questioner: Then because of these rotations there is an inward motion of these particles which is opposite the direction of space/time progression as I understand it, and this inward progression then is seen by us as what we call gravity. Is this correct?
Ra: I am Ra. This is incorrect.
Questioner: Can you tell me how the gravity comes about?
Ra: I am Ra. This that you speak of as gravity may be seen as the pressing towards the inner light/love, the seeking towards the spiral line of light which progresses towards the Creator. This is a manifestation of a spiritual event or condition of living-ness.
Don is trying to get Ra to bless Larson's theories. Ra however seems concerned that Don is trying to describe the processes of materialization and physical laws without giving appropriate credit to the Creator in the process. It is one of the more humorous interchanges in my opinion, because Ra seems determined to vex Don's attempt to leave the Creator and our spiritual searching out of our system of physical laws. All that aside, Ra later concedes that Larson is correct for as far as he goes in his Theory.
For what I can glean about the works of Mr. Verlinde, his approach seems orthagonal to Larson, as is most other work of modern physics. That is not to say that it is incorrect. Indeed, Larson's Reciprocal System of Theories (RST) creates a framework that allows most other modern "theories" to co-exist, seeing most of those theories actually as their mathematical models than the theories per se. I suspect that in time the RST experts (a group of which I am emphatically
not a member, I hasten to point out) will find Mr. Verlinde works a rightful place in the Reciprocal System of Theories.
Love and Light,
3D Sunset
(12-18-2009, 04:40 PM)artichoke Wrote: [ -> ]I haven't read Dewey Larson. But I think the key assertion here is that one can go from a simple representation of quantum informational density, through the described transformation, to the simple formulation that is Newton's laws. Like the way one describes thermodynamics as the macro manifestation of statistical mechanics (micro, quantum.) It even uses the stat. mech. based concept of "temperature" so it sounds like an extension of statistical mechanics.
As 't Hooft says, it sounds intriguing. Unlike 't Hooft who has seen already, we have to wait for the publication to see it explicitly.
Newton's laws only apply to that which is not rotating, thus very little of the actual universe.
(12-19-2009, 12:06 AM)Peregrinus Wrote: [ -> ] (12-18-2009, 04:40 PM)artichoke Wrote: [ -> ]I haven't read Dewey Larson. But I think the key assertion here is that one can go from a simple representation of quantum informational density, through the described transformation, to the simple formulation that is Newton's laws. Like the way one describes thermodynamics as the macro manifestation of statistical mechanics (micro, quantum.) It even uses the stat. mech. based concept of "temperature" so it sounds like an extension of statistical mechanics.
As 't Hooft says, it sounds intriguing. Unlike 't Hooft who has seen already, we have to wait for the publication to see it explicitly.
Newton's laws only apply to that which is not rotating, thus very little of the actual universe.
I recall spending a lot of time in freshman physics learning about angular momentum, Coriolis force, etc. in a Newtonian context. As far as I know, rotating systems are generally described by Newton's laws.
If we didn't have physics for rotating systems, I do not think it would have been possible to design internal combustion engines, turbines, and all the other rotating systems we have built.
Thank you for the translation, Ali.
I'd never heard of a physics formula as "an astonishing punch line" before. I really like that way of thinking. It makes physics so much more fun! Say, did you hear the one about the two masses? Turns out their attraction was the product of their masses divided by the square root of their distance. Ha ha! Guess what, it works no matter which two masses you use! Give it a try, this other mass walks into a bar... product, square root, same thing! Ain't that a knee-slapper.
"around each mass M a kind of hologram can be envisioned, a screen on which all the information about it's content is stored in the shape of bits..." I have trouble envisioning that, because I don't actually understand it. I know each of the words, but they don't add up to a story for me - not even an anecdote, let alone a punch line. I understand bits from decades of computer programming. I understand holograms and have seen holograms and laser arrays in person. I don't understand how bits have a shape in a holographic screen around each mass. "Can be envisioned?" Not by me, just can't envision it from this much description, sorry.
I realize the article is a journalist's summary of a physicist's summary of his theory. I'm afraid that I'm going to need something more detailed to help me understand this one.
"not being a fundamental theory, but rather a statistical theory about the behavior of a collective of individual parts, like thermodynamics or quantum theory" As a tangent, this reminds me that next year I want to discuss Colonel John Boyd's work here, including the OODA loop as a response to uncertainty. I think his work will be interesting to those interested in the Law of One.
Without going too far afield, could the Dutch folk sayings be explained?
I think Einstein has already said this.
Just look at the Oregon Vortex / House of Mystery if you want to see gravity "defied".
From what I've been reading, it's from the inward movement of consciousness, or based on the gridlines around Earth. I've read so much so I'm still trying to piece it together. But it's definitely not a constant.
(12-19-2009, 10:37 AM)artichoke Wrote: [ -> ]If we didn't have physics for rotating systems, I do not think it would have been possible to design internal combustion engines, turbines, and all the other rotating systems we have built.
I wasn't speaking of physics to do with rotation. I was speaking of the lessening of gravitational force on spinning objects. This "lightening" of these objects is not defined.
Hi Peregrinus and all.
(12-19-2009, 12:06 AM)Peregrinus Wrote: [ -> ]Newton's laws only apply to that which is not rotating, thus very little of the actual universe.
Did any one know this?:
Von Braun's SECRET.
http://www.enterprisemission.com/Von_Braun.htm
Blue skies.
This Verlinde guy hasn't disproven Newtons laws of course. He's produced a theory that those laws can be derived from (and quite simply it seems). So in essence he's shown that Newton was right but given us a broader perspective on why Newton's laws were correct.
(07-26-2010, 09:12 AM)hangers10 Wrote: [ -> ]Isaac Newton asked this question in 1686, and concluded that gravity was an attractive force between all objects. He realized that the same force that causes an apple to fall to the ground also holds the moon in its orbit. Earth’s gravity actually causes the moon to fall about one millimetre away from a straight-line path, each second, as it orbits the earth (Figure 1). Newton’s universal Law of Gravity is one of the great science discoveries of all time.
hangers10, you seem to have omitted a picture that would clarify your post. Do you need some help understanding how to use the picture feature in the post editor?
I'm also a bit baffled at how the same person who wrote
Quote:I am not from Australia but i hope i will be their coming years for studies.
and
Quote:Hi guys T. shirt stitching is Not a such a difficult Talk its just very simple thing to make it,
and
Quote:Happy Birth day to my twin Nephews now they become one years old ,and both look so cute.
suddenly has a post in a radically different writing style: with correct spelling and punctuation, and a rather erudite proclamation of Newton's laws.
Are you normally a clear-minded, sophisticated thinking scientist who also occasionally dashes off one-liners in a writing style far beneath your actual level of intellection? Or was this post copied and pasted from someone else's words above your usual level of discourse?
Or are all four of your posts, 100% so far of your activity here, a copy-and-paste attempt to wedge in some forthcoming attempt at commercialization that disrespects this spiritual community's aspirations to peacefully discuss a particular range of metaphysical concepts? Please help me understand how to best appreciate the real hangers10 (if there is one). Greetings in love and light. If I misunderstand an actual seeker, please help us understand a little bit about where you are coming from so that we may celebrate your journey. In particular, what about Carla's work do you find most thought provoking as you make T shirts (perhaps for your cute twin nephews), go to Australia (no doubt missing the little guys), and discuss Newton's laws (perhaps helping the next generation get an early start on scientific comprehension)?
I wouldn't be surprised if the other posts are also all copied from somewhere else. I feel that it's important to greet kindly, just in case there's not just a search and replace program, but a real person who might be helped to realize that there can be a higher calling in life than online liar-for-hire. I also did notify the moderators.
On the topic of gravity, I watched
this video yesterday. Ignore the cut-in advertisements for the interviewers upcoming DVD (although with the synthesised voice they offer at least an amusement factor).
Boyd Bushman conducted an experiment in which he took two rocks, and in one of them, put in two magnets that were clamped together when in the repulsion position. The two rocks were dropped together, and each time, the rock without the magnetic charge landed first.
He proved, quite conclusively, that using a magnetic field the effect of mass/gravity can be reduced; anti-gravity.
Unfortunately your url isn't working. I'd be interested to see that video as I'm a little skeptical about the claims.
Thanks Namaste!
It's a good video
I like it, however, it seems to be more concerned with magnetic effects than with anti gravity. All he really shows are drag effects caused by the magnets. The fact that they are slowed down isn't necessarily an anti gravity effect. Although in this practical case it does counter gravity, but so do wings on aircraft and magnets on a maglev train.
Questioner,
Thanks for catching the Hangers10 account, definitely a bad apple. I sent Steve a message. The account will soon be no more.
Love/Light, GLB
