Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Proposed dark matter solution: “Gravity is not a fundamental governance of our universe, but a reaction to the makeup of a given environment.”

Hubble image captures what dark matter is supposed to be.

From Tyler Krueger at Astronomy:

Albert Einstein’s theory of general relativity is just over 100 years old, and so far it has predicted the interaction between celestial objects and the space-time field very well. There are a few troublesome spots, however, in which the theory of general relativity doesn’t agree with quantum mechanics. These gaps have confounded researchers for decades, and have sprouted a handful of hypotheses attempting to explain the dissonance.

Dark matter and dark energy are the prevailing stand-in answers for this problem, but they are, as of yet, merely stand-ins. And there are some physicists that do not buy into these explanations. Erik Verlinde, a professor of science mathematics, and informatics at the University of Amsterdam, is one of them. He’s developing a theory that takes another look at the mechanics of gravity, and it seems to have struck a nerve in the world of physics.

“Emergent gravity,” as Verlinde calls it, is the idea that gravity is not a fundamental governance of our universe, but instead a reaction to the makeup of a given environment.More.

We’ve said this before: Dark matter could be the answer to a number of cosmology questions but it could also be the phlogiston or ether of today’s science – substances that were assumed to exist because their existence would solve a problem but th problem was not properly understood. When it was, no one needed those substances to exist. Time will tell, we hope.

On the other hand, the term “emergent” is beginning to sound a bit like “bafflegab.”

See also: Dark matter: Skeptics wanted

FourFaces: Two questions: 1.) Is the violation of conservation but momentary, or is it a feature of your view of underlying reality? 2.) Is your "lattice" similar to what is commonly referred to as the "ether"? PaV
FourFaces (5): Well, his books are on the bookshelves in the Science section of major bookstores, aren't they? And he was a top science professor at a very prestigious university, where I would not be admitted as a student even in my wildest dream. His predecesor in that faculty position was Sir Isaac Newton. OLV
Dark matter is a supersolid that fills 'empty' and is displaced by visible matter. What is referred to geometrically as curved space-time physically exists in nature as the state of displacement of the supersolid dark matter. The state of displacement of the dark matter is gravity. mpc755
OLV @3, Hawking was a crackpot, IMO, a believer in time travel. He was very likely a charlatan. FourFaces
PAV @2: What do you think is the source of this violation to the “conservation of energy”? My theory is highly unorthodox. I believe that the answer comes from having a correct understanding of the true causal nature of motion. Once this happens, one is forced to conclude that the entire universe is immersed in an immense 4D lattice of energetic particles without which there could be no motion at all. Wall to wall energy. Both EM and gravitational phenomena are the result of ordinary matter interacting with the lattice. I can't go into the details of my hypothesis here but suffice it to say that a violation in energy conservation occurs when two or more particles interact or when they briefly occupy the same position. Thus even photons travelling in space can generate gravity. IMO, this is very likely the reason for the extra gravity that is wrongly attributed to dark matter. Enjoy. FourFaces
How does this relate to Stephen Hawking's ideas? God did not create the universe, gravity did, says Stephen Hawking
“Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist,” Hawking writes.
Four Faces: I'm curious. What do you think is the source of this violation to the "conservation of energy"? I have my own thoughts. Curious what yours are. PaV
I agree with Verlinde that gravity is not a fundamental force but a reaction to something else. Unfortunately, Verlinde does not explain what that something else is. And no, "the makeup of a given environment" is not an explanation. All phenomena are caused by nature attempting to correct a violation to some conservation principle. Gravity is no exception. Nature is obviously reacting to violations of the conservation of energy. It tries to correct the violations by pulling in energy/matter toward the source of the violations. This is manifested as gravity. We need to figure out how and why the violations are created. Only then will we know the true cause of gravity. I have a theory but this is not the time and place for it. Of course, all that Einsteinian spacetime curvature BS is a waste of time and brains. FourFaces

Leave a Reply