Verlindes new theory of gravity passes first test by Staff Writers Amsterdam, The Netherlands (SPX) Dec 13, 2016 Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!The gravity of galaxies bends space, such that the light traveling through this space is bent. This bending of light allows astronomers to measure the distribution of gravity around galaxies, even up to distances a hundred times larger than the galaxy itself. Image courtesy APS/Alan Stonebraker; galaxy images from STScI/AURA, NASA, ESA, and the Hubble Heritage Team. A team led by astronomer Margot Brouwer (Leiden Observatory, The Netherlands) has tested the new theory of theoretical physicist Erik Verlinde (University of Amsterdam) for the first time through the lensing effect of gravity. Brouwer and her team measured the distribution of gravity around more than 33,000 galaxies to put Verlinde's prediction to the test. She concludes that Verlinde's theory agrees well with the measured gravity distribution. The results have been accepted for publication in the British journal Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society. The gravity of galaxies bends space, such that the light traveling through this space is bent, as through a lens. Background galaxies that are situated far behind a foreground galaxy (the lens), thereby seem slightly distorted. This effect can be measured in order to determine the distribution of gravity around a foreground-galaxy. Astronomers have measured, however, that at distances up to a hundred times the radius of the galaxy, the force of gravity is much stronger than Einstein's theory of gravity predicts. The existing theory only works when invisible particles, the so-called dark matter, are added. more at http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Verlindes_new_theory_of_gravity_passes_first_test_999.html extract: "The new theory is currently only applicable to isolated, spherical and static systems, while the universe is dynamic and complex. Many observations cannot yet be explained by the new theory, so dark matter is still in the race. Brouwer: "The question now is how the theory develops, and how it can be further tested. But the result of this first test definitely looks interesting."
http://mnras.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2016/12/09/mnras.stw3192 First test of Verlinde's theory of Emergent Gravity using Weak Gravitational Lensing measurements: Abstract Verlinde (2016) proposed that the observed excess gravity in galaxies and clusters is the consequence of Emergent Gravity (EG). In this theory the standard gravitational laws are modified on galactic and larger scales due to the displacement of dark energy by baryonic matter. EG gives an estimate of the excess gravity (described as an apparent dark matter density) in terms of the baryonic mass distribution and the Hubble parameter. In this work we present the first test of EG using weak gravitational lensing, within the regime of validity of the current model. Although there is no direct description of lensing and cosmology in EG yet, we can make a reasonable estimate of the expected lensing signal of low redshift galaxies by assuming a background ΛCDM cosmology. We measure the (apparent) average surface mass density profiles of 33,613 isolated central galaxies, and compare them to those predicted by EG based on the galaxies’ baryonic masses. To this end we employ the ∼180 deg2 overlap of the Kilo-Degree Survey (KiDS) with the spectroscopic Galaxy And Mass Assembly (GAMA) survey. We find that the prediction from EG, despite requiring no free parameters, is in good agreement with the observed galaxy-galaxy lensing profiles in four different stellar mass bins. Although this performance is remarkable, this study is only a first step. Further advancements on both the theoretical framework and observational tests of EG are needed before it can be considered a fully developed and solidly tested theory.
Very interesting thanks for posting. This is entirely consistent with what I expected on the basis that gravity should be seen as an external force.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! They will find there is no inconsistency with GR.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Alex
There are many hypothesis that differ from GR, but as yet they remain hypothesis.... extract: "The new theory is currently only applicable to isolated, spherical and static systems, while the universe is dynamic and complex. Many observations cannot yet be explained by the new theory, so dark matter is still in the race. Brouwer: "The question now is how the theory develops, and how it can be further tested. But the result of this first test definitely looks interesting."
I can't say with certainty, but I think so: You do realise how many "would be's if they could be's" are always trying to upstage Einstein and GR don't you? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I'm sure though the professionals will conclude one way or the other in time.
Verlinde's formulation of emergent space / gravity is similar in many respects to one of those proposed by Ted Johnson, one of three colleagues I met online with gravitation theories similar in some respects to my own at the time I joined sciforums. I pointed out Verlinde's ideas to Ted and eventually, after much extended discussion, I decided that it was a theory too far removed from more successful theories like relativity or the standard model to give it much of a chance of standing up to hard scrutiny and vetting in the theoretical physics community. However, I am pleased that Eric has persisted and that his emergent space ideas has passed at least one detailed test which my former colleague's probably could not. Good luck with passing the next test, Eric.
I have expanded on his work, deriving a similar principle straight from Einsteins field equations with non-commutative algebra. http://www.sciforums.com/threads/deriving-holography-from-dimensionless-entropy.158690/
Yes he does. I am not holding you back, if you can refute my work, please do so. This is the only way science progresses.
Also keep in mind, my idea's are not published because of the lack of it being scientific enough: It all comes down to my laziness.
The laziness [or any other excuse] is your problem. And of course at the risk of repeating myself, posting your hypotheticals on a science forum will certainly not progress your ideas/hypotheticals.
I know its my problem, did you see me bothering anyone else with such a burden? You seem to have made it your own burden though, this proclivity to try and get me to publish. I don't share the same eagerness as you do.
I'm not eager at all. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! The situation is as I have hinted though... Forums such as this are open to all and as such we as well as other forums have many "would be's if they could be's" that claim they have TOE's or have invalidated Einstein and GR, or can rewrite 20th/21st century cosmology, doing away with DM and DE, etc etc....The only outlet that these pretenders have are forums such as this. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! You? So far you have said some reasonable and sensible stuff...not all, but enough to prevent me from labeling you a pretender. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! That's why I harp on publishing, so as for you to distance yourself from these other pretenders. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! BTW, I'm simply a retired lay person, who has a great interest in this stuff and have read a heap of material from authors such as Thorne, Rees and Begalman, Hawking, Kaku, Davis, and a few more.