Have I late mentioned that I am straightaway proud possessor of my personal modified gravity theory? I convey called it “Covariant Emergent Gravity.” Though frankly I’m non certain what’s emergent nigh it; the give-and-take came downward the line of piece of occupation solid unit of measurement tree of theories from Erik Verlinde’s paper. Maybe I had improve named it Gravity McGravace, which is nigh as descriptive.
It was an accident I fifty-fifty wrote a newspaper nigh this. I was supposed to endure working on something solely dissimilar – an FQXi projection on space-time defects – as well as visit that perhaps Verlinde’s long-range entanglement mightiness brand for non-local links. It didn’t. But papers must endure written, hence I typed upwards my notes on how to blend Verlinde’s visit together alongside good, old, full general relativity.
Then I tried to forget nigh the whole thing. Because truly in that location are plenty models of modified gravity already. Also, I’m as good fucking master copy to build clean upwards somebody else’s math. Besides, every fourth dimension I withdraw heed the shout “Verlinde” it reminds me that I 1 time confused Erik Verlinde alongside his blood brother Herman, fifty-fifty though I perfectly know they’re identical twins. It’s a retentiveness I’d rather teach out buried inwards the depths of my prefrontal cortex.
But adjacent thing I know I convey a pupil who wants to piece of occupation on modified gravity. He’s a smart immature man. Indeed, I straightaway intend he is a genius. See, piece I kept blathering nigh the awesomeness of McGaugh et al’s recent information on the radial acceleration relation, he had the vivid visit of plotting the prediction from my model over the data.
Eh, I thought, human face at this. (Deep thoughts are overrated.)
The bluish squares inwards this figure are the information points from the McGaugh et al paper. The information come upwards from galactic rotation curves of 156 galaxies, spanning several orders of magnitude. The horizontal axis (gB) shows the acceleration that you lot would await from the “normal” (baryonic) mass. The vertical axis (gtot) shows the truly observed (total) acceleration. The dark dotted line is normal gravity without nighttime matter. The cherry fold is the prediction from my model; 1σ-error inwards pink. For details, encounter paper.
As the information show, the observed acceleration is higher than what the normal (Newtonian boundary of ) full general relativity predicts, specially at depression accelerations. Physicists commonly chalk this mismatch upwards to nighttime matter. But nosotros convey known for only about decades that Milgrom’s Modified Newtonian Dynamics (MOND) does a improve chore explaining the regularity of this relation, inwards the feel that MOND requires less fumbling to fit the data.
However, piece MOND does a adept chore explaining the observations, it has the unappealing belongings of requiring an “interpolation function”. This component is necessary to teach a shine transition from the government inwards which gravity is modified (at depression acceleration) to the normal gravity regime, which must endure reproduced at high acceleration to fit observations inwards the solar system. In the literature 1 tin reveal diverse choices for this interpolation function.
Besides the function, MOND also has a gratuitous constant that is the acceleration scale at which the transition happens. At accelerations below this scale, MOND effects expire relevant. Turns out this constant is to adept approximation the foursquare root of the cosmological constant. No 1 truly knows why that is so, but a few people convey pose frontwards ideas where this relation mightiness come upwards from. One of them is Erik Verlinde.
Verlinde extracts the value of this constant from the size of the cosmological horizon. Something nigh an insertion of volume into de-Sitter infinite changing the book entropy as well as giving rising to a displacement vector that has something to gain alongside the Newtonian potential. Among us, I intend this is nonsense. But then, what gain I know. Maybe Verlinde is the adjacent Einstein as well as I’m only as good dumb to sympathise his great revelations. And inwards whatsoever case, his declaration fixes the gratuitous constant.
Then my pupil convinced me that if you lot purchase what I wrote inwards my concluding year’s paper, Covariant Emergent Gravity doesn’t withdraw an interpolation function. Instead, it gives rising to a particular interpolation function. So then, nosotros were left alongside a particular component without gratuitous parameters.
If you lot convey never worked inwards theory-development, you lot convey no visit how hair-raisingly terrible a no-parameter model is. It either fits or it doesn’t. There’s no infinite for fudging here. It’s all or nothing, win or lose.
We plotted, nosotros won. Or rather, Verlinde won. It’s our component alongside his parameter that you lot encounter plotted inwards the higher upwards figure. Fits direct onto the data.
I’m non certain what to brand out of this. The derivation is hence ridiculously uncomplicated that Kindergarten math volition gain it. I’m almost annoyed I didn’t convey to pass only about weeks groovy non-linear partial differential equations because as well as hence at to the lowest degree I’d experience similar I did something. Now I experience similar the proverbial blind chick that constitute a grain.
But well, as scientists similar to say, to a greater extent than piece of occupation is needed. We’re yet scratching our heads over the gravitational lensing. Also the relation to Khoury et al’s superfluid approach has remained murky.
So remain tuned, to a greater extent than is to come.
It was an accident I fifty-fifty wrote a newspaper nigh this. I was supposed to endure working on something solely dissimilar – an FQXi projection on space-time defects – as well as visit that perhaps Verlinde’s long-range entanglement mightiness brand for non-local links. It didn’t. But papers must endure written, hence I typed upwards my notes on how to blend Verlinde’s visit together alongside good, old, full general relativity.
Then I tried to forget nigh the whole thing. Because truly in that location are plenty models of modified gravity already. Also, I’m as good fucking master copy to build clean upwards somebody else’s math. Besides, every fourth dimension I withdraw heed the shout “Verlinde” it reminds me that I 1 time confused Erik Verlinde alongside his blood brother Herman, fifty-fifty though I perfectly know they’re identical twins. It’s a retentiveness I’d rather teach out buried inwards the depths of my prefrontal cortex.
But adjacent thing I know I convey a pupil who wants to piece of occupation on modified gravity. He’s a smart immature man. Indeed, I straightaway intend he is a genius. See, piece I kept blathering nigh the awesomeness of McGaugh et al’s recent information on the radial acceleration relation, he had the vivid visit of plotting the prediction from my model over the data.
 |
| Figure 1 from arXiv:1803.08683 |
Eh, I thought, human face at this. (Deep thoughts are overrated.)
The bluish squares inwards this figure are the information points from the McGaugh et al paper. The information come upwards from galactic rotation curves of 156 galaxies, spanning several orders of magnitude. The horizontal axis (gB) shows the acceleration that you lot would await from the “normal” (baryonic) mass. The vertical axis (gtot) shows the truly observed (total) acceleration. The dark dotted line is normal gravity without nighttime matter. The cherry fold is the prediction from my model; 1σ-error inwards pink. For details, encounter paper.
As the information show, the observed acceleration is higher than what the normal (Newtonian boundary of ) full general relativity predicts, specially at depression accelerations. Physicists commonly chalk this mismatch upwards to nighttime matter. But nosotros convey known for only about decades that Milgrom’s Modified Newtonian Dynamics (MOND) does a improve chore explaining the regularity of this relation, inwards the feel that MOND requires less fumbling to fit the data.
However, piece MOND does a adept chore explaining the observations, it has the unappealing belongings of requiring an “interpolation function”. This component is necessary to teach a shine transition from the government inwards which gravity is modified (at depression acceleration) to the normal gravity regime, which must endure reproduced at high acceleration to fit observations inwards the solar system. In the literature 1 tin reveal diverse choices for this interpolation function.
Besides the function, MOND also has a gratuitous constant that is the acceleration scale at which the transition happens. At accelerations below this scale, MOND effects expire relevant. Turns out this constant is to adept approximation the foursquare root of the cosmological constant. No 1 truly knows why that is so, but a few people convey pose frontwards ideas where this relation mightiness come upwards from. One of them is Erik Verlinde.
Verlinde extracts the value of this constant from the size of the cosmological horizon. Something nigh an insertion of volume into de-Sitter infinite changing the book entropy as well as giving rising to a displacement vector that has something to gain alongside the Newtonian potential. Among us, I intend this is nonsense. But then, what gain I know. Maybe Verlinde is the adjacent Einstein as well as I’m only as good dumb to sympathise his great revelations. And inwards whatsoever case, his declaration fixes the gratuitous constant.
Then my pupil convinced me that if you lot purchase what I wrote inwards my concluding year’s paper, Covariant Emergent Gravity doesn’t withdraw an interpolation function. Instead, it gives rising to a particular interpolation function. So then, nosotros were left alongside a particular component without gratuitous parameters.
If you lot convey never worked inwards theory-development, you lot convey no visit how hair-raisingly terrible a no-parameter model is. It either fits or it doesn’t. There’s no infinite for fudging here. It’s all or nothing, win or lose.
We plotted, nosotros won. Or rather, Verlinde won. It’s our component alongside his parameter that you lot encounter plotted inwards the higher upwards figure. Fits direct onto the data.
I’m non certain what to brand out of this. The derivation is hence ridiculously uncomplicated that Kindergarten math volition gain it. I’m almost annoyed I didn’t convey to pass only about weeks groovy non-linear partial differential equations because as well as hence at to the lowest degree I’d experience similar I did something. Now I experience similar the proverbial blind chick that constitute a grain.
But well, as scientists similar to say, to a greater extent than piece of occupation is needed. We’re yet scratching our heads over the gravitational lensing. Also the relation to Khoury et al’s superfluid approach has remained murky.
So remain tuned, to a greater extent than is to come.
Comments
Post a Comment