Talk:Entropic gravity

Summary Issues

The recently added "Informal Summary" is poorly worded and if it is to be kept, lacks references and links. Scrizati (talk) 22:31, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the “lower by a factor of over 3000 than” value

I rewrote the lede. As of this version, (perma-link) it now has six relatively short paragraphs of plain-speak written at the Scientific American level of difficulty, which is appropriate for an article of this nature.

Technical writing directed to the proper reading level also entails using non-pretentious plain-speak math notation (units of measure); e.g., 1.2×10⁻¹⁰ meters/second² rather than the ‘fancier’ 1.2×10⁻¹⁰ m s⁻² that looks like it was lifted right out of a high-level scientific paper directed to readers with Ph.D.s. High-level math notation that uses negatively exponented factors to denote “per” may also make wikipedians look really smart-smart, but doing so makes articles less accessible for a general interest readership. When plainly written, readers can sound out the unit of measure: “meters per second-squared.”

I mentioned a numeric value in the lede that needs a little provenance for the record. It is as follows: “…and is over 3000 times less than…”. Where did that come from? As the text states, the distance used is the 121 au distance at which Voyager 1 crossed the heliopause. It also assumes the mass of the solar system is 1.0014 Solar masses.

Details: The mass I used was 1.9913×10³⁰ kg and the distance was 1.81×10¹³ m, which is a gravitational strength (with several magnitudes-worth of excess precision) of 4.0567×10⁻⁷ m s⁻². This is 3381 times stronger than 1.2×10⁻¹⁰ m s⁻². Since the a₀ value of 1.2×10⁻¹⁰ m s⁻² is approximate and is expressed to a precision of one part in 12, the proper way to avoid excess precision is merely to state that the factor is greater than 3000 times; ergo, …over 3000 times less.

Greg L (talk) 22:36, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Regarding citing article by MJ Pinheiro

Recently two editors, MJPin and Zach Lehman, have inserted a citation in this article on Entropic gravity to a 2002 paper by MJ Pinheiro (MJPin): [1], [2], [3], [4]. The first instance was by the author himself: [5], the other three instances were by a new editor whose history is, let's say, short: [6]. MJPin (Pinheiro) notes that his paper was published 8 years prior to the 2009 work of Erik Verlinde: [7], but we note that it also came 7 years after an important 1995 article by Jacobson. The paper by Verlinde has, by google scholar, been cited 915 times: [8], the paper by Jacobson has been cited 1341 times: [9]. In contrast, the paper by MJPin has only been cited 5 times, and all those citations (yes, all of them) are self-citations: [10]. To me, this means that the paper by MJPin has not been received by the physics community as noteworthy. For these reasons, I propose that the citation to the Pinheiro paper be removed from this article. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 20:18, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Regarding the amazing opinion formulated above

Science is not based on citations, science is made of ideas. If an interesting idea is proposed by someone from a small and forgotten country but is published in one of the most scientific respected journal and as well in ArXiv, it is very unlikely not read by no one. What the above contributor is proposing is to not cite this pioneering work on the base of self-citations and an amazing sense of justice. Is this allowable in Wikipedia? A group, or an individual, attempting fiercely to forgot an important paper on the base of a deeply disrespectful fallacy?... to protect somebody? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zach Lehman (talk • contribs) 21:14, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Zach Lehman, can you please share with us how it is that you judge the paper by MJ Pinheiro to be "pioneering work"? We need some sort of way of judging it since it has not evidently gotten any traction with the physics community. You might consult with Wikipedia policy at: WP:RS. Thank you. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 22:11, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

The paper shows that we may regard the dynamics of a non-equilibrium system of particles as due to opposite tendencies inherent to entropy (propending to a maximum) and energy (propending to a minimum). Hence, we obtain an entropic force. Then it is written: "Imagine a particle describing a circular motion at a distance r away from the origin of a central force. The number of configurations in space associated with r is Ω = 4πr2. Applying eq. (9) (entropic force), the entropic force results to be the gravitational force." Besides, the equations shown in this Wikipedia page are very near, some even equal, to that paper. Therefore, the lack of respect and apparent protection of some individuals is outraging, is against the spirit of science and history of science. Verlinde and others could perfectly have read the paper, but...as the author of this so little cited paper is unknown, they didn't bother to cite properly, as they should! Because they are great, possibly they thought, they are above justice, they and their fellows tribalistic brothers would cite them by thousands! But, if by a stroke of witchcraft, they didn't read it, which I doubt much, YOU and the others editors (Pinheiro is an editor and maintain two active blogs, one with thousand readers from worldwide) at least, should be responsible in regard of the historical truth. If you want, you can read the paper at the ArXivs... https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0209066 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zach Lehman (talk • contribs) 22:57, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, there are many papers that are not cited in Wikipedia. I imagine that there are some scholarly and highly cited papers (as per google, for example) that are not cited in Wikipedia. Still, in this case the situation seems very black and white. We are citing papers that other scholars have, in published journals and books, cited lots and lots of times. But you are wanting us to cite a paper that, it seems, nobody, outside of the author himself, has cited even once. Nobody. Not once. And, yes, citation count can be one of the criteria for judging the scholarship of a source, and, again, I refer you to Wikipedia policy: [11]. Now, Pinheiro might have done some very fine work, but this particular paper that you want us to cite just doesn't seem to have attracted any attention by the physics community. It is not for us, mere Wikipedia editors, to make our own original evaluation of an uncited work. I'd like to suggest that you consider devoting your evident interest on improving this article in some other way that is more likely to be accepted by other Wikipedia editors. Thank you. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 23:17, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree with User:Isambard Kingdom, who is spot-on correct. Like nearly everything on Wikipedia, wikipedians do not take it upon themselves to decide on their own what scientific papers are notable and relevant. We instead look towards reliable sources—other highly respected secondary sources like Scientific American—to guide us, and they are universally finding the paper being cited to be irrelevant to the subject matter.

Notwithstanding that User:Zach Leman finds the resultant outcome (not citing to his/her paper) to be tantamount to a “lack of respect and apparent protection of some individuals” and finds this to be “outraging,” personal angst does not trump the fact that Wikipedia is not a venue to use for self-promotion of one's work product, no matter how meritorious and profoundly splendiforous any given author may consider their own work to be. The fact that the paper found its way to arxiv is meaningless. I have deleted the citation. Please do not edit war, User:Zach Lehman.

I don't watch this article closely lately and am rather busy, Isambard Kingdom. Please leave a note on my user page if this self-promotion and violation of Wikipedia's bedrock principles continues. Greg L (talk) 02:20, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Dear "Authorized Editors", unfortunately, you decided unilaterally to expulse a contributor, giving the inadvertent reader a wrong idea about the history of the subject. It is unfair and unethical. The paper that we intended introduce was published in two highly reputed sources and deals on the subject with a similarity beyond objective doubt! It is plagiarism cover-up and Wikipedia was expected to be a democratic and open source of "knowledge". But now it is clear, it's not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zach Lehman (talk • contribs) 10:20, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Are MJPin and Zach Lehman the same editor?Isambard Kingdom (talk) 10:30, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Zach, it's unfortunate you feel that way. You lament that you expect Wikipedia to be “democratic and open source”, however, Wikipedia is not a democracy. Note too that anyone—even single-purpose accounts such as yourself—is an “authorized editor.” However, we all must follow the rules… and there are many. The first rule is that “rules are established by consensus.” The second important rule to remember is Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought nor is it a soapbox or means of personal promotion. Note too that Wikipedia's caution to the community about single-purpose accounts is that “a significant number appear to edit for the purposes of promotion or showcasing their favored point of view, which is not allowed.”

What Wikipedia is not derives in part from what it is: a general-interest encyclopedia whose content is driven by looking towards reliable sources. Since the RSs are roundly ignoring the self-published and self-referentially cited citation you are trying to add, Wikipedia goes with that flow. The subject matter is far too arcane, mathematical, and specialized for mere wikipedians to take it upon themselves to decide what scientific papers are germane to any given topic.

As Wikipedia is a collaborative writing environment that can be frustrating, it is best to familiarize yourself with the rules governing how content decisions are properly made. Greg L (talk) 17:49, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Propose deletion of neutron coherence kerfuffle

OVERVIEW

I propose that the Entropic gravity and quantum coherence (perma-link) subsection be deleted.

1. The information is outdated, and
2. The RSs touching upon developments since then are not widely know, are far and few between, and don’t delve into the subject matter in depth.

DETAILS

That section reminds me of entering a workshop off the side of a barn owned by a farmer in his 80s and finding an old calendar that hadn't had its pages turned since June 1976. If we can't promptly and properly turn the pages, its better to take down the calendar.

The shortcoming inherent in Wikipedia's articles rears its head when we delve into subject matter this arcane and deep. The section began with the mention of Kobakhidze and his neutron coherence experiment. Those experiments were done quite some time ago, in 2011. Yet the section hadn't been updated with developments/refutations since then.

So I searched for widely known RSs and didn't find any. I found this 2011 article in Science2.0 that quoted Verlinde in a cartoon-like graphic as saying “Kobakhidze's arguments don't cause me any worries. The central idea of my article is correct.”

Since Science 2.0 didn't really cut the mustard, I broadened my search but all I found of substance was this scientific paper on arxiv titled “Considerations on Gravity as an Entropic Force and Entangled States.” In the abstract, the author, Everton M. C. Abreu, wrote “…we showed that it is possible to confirm Verlinde's formalism.” The paper had been cited by other papers eight times. So I added a one-sentence update (∆-edit is here) on this 2013 development. And even with that, the update is on developments that are still several years old.

I am uncomfortable, as a mere wikipedian, delving this deep into scientific papers and doing research into how often a given scientific paper has been cited by scientists' peers. If we can’t rely on good RSs to do this for us, we should stay away. The sort of treatment that section started out as (the scientific version of tit-for-tat on Twitter) only works on articles that are less specialized, more popular with the general public, enjoy ample coverage by a wide spectrum of RSs, and receive more attention by wikipedians specializing in the subject matter.

Perhaps one day, a respected, secondary RS like Scientific American will cover entropic gravity and will direct us to the proper (truly meritorious) theories and quote authors who have made sufficient scientific waves in the field. Greg L (talk) 20:09, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Brouwer result

The results of this are being presented as a positive test of Verlinde's hypothesis. I do not think it is appropriate to present this affirmatively in Wikipedia's voice, unless it is discussed in some reliable secondary literature. We could say that they claimed to have verified some of its predictions, but certainly not that the hypothesis passed such a test, unless it is confirmed in the secondary literature. I have removed the material pending positive consensus for its inclusion, as the editor who added it is an WP:SPA who is elsewhere pushing the agenda that GR is wrong. Sławomir Biały (talk) 16:16, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

This experiment is actually already mentioned in the article, at the end of the section "Criticism and experimental tests". Brienanni (talk) 16:27, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Your deletion was a good edit founded upon unassailable wikipedia policy. I looked at that section again and the whole section suffered from the same shortcoming you cited. See the below post. Greg L (talk) 23:44, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Deleted “Criticism and experimental tests” section

Referencing “Brouwer result”, above, I similarly focused on the Pardo result for precisely the same reason. The citation was as given here:

<ref name="Pardo 2017">{{cite web | last=Pardo | first=Kris | title=Testing Emergent Gravity with Isolated Dwarf Galaxies | website=arXiv.org e-Print archive | date=2017-06-02 | url=https://arxiv.org/abs/1706.00785 | access-date=2017-06-22}}</ref>

The statement was buttressed with this citation:

“ In June 2017, a study by Princeton University researcher Kris Pardo revealed that Verlinde's theory is inconsistent with the observed rotation velocities of dwarf galaxies. ”

Once again, this shows the hazard of mere wikipedians taking it upon themselves to pretend as if they are Reliable Secondary Sources possessing discerning scientific eyes. Alas, the statement here was terribly misleading. Quoting the last bit of the abstract from Pardo (entire paper as a PDF, here): In short, Pardo attributed

“ I find that EG severely underpredicts the maximum velocities for those galaxies with measured velocities v > 165 km/s. Most of these galaxies have greater HI gas masses than stellar masses, and it is seems that EG is unable to describe these systems well. Rotation curves of these isolated, HI gas-rich, nearly spherical dwarf galaxies would provide the definitive test of EG. ”

In short, Pardo attributed the reason that entropic gravity did not predict the rotational velocity of nearly spherical dwarf galaxies as being due to the fact they are rich in hydrogen gas and therefore are not a good model for testing entropic gravity without more velocity data.

Whoever summarized the import of Pardo, missed the scientific point. This is why Wikipedia has a time-honored principle of relying upon reliable secondary sources to select, present, and balance the meaning of individual papers.

So…

---

I studied the entire section (Criticism and experimental tests). I found that…

1. It was not derived from Reliable Secondary Sources, and
2. It did not heavily rely upon at least one reliable secondary source to comprehensively tie the broader subject of “pros and cons” together into a balanced explanation of what the papers from the dueling scientific camps mean.

Accordingly, I deleted the entire section as being the product of original research that was exceedingly prone to POV pushing.

Until a reliable secondary source akin to Scientific American commissions an expert to cover this subject, who…

• selects and interviews the truly authoritative experts,
• who explains the science underlying the differing scientific camps,
• explains the criticisms each camp has in the other’s claims, and
• wraps it all up into a nice package written at a level accessible to a general-interest readership interested in advanced science concepts…

…we wikipedians need to avoid the entire subject of “Criticisms”, “Pros & Cons,” or anything else along those lines. Scientific American and “Perry White” we mere wikipedians are not.

Greg L (talk) 00:19, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

@Greg L: I fear it is you who missed the point. As the paper notes, "equations given in Verlinde (2016) are only valid for spherically symmetric, isolated systems". The abstract states that "these galaxies have greater HI gas masses than stellar masses" to emphasise the fact that isolated dwarf galaxies fall squarely within the realm of applicability of Verlinde's model. This is reiterated in the introduction: "These systems fulfill all of the requirements of the current formulation of EG, and thus provide the strongest constraints on EG." The words "unable to describe these systems well" mean that (the current formulation of) EG is inconsistent with observations.

No comment at this time with regards to the OR concerns / deletion. More trimming may be needed. Rentier (talk) 01:08, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

@Rentier: Hmmm… OK; it looks like I may have misconstrued the paragraph by focusing too intently on the last sentence in the abstract: Rotation curves of these isolated, HI gas-rich, nearly spherical dwarf galaxies would provide the definitive test of EG. I interpreted that as saying the issue is still unresolved.

Anyway, this speaks to why Wikipedia's policy of strongly looking towards secondary RSs is a good one—and important. The theory of entropic gravity is relatively new and may yet prove to be the first “polywater” of gravity in 21st century. But until someone like Scientific America covers the subject and decides which scientific papers are notable, which are not, and what the experts say they mean, we wikipedians have to stay out of that business.

In the mean time, the lede currently ends with this, which is sufficient: The theory has been controversial within the physics community but has sparked research and experiments to test its validity. . Greg L (talk) 04:30, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Rentier. However, I think the blanking is problematic, because I feel that it violates WP:NPOV. Entropic gravity is a fringe theory at this point (although legitimate science), and generally there is a wider latitude for selecting balancing sources about such subjects. Moreover, lots of sources in the current article that support entropic gravity are primary, some only appearing on the arxiv. Others are rather scientifically worthless media sources like Wired and The New Scientist. So, I think our mandate cuts the other way here under WP:PARITY: we can't hope for really high quality sources in an article like this, so we need to have a more permissive attitude across the board. We're already singling out the supportive papers, and excluding the unsupportive ones. I was not terribly fond of what was written in the removed sections, but I think it should be improved rather than deleted. Sławomir Biały (talk) 10:34, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, the current version violates WP:NPOV. I would prefer if the removed paragraphs were restored. A maintenance tag can be added to encourage improvements - the section is far from perfect, nobody disputes that. The alternative is further removal of content based on primary sources. Little will be left after that. Rentier (talk) 11:54, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Quoting Sławomir Biały: Entropic gravity is a fringe theory at this point. That sort of argument precisely proves my point that there is POV-pushing going on here and we just have warring editors running around locating scientific papers, which are primary sources as various editors on two sides of an issue (entropic gravity has merit vs. entropic gravity does not) try to buttress their particular bias on the subject.

WP:WPNOTRS is perfectly clear as to how we are to handle this:

Primary sources are often difficult to use appropriately. Although they can be both reliable and useful in certain situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research.

Until there is a reliable secondary source that lays this all out and chooses the scientific papers that are notable and relevant, we have absolutely no business pretending we sit on scientific peer-review panels.

Now, as to your claim, Rentier, that by eliminating an entire section comprising nothing but primary sources somehow violates WP:NPOV, either you don’t understand Wikipedia policies, or are so blinded by a desire to flout bedrock principles in order to POV-push that you are willing to bamboozle with wikilawyering by citing policies where you have their meaning and intent turned entirely on their heads. Who are you trying to kid?? That entire section I deleted was pure, primary-sourced tit-for-tat garbage that was the product of edit-warring wikipedians who have zero business flouting Wikipedia's guidelines like this. Greg L (talk) 21:48, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

If you read carefully, you'll see I made no such claim. Don't put words in my mouth, and stop making unsubstantiated accusations. 4 of the 9 references you removed were to secondary sources (including one to The New Scientist which you seem to hold in such a high regard), so you are wrong on that point too. Why did you say the section comprised "nothing but primary sources"? Rentier (talk) 03:32, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

I stand corrected, Rentier. I apologize; I shouldn’t have said “only” primary sources. I have no objection to adding a “Theory vs. experimental observations” section so long as it is closely based on the latest, well respected secondary RSs (or a single, very recent, and very well respected secondary RS) and the section has no primary sources selected by wikipedians. Greg L (talk) 04:11, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Quantum information is mostly arbitrary, but small patches are statistically repeated

Humongously large matrices have repeating patterns inside them. That causes statistically appearing entanglements to emerge, and contributes to many phenomena.

devil-self: even small matrices have repeating patterns, the point is if the specific repetition is strong enough to create a phenomenon - focus there, don't be generic! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2149:846E:4600:35AC:BFF8:87DF:4C0F (talk) 15:55, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

What is your point?—Anita5192 (talk) 00:14, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Entropic Gravity From Planck's Constant

Gravity exists to enable time to pass from the past to the present to the future.

Relative to the Gravitating body, Time Passes faster in accordance to the “Inverse Square Law”.

c/(Planck Time/Planck Length) = 1

meters/(More Seconds)^2 = acceleration = meters/(Time Dilation/Length Contraction)

1 (m / (s^2)) / (kg / (m^2)) = 1 m^3/kg/s^2 = [(Acceleration)/ (mass/radius^2)] =Gravitation

(5.560815e+51 (m / (s^2))) / ((2.17646903e-8 kg) / (planck length^2)) = G

(5.560815e+51m/s^2 *(planck length/c^2) = 1

5.560815e+51 * (m / (s^2)) * ((1 / ((13.8880434 Billion (light years / (m^2)) * 299792458 * pi) / 2)) / (c^2)) = 1

((5.560815e+51 (m / (s^2))) * Boltzmann constant * (G / (c^2))) / ((2.7478492 (m/s))^4) = 1 K

((5.560815e+51*(m/(s^2))) * Boltzmann constant * (G/(c^2)) * kelvin)^0.25 = 2.7478492 m/s = CMBR

((5.560815e+51 (m / (s^2))) / (c^5)) * ((6.52485 ((kg m) / s)) * G) = 1

The Pressure or Energy Density is dropping as Entropy Rises

(System 1 Pressure or Kinetic Energy or Time) (System 2 Mass or Gravity or Volume)

(System 1) -> -> (Joules * second) -> -> (System 2) = hbar

(System 1) <- < - (mass * second) <- <- (System 2)

6.52485 / (hbar / (c^2)) = 5.5607809e+51 kg^-1 s^-1

(6.52485 ((kg m) / s)) / (hbar / (c^2)) = 5.5607809e+51 m / s^2

(5.560815e+51 (m / (s^2))=(planck length/c^2)

Fuller.david (talk) 20:26, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

This material cannot be included in Wikipedia without a reference to a dependable source and must not be original research.—Anita5192 (talk) 21:58, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

This material seems to be incorrect at the beginning:

c/(Planck Time/Planck Length) = 1 [(m/s)/s/m=1/s^2] not simply dimensionless "1"

meters/(More Seconds)^2 = acceleration = meters/(Time Dilation/Length Contraction) = m/(s/m) = (m^2)/s not m/s^2 as expected for acceleration. Guswen (talk) 23:13, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't see this anywhere in the article. What are you referring to?—Anita5192 (talk) 04:21, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

I am referring to the Fuller.david (talk) 20:26, 1 April 2018 (UTC) material, not to the article on EG.Guswen (talk) 22:39, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

My apologies. I thought this was a separate topic and I thought you were referring to the article.—Anita5192 (talk) 00:05, 3 September 2019 (UTC)