Sorry Newton, gravity is out, Verlinde is in 0

Sorry Newton, gravity is out, Verlinde is in

Gravity is one o’them important things, right? I mean, in addition to being the most steady constant the world has seen since Desmond Hume for Daniel (or Penny to Des!) it’s also that wonderful, magical substance that keeps our feet grounded on this dirt stuff. But, OK, hold on. What if Erik Verlinde, a professor of physics at the University of Amsterdam, is able to convince us all that gravity is but a mere illusion? Some 300 years after Sir Isaac Newton provided the world with theories on gravity, as well as a delicious fruit-and-cake combo, Verlinde argues that gravity is merely a consequence of the laws of thermodynamics. Says you, Verlinde!

(not in English, but we wouldn’t have understood it anyway)

In his paper “On the Origin of Gravity and the Laws of Newton,” Verlinde goes on to say that gravity, flat out, doesn’t exist. See? “For me gravity doesn’t exist,” says Dr. Verlinde. He’s not alone, either. A growing number of physicists say that science has been looking at gravity the wrong way for hundreds of years. In fact, breaking down their new thoughts as they’ve discussed them, some of the more perplexing and unexplained concepts out there, such as dark energy and ant-matter, would get a whole new definition.

And what studious, academic title does he propose? The “Bad Hair Day” theory of gravity. He goes on to justify the name in how human hair styles react to the environment. Heat and humid temperatures aim to curl or “frizz” your hair, and you must create a new force (pulling with a comb, for example) to remove nature’s curly option. Gravity, as we know it, was not really a factor.

Many scientists and physicists are skeptical of Verlinde’s findings, but not many will ignore the fresh perspective he’s placed on one of science’s most standard “facts.” Andrew Strominger, a fan of the paper and one of Verlinde’s fellow string theorists, said “Some people have said it can’t be right, others that it’s right and we already knew it — that it’s right and profound, right and trivial. What you have to say, is that it has inspired a lot of interesting discussions. It’s just a very interesting collection of ideas that touch on things we most profoundly do not understand about our universe.”

[Source: New York Times]