Only Two Fundamental Forces ?

[Rade]

If, it can be verified that gravity is not a fundamental force as here suggested:

 

EDIT: Here is the original argument by Verlinde, Eric (6 January 2010). "Title: On the Origin of Gravity and the Laws of Newton". **

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1001/1001.0785v1.pdf

 

==

**but see reply against Verlinde:

http://prd.aps.org/abstract/PRD/v83/i2/e021502

EDIT: see here for online access to argument:

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1108.4161v1.pdf

==

 

And, given that EM + Weak forces can be unified as {EM+Weak}

 

Then, can we conclude only two fundamental forces are necessary for our universe that is composed of matter and antimatter:

 

{EM+Weak} AND {Strong Force}

 

One advantage that comes to mind is that attempts to look for quantum gravity would not be necessary. Possible if argument of Verlinde is correct.

 

___

 

Comments appreciated.

Edited July 2, 2012 by Rade

[Moontanman]

If, it can be verified that gravity is not a fundamental force as here suggested:

http://prd.aps.org/abstract/PRD/v83/i2/e021502

 

And, given that EM + Weak forces can be unified as {EM+Weak}

 

Then, can we conclude only two fundamental forces are necessary for our universe that is composed of matter and antimatter:

 

{EM+Weak} AND {Strong Force}

 

One advantage that comes to mind is that attempts to look for quantum gravity would not be necessary.

 

___

 

Comments appreciated.

 

I couldn't get access to the paper, can you give us some details?

[Rade]

deleted, see OP

Edited July 2, 2012 by Rade

[Rade]

I couldn't get access to the paper, can you give us some details?

 

See here for original argument by Verlinde:

 

Verlinde, Eric (6 January 2010). "Title: On the Origin of Gravity and the Laws of Newton".

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1001/1001.0785v1.pdf

 

then reply against Verlinde hypothesis by Kobakhidze,

 

[5] A. Kobakhidze, “Gravity is not an entropic force,” Phys. Rev. D 83, 021502 (2011)

[arXiv:1009.5414 [hep-th]].

 

and here:

 

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1108.4161v1.pdf

 

--

 

Sorry for confusion, the OP question deals with the possibility that Verlinde hypothesis is correct as read here:

 

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1001/1001.0785v1.pdf

 

which is not currently the situation.

Edited July 2, 2012 by Rade

[CraigD]

If, it can be verified that gravity is not a fundamental force as here suggested: ...

Relying on a general idea of the idea of entopic gravity and the holographic principle rather than a reading of the linked-to papers, I think it’s accurate to say if these hypotheses and principles are true, there are no fundamental forces (interactions and particles that carry them), nor any other kinds of fundamental or composite particles. This whole theoretical domain has, as a deep principle, that the physical world is fundamentally information, with (to quote Wheeler) “energy and matter as incidentals”, or, in perhaps more familiar terms, emergent phenomena.

 

My deepest intuition informs me ‘t Hooft, Susskind, Verlinde and others in the holographic principle camp are correct, but I can’t begin to prove of more than superficially argue it, other than to praise its weird, elegant beauty.

 

Then, can we conclude only two fundamental forces are necessary for our universe that is composed of matter and antimatter:

 

{EM+Weak} AND {Strong Force}

I’m not sure where you’re going with this, Rade. Are you suggesting a significance to a hypothetical count of the fundamental forces being two, and the count of the classes of particles and antiparticles being two is significant?

[Little Bang]

I don't know why we couldn't say there is only one fundamental force and that being electromagnetic with gravity being a side effect of time dilation?

[Rade]

I’m not sure where you’re going with this, Rade. Are you suggesting a significance to a hypothetical count of the fundamental forces being two, and the count of the classes of particles and antiparticles being two is significant?

Thank you for comments. At this point I am just asking questions such as, if gravity (both classical and quantum) emerges as an entropic force resulting from the motion of matter (my read of what Verlinde suggests), then does that mean we are left with only two fundamental forces needed to explain the motion of matter and antimatter ? If yes, these two forces must be {EM+Weak} AND {Strong Force} based on current understanding of physics.

 

Perhaps the significance to the hypothetical count of "two" is the explanatory power of the dialectic.

 

Verlinde is clear that his hypothesis reaches the conclusion that neither space nor time exist to begin with, both are emergent, and that entropic gravity can only emerge after space and time are already present. So, what is first ? Motion of matter and antimatter, and for these we only require two fundamental forces {EM+Weak} AND {Strong Force}, all else (space, time, gravity, information, etc.) is emergent.

 

This is my understanding, please explain where it errors.

Edited July 2, 2012 by Rade

[Rade]

I don't know why we couldn't say there is only one fundamental force and that being electromagnetic with gravity being a side effect of time dilation?

Is there some reason you exclude the weak force and strong force ? Also, would you not have to include space as part of time dilation ?

[Moontanman]

If, it can be verified that gravity is not a fundamental force as here suggested:

 

EDIT: Here is the original argument by Verlinde, Eric (6 January 2010). "Title: On the Origin of Gravity and the Laws of Newton". **

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1001/1001.0785v1.pdf

 

==

**but see reply against Verlinde:

http://prd.aps.org/abstract/PRD/v83/i2/e021502

EDIT: see here for online access to argument:

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1108.4161v1.pdf

==

 

And, given that EM + Weak forces can be unified as {EM+Weak}

 

Then, can we conclude only two fundamental forces are necessary for our universe that is composed of matter and antimatter:

 

{EM+Weak} AND {Strong Force}

 

One advantage that comes to mind is that attempts to look for quantum gravity would not be necessary. Possible if argument of Verlinde is correct.

 

___

 

Comments appreciated.

 

i was under the impression that the Weak Strong and EM forces had been unified and only gravity remained to be consolidated...

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Unified_Theory

[Rade]

I was under the impression that the Weak Strong and EM forces had been unified and only gravity remained to be consolidated...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Unified_Theory

You are correct that {EM + Weak Force} have been unified, but you also have {Strong Force} to deal with.

 

The purpose of the OP topic is to the suggestion that gravity does not need to be consolidated with either because gravity does not exist as a fundamental force, it emerges from entropic mechanism but only after space and time also emerge from something more fundamental...e.g....the motion of matter and antimatter.

[Moontanman]

You are correct that {EM + Weak Force} have been unified, but you also have {Strong Force} to deal with.

 

The purpose of the OP topic is to the suggestion that gravity does not need to be consolidated with either because gravity does not exist as a fundamental force, it emerges from entropic mechanism but only after space and time also emerge from something more fundamental...e.g....the motion of matter and antimatter.

 

 

The link I provided indicated that the Strong force had been consolidated as well leaving only gravity as the odd man out...