Entropic gravity is a compelling framework. I think that most Physicists admit that it would be nice to believe that the yet unknown theory of everything is microscopic and quantum mechanical, and that the global and exquisitly weak force of gravity emerges from that theory as a sort of accounting error.
But there are so many potential assumptions baked into these theories that it's hard to believe when they claim, "look, Einstein's field equations."
Maybe, (I don't know), but it's easy to accidentally come up with a theory of "mysterious stuff" that appears to explain something, but neither constrains your expectation nor provides predictions.
You're probably thinking of the de Broglie-Bohm pilot wave theory, where there are actual particles with determinate trajectories at all times, which are probabilistically guided by a wave. I think they main problem with this idea is that it can't be made relativistically invariant, and so it can only be used for systems with low realtive velocities of its components.
OTOH de Broglie for one of the central ideas in the development of quantum mechanics: he inverted Einstein's idea about photons, which were previously thought to be waves but Einstein showed how they came in particle-like quanta. de Broglie realised you could apply the same thinking to matter, which had previously been thought of as particles, and describe them using waves. Subsequent observation of wavelike dynamics (diffraction) of electrons in the Davisson-Germer experiment got de Broglie the Nobel prize.
Virtual particles and related effects are actually widely accepted and experimentally proven (at least partially). Current physics wouldn't really work without them, or at least something that looks the same.
The gist of it is, that quantum mechanics prevents vacuum from really being empty. Any finite-size system or any system with some kind of influence/force/anything will have a lowest energy state that is not actually zero energy but slightly above. Which means that this non-zero can fluctuate and on occasion pair-produce and pair-annihilate particles (probability inversely depending on pair energy).
As an experimental physicist, I refuse to get excited about a new theory until the proponent gets to an observable phenomenon that can fix the question.
The problem with emergent theories like this is that they _derive_ Newtonian gravity and General Relativity so it’s not clear there’s anything to test. If they are able to predict MOND without the need for an additional MOND field then they become falsifiable only insofar as MOND is.
To me, entropy is not a physical thing, but a measure of our imperfect knowledge about a system. We can only measure the bulk properties of matter, so we've made up a number to quantify how imperfect the bulk properties describe the true microscopic state of the system. But if we had the ability to zoom into the microscopic level, entropy would make no sense.
So I don't see how gravity or any other fundamental physical interaction could follow from entropy. It's a made-up thing by humans.
Physical entropy governs real physical processes. Simple example: why ice melts in a warm room. More subtle example: why cords get tangled up over time.
Our measures of entropy can be seen as a way of summarizing, at a macro level, the state of a system such as that warm room containing ice, or a tangle of cables, but the measure is not the same thing as the phenomenon it describes.
Boltzmann's approach to entropy makes the second law pretty intuitive: there are far more ways for a system to be disordered than ordered, so over time it tends towards higher entropy. That’s why ice melts in a warm room.
> there are far more ways for a system to be disordered than ordered
I'm a complete layman when it comes to physics, so forgive me if this is naive — but aren't "ordered" and "disordered" concepts tied to human perception or cognition? It always seemed to me that we call something "ordered" when we can find a pattern in it, and "disordered" when we can't. Different people or cultures might be able to recognize patterns in different states. So while I agree that "there are more ways for a system to be disordered than ordered," I would have thought that's a property of how humans perceive the world, not necessarily a fundamental truth about the universe
Think minimum description length. Low entropy states require fewer terms to fully describe than high entropy states. This is an objective property of the system.
Ice melting is simply the water molecules gaining enough kinetic energy (from collisions with the surrounding air molecules) that they break the bonds that held them in the ice crystal lattice. But at the microscopic level it's still just water molecules acting according to Newton's laws of motion (forgetting about quantum effects of course).
Now, back on the topic of the article: consider a system of 2 particles separated by some distance. Do they experience gravity? Of course they do. They start falling towards the midpoint between them. But where is entropy in this picture? How do you even define entropy for a system of 2 particles?
Let me try to answer. Let's say the particles are experiencing gravity as a natural entropy phenomena. They will attract until they become so close that they are now seen as a single particle. The new system has a lower entropy and a higher gravity than before.
Explanation seems very rudimentary but that is the gist of the theory.
From my point of view, I might add the layer of information density. Every quantum fluctuation is an event and the more particles the more information is produced in a defined space volume. But there is no theory of information that is linked to the physics so ...that let me leave as that :).
I think original post is confused exactly because of “tangled chords” analogies. Something being “messy” in our daily lives can be a bit subjective, so using the same analogies for natural forces may seem a tad counterintuitive actually.
Maybe it would be more fitting to say that it just so happens that our human definition of “messy” aligns with entropy, and not that someone decided what messy atoms look like.
I’d say a bucket of water is more neat than a bucket of ice, macroscopically.
But "disordered" and "ordered" states are just what we define them to be: for example, cords are "tangled" only because we would prefer arrangements of cords with less knots, and knots form because someone didn't handle the cords carefully.
Physical processes are "real", but entropy is a figment.
Good question. You are absolutely right that entropy is always fundamentally a way to describe are our lack of perfect knowledge of the system [0].
Nevertheless there is a distinct "reality" to entropic forces, in the sense that it is something that can actually be measured in the lab. If you are not convinced then you can look at:
So when viewed in this way entropy is not just a "made-up thing", but an effective way to describe observed phenomena. That makes it useful for effective but not fundamental laws of physics. And indeed the wiki page says that entropic forces are an "emergent phenomenon".
Therefore, any reasonable person believing in entropic gravity will automatically call gravity an emergent phenomenon. They must conclude that there is a new, fundamental theory of gravity to be found, and this theory will "restore" the probabilistic interpretation of entropy.
The reason entropic gravity is exciting and exotic is that many other searches for this fundamental theory start with a (more or less) direct quantization of gravity, much like one can quantize classical mechanics to arrive at quantum mechanics. Entropic gravity posits that this is the wrong approach, in the same way that one does not try to directly quantize the ideal gas law.
[0] Let me stress this: there is no entropy without probability distributions, even in physics. Anyone claiming otherwise is stuck in the nineteenth century, perhaps because they learned only thermodynamics but not statistical mechanics.
Sure, I'm not denying that entropy exists as a concept, that can be used to explain things macroscopically. But like you said, it's origins are statistical. To me, temperature is also a similar "made up" concept. We can only talk about temperature, because a sufficiently large group of particles will converge to a single-parameter distribution with their velocities. A single particle in isolation doesn't have a temperature.
So if they say gravity might be an entropic effect, does that mean that they assume there's something more fundamental "underneath" spacetime that - in the statistical limit - produces the emergent phenomenon of gravity? So it isn't the entropy of matter that they talk about, but the entropy of something else, like the grains of spacetime of whatever.
Even if we take that view, gravity is still basically a similar case. What we call "gravity" is really an apparent force, that isnt a force at all when seen from a full 4d pov.
Imagine sitting outside the whole universe from t=0,t=end and observing one whole block. Then the trajectories of matter, unaffected by any force at all, are those we call gravitational.
From this pov, it makes a lot more sense to connect gravity with some orderly or disorderly features of these trajectories.
Inertia, on this view, is just a kind of hysteresis the matter distribution of the universe has -- ie., a kind of remembered deformation that persists as the universe evolves.
> From this pov, it makes a lot more sense to connect gravity with some orderly or disorderly features of these trajectories.
On the contrary, entropic gravity works pretty well for the Newtonian view of gravity as a force, and not the GR view of gravity as a deformation of space time and analogous to acceleration. Acceleration is a very elementary concept, one you find even in microscopic descriptions. Gravity being essentially the same thing makes it far more elementary than a concept like entropy, which only applies to large groups of particles.
So, if the GR picture is the right one, if gravity and acceleration are essentially the same thing, its very hard to see how that aligns with gravity being an emergent phenomenon that only happens at large scales. However, if gravity is just a tendency for massive objects to come together, as in the Newtonian picture, that is perfectly easy to imagine as an entropic effect.
Entropy isn't a function of imperfect knowledge. It's a function of the possible states of a system and their probability distributions. Quantum mechanics assumes, as the name implies, that reality at the smallest level can be quantised, so it's completely appropriate to apply entropy to describing things at the microscopic scale.
Anti matter is created and repulsed and expelled, leaving a vacuum, things get sucked into that vacuum, creating the illusion of gravity, that’s my novel theory.
We all know that life on Earth gets it's energy from the Sun.
But we also know that's an approximation we tell kids, really life gets low entropy photons from the Sun, does it's thing, and then emits high entropy infrared waste heat. Energy is conserved, while entropy increases.
But where did the Sun got it's low entropy photons to start with? From gravity, empty uniform space has low entropy, which got "scooped up" as the Sun formed.
Your question fascinated me. Googling "where did the Sun got its low entropy" I also came across these explanations:
"Solar energy at Earth is low-entropy because all of it comes from a region of the sky with a diameter of half a degree of arc."
also, from another reply:
"Sunlight is low entropy because the sun is very hot. Entropy is essentially a measure of how spread out energy is. If you consider two systems with the same amount of thermal energy, then the one where that energy is more concentrated (low entropy) will be hotter."
Probably it's a bit of both. I'm not sure I understand your hypothesis about the Sun scooping up empty, low-entropy space. Wasn't it formed from dusts and gases created by previous stellar explosions, i.e. the polar opposite of low entropy?
I read the gravity explanation for the sun low entropy in the "Road to Reality" book from Roger Penrose. Asked Gemini to summarize the argument (scroll to end)
Space exists around things with mass. Also, above-absolute-zero temperatures cause particles to jump around randomly.
Now if there is "more space" around particle A, particle B will have a slightly higher statistical chance of randomly jumping closer to it, than farther.
>Also, above-absolute-zero temperatures cause particles to jump around randomly.
Does it? A single free particle won't "jump around randomly". Thermal motion is plain Newtonian motion with an extremely high rate of collisions. There's nothing random about it (let's put quantum things aside for now).
My guess would be the answer is right in the part before you quote? If theres more "space" (imagining more space coordinates possible) for me on the left than on the right, me jumping to a random location would statistically move me left.
Repeating results in movement, getting closer to the object intensifies this effect, results in acceleration.
Solid objects are products of electric charge preventing atoms/particles from hitting each other, I dont think that has to have to do anything with gravity in this example?
Isn't this something we already know from the mass–energy equivalence? In the same way that a nuclear reaction that produces heat must cost the object mass (and therefore gravitational pull)
It does, but because you have to divide the energy change by c^2, it is really really hard to detect it, and mostly overwhelmed by other effects of the heating/cooling.
why do the units matter here? Under this theory, will a body at absolute zero have no observable mass? No attractive field around it, no inertia if you try to move it.
Entropic gravity is a compelling framework. I think that most Physicists admit that it would be nice to believe that the yet unknown theory of everything is microscopic and quantum mechanical, and that the global and exquisitly weak force of gravity emerges from that theory as a sort of accounting error.
But there are so many potential assumptions baked into these theories that it's hard to believe when they claim, "look, Einstein's field equations."
"There’s some kind of gas or some thermal system out there that we can’t see directly" - The Ether is back on the menu boys
Caloric. Dark matter. Cosmological constant.
We like placeholders for the unknown.
Isn't that how equations get solved?
Pretty much anything known entered through such placeholder, it's just that equations could be connected more easily.
It's not like Higgs field is something you can directly observe
Maybe, (I don't know), but it's easy to accidentally come up with a theory of "mysterious stuff" that appears to explain something, but neither constrains your expectation nor provides predictions.
Phlogiston is the classic example. https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/RgkqLqkg8vLhsYpfh/fake-causa...
Don't forget phlogiston.
Virtual Particles!
Was that de Broglie's thing? I always thought it didn't get a fair shake
You're probably thinking of the de Broglie-Bohm pilot wave theory, where there are actual particles with determinate trajectories at all times, which are probabilistically guided by a wave. I think they main problem with this idea is that it can't be made relativistically invariant, and so it can only be used for systems with low realtive velocities of its components.
OTOH de Broglie for one of the central ideas in the development of quantum mechanics: he inverted Einstein's idea about photons, which were previously thought to be waves but Einstein showed how they came in particle-like quanta. de Broglie realised you could apply the same thinking to matter, which had previously been thought of as particles, and describe them using waves. Subsequent observation of wavelike dynamics (diffraction) of electrons in the Davisson-Germer experiment got de Broglie the Nobel prize.
Virtual particles and related effects are actually widely accepted and experimentally proven (at least partially). Current physics wouldn't really work without them, or at least something that looks the same.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-point_energy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation
The gist of it is, that quantum mechanics prevents vacuum from really being empty. Any finite-size system or any system with some kind of influence/force/anything will have a lowest energy state that is not actually zero energy but slightly above. Which means that this non-zero can fluctuate and on occasion pair-produce and pair-annihilate particles (probability inversely depending on pair energy).
And yes, this sounds like some kind of ether...
As an experimental physicist, I refuse to get excited about a new theory until the proponent gets to an observable phenomenon that can fix the question.
The problem with emergent theories like this is that they _derive_ Newtonian gravity and General Relativity so it’s not clear there’s anything to test. If they are able to predict MOND without the need for an additional MOND field then they become falsifiable only insofar as MOND is.
I don't get it.
To me, entropy is not a physical thing, but a measure of our imperfect knowledge about a system. We can only measure the bulk properties of matter, so we've made up a number to quantify how imperfect the bulk properties describe the true microscopic state of the system. But if we had the ability to zoom into the microscopic level, entropy would make no sense.
So I don't see how gravity or any other fundamental physical interaction could follow from entropy. It's a made-up thing by humans.
Your perspective is incorrect.
Physical entropy governs real physical processes. Simple example: why ice melts in a warm room. More subtle example: why cords get tangled up over time.
Our measures of entropy can be seen as a way of summarizing, at a macro level, the state of a system such as that warm room containing ice, or a tangle of cables, but the measure is not the same thing as the phenomenon it describes.
Boltzmann's approach to entropy makes the second law pretty intuitive: there are far more ways for a system to be disordered than ordered, so over time it tends towards higher entropy. That’s why ice melts in a warm room.
> there are far more ways for a system to be disordered than ordered
I'm a complete layman when it comes to physics, so forgive me if this is naive — but aren't "ordered" and "disordered" concepts tied to human perception or cognition? It always seemed to me that we call something "ordered" when we can find a pattern in it, and "disordered" when we can't. Different people or cultures might be able to recognize patterns in different states. So while I agree that "there are more ways for a system to be disordered than ordered," I would have thought that's a property of how humans perceive the world, not necessarily a fundamental truth about the universe
Think minimum description length. Low entropy states require fewer terms to fully describe than high entropy states. This is an objective property of the system.
In a deterministic system you can just use the time as a way to describe a state, if you started from a known state.
>Simple example: why ice melts in a warm room.
Ice melting is simply the water molecules gaining enough kinetic energy (from collisions with the surrounding air molecules) that they break the bonds that held them in the ice crystal lattice. But at the microscopic level it's still just water molecules acting according to Newton's laws of motion (forgetting about quantum effects of course).
Now, back on the topic of the article: consider a system of 2 particles separated by some distance. Do they experience gravity? Of course they do. They start falling towards the midpoint between them. But where is entropy in this picture? How do you even define entropy for a system of 2 particles?
Let me try to answer. Let's say the particles are experiencing gravity as a natural entropy phenomena. They will attract until they become so close that they are now seen as a single particle. The new system has a lower entropy and a higher gravity than before.
Explanation seems very rudimentary but that is the gist of the theory.
From my point of view, I might add the layer of information density. Every quantum fluctuation is an event and the more particles the more information is produced in a defined space volume. But there is no theory of information that is linked to the physics so ...that let me leave as that :).
I think original post is confused exactly because of “tangled chords” analogies. Something being “messy” in our daily lives can be a bit subjective, so using the same analogies for natural forces may seem a tad counterintuitive actually.
Maybe it would be more fitting to say that it just so happens that our human definition of “messy” aligns with entropy, and not that someone decided what messy atoms look like.
I’d say a bucket of water is more neat than a bucket of ice, macroscopically.
But "disordered" and "ordered" states are just what we define them to be: for example, cords are "tangled" only because we would prefer arrangements of cords with less knots, and knots form because someone didn't handle the cords carefully.
Physical processes are "real", but entropy is a figment.
I believe you are correct.
Entropy is not a physical quantity, it is a measure of how far a system is from equilibrium.
Lots of people talk about order/disorder or macro and micro states, not realizing these are things we've invented and aren't physical in nature.
The way we use the word 'entropy' in computer science is different from how its used in physics. Here is a really good explanation in a great talk! https://youtu.be/Kr_S-vXdu_I?si=1uNF2g9OhtlMAS-G&t=2213
Good question. You are absolutely right that entropy is always fundamentally a way to describe are our lack of perfect knowledge of the system [0].
Nevertheless there is a distinct "reality" to entropic forces, in the sense that it is something that can actually be measured in the lab. If you are not convinced then you can look at:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropic_force
and in particular the example that is always used in a first class on this topic:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideal_chain
So when viewed in this way entropy is not just a "made-up thing", but an effective way to describe observed phenomena. That makes it useful for effective but not fundamental laws of physics. And indeed the wiki page says that entropic forces are an "emergent phenomenon".
Therefore, any reasonable person believing in entropic gravity will automatically call gravity an emergent phenomenon. They must conclude that there is a new, fundamental theory of gravity to be found, and this theory will "restore" the probabilistic interpretation of entropy.
The reason entropic gravity is exciting and exotic is that many other searches for this fundamental theory start with a (more or less) direct quantization of gravity, much like one can quantize classical mechanics to arrive at quantum mechanics. Entropic gravity posits that this is the wrong approach, in the same way that one does not try to directly quantize the ideal gas law.
[0] Let me stress this: there is no entropy without probability distributions, even in physics. Anyone claiming otherwise is stuck in the nineteenth century, perhaps because they learned only thermodynamics but not statistical mechanics.
Sure, I'm not denying that entropy exists as a concept, that can be used to explain things macroscopically. But like you said, it's origins are statistical. To me, temperature is also a similar "made up" concept. We can only talk about temperature, because a sufficiently large group of particles will converge to a single-parameter distribution with their velocities. A single particle in isolation doesn't have a temperature.
So if they say gravity might be an entropic effect, does that mean that they assume there's something more fundamental "underneath" spacetime that - in the statistical limit - produces the emergent phenomenon of gravity? So it isn't the entropy of matter that they talk about, but the entropy of something else, like the grains of spacetime of whatever.
Even if we take that view, gravity is still basically a similar case. What we call "gravity" is really an apparent force, that isnt a force at all when seen from a full 4d pov.
Imagine sitting outside the whole universe from t=0,t=end and observing one whole block. Then the trajectories of matter, unaffected by any force at all, are those we call gravitational.
From this pov, it makes a lot more sense to connect gravity with some orderly or disorderly features of these trajectories.
Inertia, on this view, is just a kind of hysteresis the matter distribution of the universe has -- ie., a kind of remembered deformation that persists as the universe evolves.
> From this pov, it makes a lot more sense to connect gravity with some orderly or disorderly features of these trajectories.
On the contrary, entropic gravity works pretty well for the Newtonian view of gravity as a force, and not the GR view of gravity as a deformation of space time and analogous to acceleration. Acceleration is a very elementary concept, one you find even in microscopic descriptions. Gravity being essentially the same thing makes it far more elementary than a concept like entropy, which only applies to large groups of particles.
So, if the GR picture is the right one, if gravity and acceleration are essentially the same thing, its very hard to see how that aligns with gravity being an emergent phenomenon that only happens at large scales. However, if gravity is just a tendency for massive objects to come together, as in the Newtonian picture, that is perfectly easy to imagine as an entropic effect.
Entropy is the opposite of potential
Entropy isn't a function of imperfect knowledge. It's a function of the possible states of a system and their probability distributions. Quantum mechanics assumes, as the name implies, that reality at the smallest level can be quantised, so it's completely appropriate to apply entropy to describing things at the microscopic scale.
> Entropy isn't a function of imperfect knowledge. It's a function of the possible states of a system and their probability distributions.
There are no probability distributions over possible states when there is perfect knowledge of the state.
> Quantum mechanics
Entropy is also zero for a pure quantum state. You won’t have entropy without imperfect knowledge.
Anti matter is created and repulsed and expelled, leaving a vacuum, things get sucked into that vacuum, creating the illusion of gravity, that’s my novel theory.
Like some sort of buoyancy?
We all know that life on Earth gets it's energy from the Sun.
But we also know that's an approximation we tell kids, really life gets low entropy photons from the Sun, does it's thing, and then emits high entropy infrared waste heat. Energy is conserved, while entropy increases.
But where did the Sun got it's low entropy photons to start with? From gravity, empty uniform space has low entropy, which got "scooped up" as the Sun formed.
EDIT: not sure why this is downvoted, is the explanation Nobel Physics laureate Roger Penrose gives: https://g.co/gemini/share/bd9a55da02b6
The photons do not have entropy.
The photons from Sun are hot, the space around Sun is cold, the system has a low entropy.
If the space around Sun was as hot as the photons, the entropy would be high.
Your question fascinated me. Googling "where did the Sun got its low entropy" I also came across these explanations:
"Solar energy at Earth is low-entropy because all of it comes from a region of the sky with a diameter of half a degree of arc."
also, from another reply:
"Sunlight is low entropy because the sun is very hot. Entropy is essentially a measure of how spread out energy is. If you consider two systems with the same amount of thermal energy, then the one where that energy is more concentrated (low entropy) will be hotter."
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/796434/why-does-...
Probably it's a bit of both. I'm not sure I understand your hypothesis about the Sun scooping up empty, low-entropy space. Wasn't it formed from dusts and gases created by previous stellar explosions, i.e. the polar opposite of low entropy?
The universe was low entropy at the time of the big bang, and even though entropy is steadily rising, the universe is still pretty low entropy.
I read the gravity explanation for the sun low entropy in the "Road to Reality" book from Roger Penrose. Asked Gemini to summarize the argument (scroll to end)
https://g.co/gemini/share/bd9a55da02b6
gravity=time
Space exists around things with mass. Also, above-absolute-zero temperatures cause particles to jump around randomly.
Now if there is "more space" around particle A, particle B will have a slightly higher statistical chance of randomly jumping closer to it, than farther.
Rinse-repeat. Gravity as we know it.
>Also, above-absolute-zero temperatures cause particles to jump around randomly.
Does it? A single free particle won't "jump around randomly". Thermal motion is plain Newtonian motion with an extremely high rate of collisions. There's nothing random about it (let's put quantum things aside for now).
If space existed around things with mass, then what would you call the emptiness that replaces space the further you go away from things with mass?
It sounds a bit like Le Sage's theory of gravity:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges-Louis_Le_Sage
> particle B will have a slightly higher statistical chance of randomly jumping closer to it,
Why?
Also how do you explain acceleration due to gravity with that model. How do you explain solid objects?
My guess would be the answer is right in the part before you quote? If theres more "space" (imagining more space coordinates possible) for me on the left than on the right, me jumping to a random location would statistically move me left.
Repeating results in movement, getting closer to the object intensifies this effect, results in acceleration.
Solid objects are products of electric charge preventing atoms/particles from hitting each other, I dont think that has to have to do anything with gravity in this example?
Sounds fun!
Would this imply that cold objects have weaker gravity?
Isn't this something we already know from the mass–energy equivalence? In the same way that a nuclear reaction that produces heat must cost the object mass (and therefore gravitational pull)
It does, but because you have to divide the energy change by c^2, it is really really hard to detect it, and mostly overwhelmed by other effects of the heating/cooling.
why do the units matter here? Under this theory, will a body at absolute zero have no observable mass? No attractive field around it, no inertia if you try to move it.
sounds more like the reverse to me, movement away from denser areas (less space), so like water leaking out of a container.