Jack Armel's Entropic Space-Time Theory

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Gear300
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Space-time
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around Jack Armel's "Entropic Space-Time" theory, exploring its concepts and relevance to contemporary theories in physics, particularly in the context of space-time and quantum gravity. Participants express curiosity about the theory's acceptance and its connections to established scientific ideas.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant notes that Armel's theory designates space-time as having energy, with a charge and quantization, and questions its relevance to current theories.
  • Another participant suggests that many researchers in quantum gravity view space-time as "emergent," similar to how thermodynamics arises from microscopic degrees of freedom.
  • A participant expresses interest in finding more discussions or resources related to Armel's book.
  • One participant draws a parallel between Armel's theory and the holographic principle, indicating that the latter is considered seriously in certain scientific circles.
  • There is a request for contact information for Jack Armel, indicating a desire for direct engagement with the author.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the significance or acceptance of Armel's theory, and multiple competing views regarding the nature of space-time and its emergent properties are present.

Contextual Notes

The discussion reflects varying levels of familiarity with the theory and related concepts, and there are references to broader theories without detailed exploration of their implications or definitions.

Who May Find This Useful

Individuals interested in theoretical physics, quantum gravity, and the philosophical implications of space-time theories may find this discussion relevant.

Gear300
Messages
1,209
Reaction score
9
When looking through a few books, I ran into one by someone named Jack Armel. It was a theory he developed called "Entropic Space-Time" (also the title of the book). I've never heard (or remember hearing) this theory before...I'm presuming it did not carry out too far (it'd be helpful if someone confirmed this). The theory did not seem too crazy (though I only looked at the Table of Contents and the first chapter of the book); in the first chapter, I did find it interesting how he designated space-time as something with energy -- the structure of space-time was given a charge and was quantized. Does this concept of space-time extend into the heavier ongoing theories of today or is it just left as an arbitrary structure?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I have a response to this, but I think I'm going to wait and see if someone more math savvy than me can give him a better one, first.
 
I'll be checking for responses.
 
Last edited:
no one?
 
I think that there are many researchers in QG today who think along these lines. Most notably are people who believe that spacetime is "emergent". In the same sense that thermodynamics is an emergent set of laws that emerge from a coarse graining of some microscopic degrees of freedom perhaps general relativity(and hence spacetime) is an emergent theory from some more fundamental theory(i.e. quantum gravity).
 
Does anyone know where to get in touch with Mr. Jack Armel?

Thanks in advance
 
The Google Books read is intriguing. Where else is this book discussed?
 
Well, I don't know much about it, but it sounds very similar to the holographic principle, which I know is taken seriously by certain branches of science. The best I can do is suggest a google search on "Hawking holographic principle". You can also check out books like, "The Black Hole War". As I said, I don't know much about it, but you may find these leads useful.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
9K
  • · Replies 50 ·
2
Replies
50
Views
10K
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
5K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
7K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
4K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
4K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
4K