- #1
ensabah6
- 695
- 0
Verlinde and Jacobson's early work, strongly implies that gravity is emergent.
Anyhow, one of Jacobson's and Verlinde's claim in his paper is that since gravity is not a fundamental force, it does not make physical sense to quantize it canonically. So the LQG program is misguided, quantizing GR, Gravity is geometry, does not give you the fundamental degrees of freedom. I'm not sure what ramifications gravity-entropy emergent argument has
1- does the Weinberg-Witten theorem apply?
2- Verlinde does not believe in gravitons as fundamental but in "quasiparticles"
3- What are the fundamental forces? If EM can be shown to be entropic does it cease to be fundamental? What about E-W? Strong?
4- how does this affect background independence, gravity as geometry, gravity is spacetime?
5- what are particles in this framework?
Anyhow, one of Jacobson's and Verlinde's claim in his paper is that since gravity is not a fundamental force, it does not make physical sense to quantize it canonically. So the LQG program is misguided, quantizing GR, Gravity is geometry, does not give you the fundamental degrees of freedom. I'm not sure what ramifications gravity-entropy emergent argument has
1- does the Weinberg-Witten theorem apply?
2- Verlinde does not believe in gravitons as fundamental but in "quasiparticles"
3- What are the fundamental forces? If EM can be shown to be entropic does it cease to be fundamental? What about E-W? Strong?
4- how does this affect background independence, gravity as geometry, gravity is spacetime?
5- what are particles in this framework?