• Register
PhysicsOverflow is a next-generation academic platform for physicists and astronomers, including a community peer review system and a postgraduate-level discussion forum analogous to MathOverflow.

Welcome to PhysicsOverflow! PhysicsOverflow is an open platform for community peer review and graduate-level Physics discussion.

Please help promote PhysicsOverflow ads elsewhere if you like it.


PO is now at the Physics Department of Bielefeld University!

New printer friendly PO pages!

Migration to Bielefeld University was successful!

Please vote for this year's PhysicsOverflow ads!

Please do help out in categorising submissions. Submit a paper to PhysicsOverflow!

... see more

Tools for paper authors

Submit paper
Claim Paper Authorship

Tools for SE users

Search User
Reclaim SE Account
Request Account Merger
Nativise imported posts
Claim post (deleted users)
Import SE post

Users whose questions have been imported from Physics Stack Exchange, Theoretical Physics Stack Exchange, or any other Stack Exchange site are kindly requested to reclaim their account and not to register as a new user.

Public \(\beta\) tools

Report a bug with a feature
Request a new functionality
404 page design
Send feedback


(propose a free ad)

Site Statistics

205 submissions , 163 unreviewed
5,064 questions , 2,215 unanswered
5,347 answers , 22,728 comments
1,470 users with positive rep
818 active unimported users
More ...

  Understanding Verlinde: How to get from emergent gravity to MOND

+ 3 like - 0 dislike

Verlinde ( https://arxiv.org/abs/1611.02269 ) tries to deduce MOND from emergent gravity. Can you help?

Emergent or entropic gravity goes back to Jacobson. He starts with

  • the entropy-area connection $S= A\,{kc^3}/{4G\hbar }$ (Bekenstein-Hawking)
  • the temperature-acceleration connection $T= a \, {\hbar}/{2\pi kc}$ (Unruh)
  • the heat and entropy connection $\delta Q =T \delta S$.

Then he uses the thermodynamic horizon relation ("energy change is heat change") \begin{equation} \delta E = \delta Q \end{equation} to get \begin{equation} \delta E = \frac{c^2}{8\pi G} a \delta A \end{equation} He uses the energy-momentum tensor $T_{ab}$ to write \begin{equation} \int T_{ab} k^a {\rm d} \Sigma^b = \frac{c^2}{8\pi G} a \delta A \end{equation} where ${\rm d} \Sigma^b$ is the general surface element and $k^a$ is the Killing vector that generates the horizon. Then he uses the Raychaudhuri equation to rewrite this as \begin{equation} \int T_{ab} k^a {\rm d} \Sigma^b = \frac{c^4}{8\pi G} \int R_{ab} k^a {\rm d} \Sigma^b \end{equation} where $R_{ab}$ is the Ricci tensor describing space-time curvature. This equality implies \begin{equation} T_{ab} = \frac{c^4}{8\pi G} ( R_{ab} - (R/2 + \Lambda) g_{ab} ) \end{equation} where $R$ is the Ricci scalar and $\Lambda$ is a famous constant of integration: the cosmological constant. These are Einsteins field equations.

Ok, this was the summary of Jacobson's derivation, which is now often called emergent gravity or entropic gravity.

Now, Verlinde changes this derivation by stating that the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy-area connection $$S= A\,\frac{kc^3}{4G\hbar }$$ is not correct in de Sitter space, but has to be changed (here I might be wrong) to something involving the de Sitter radius $L$. It seems that he implies, for a black hole of radius $r$, something like $$S= A(r)\,\frac{kc^3}{4G\hbar } - \frac{r}{L}A(r)\,\frac{kc^3}{4G\hbar }$$ where $L$ is the de Sitter radius. The black hole entropy is changed by a small effect of the de Sitter space (horizon). As I said, I might be reading him incorrectly, and maybe his expression differs.

Verlinde claims that Milgrom's MOND arises from the effect of $\Lambda$, or equivalently of the size of the horizon $L$.

Verlinde appears to say that the horizon $L$ changes gravity. Why does he not write (using $r=\sqrt{A/4\pi}$) for the entropy $$S= A\left (1-\frac{\sqrt{A/4\pi}}{L} \right)\,\frac{kc^3}{4G\hbar }$$ and just continues with Jacobson's derivation? He could use this expression for entropy $S$ as a modified Bekenstein-Hawking relation and repeat the derivation by Jacobson. He would directly get new/improved/corrected field equations for gravitation ("Verlinde's field equations") that take into account $\Lambda$. They could be tested against experiment. And they should contain MOND, even a relativistic version of it. What is wrong with this approach?

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2020-06-25 21:55 (UTC), posted by SE-user Christian
asked Jun 19, 2020 in Theoretical Physics by Christian (35 points) [ no revision ]

Your answer

Please use answers only to (at least partly) answer questions. To comment, discuss, or ask for clarification, leave a comment instead.
To mask links under text, please type your text, highlight it, and click the "link" button. You can then enter your link URL.
Please consult the FAQ for as to how to format your post.
This is the answer box; if you want to write a comment instead, please use the 'add comment' button.
Live preview (may slow down editor)   Preview
Your name to display (optional):
Privacy: Your email address will only be used for sending these notifications.
Anti-spam verification:
If you are a human please identify the position of the character covered by the symbol $\varnothing$ in the following word:
Then drag the red bullet below over the corresponding character of our banner. When you drop it there, the bullet changes to green (on slow internet connections after a few seconds).
Please complete the anti-spam verification

user contributions licensed under cc by-sa 3.0 with attribution required

Your rights