I have been reading about Verlinde, and if what he says is true that is very exciting, but how is it a better explanation?


Here is Verlinde's own paper on the subject. This article by the University of Amsterdam explains it pretty well.

A few important parts quoted from the article:

The outer regions of galaxies, like our own Milky Way, rotate much faster around the centre than can be accounted for by the quantity of ordinary matter like stars, planets and interstellar gasses. Something else has to produce the required amount of gravitational force, and so dark matter entered the scene. Dark matter seems to dominate our universe: more than 80% of all matter must have a dark nature. Hitherto, the alleged dark matter particles have never been observed, despite many efforts to detect them.

According to Erik Verlinde, there is no need to add a mysterious dark matter particle to the theory. In a new paper, which appeared today on ArXiv.org, Verlinde shows how his theory of gravity accurately predicts the velocities by which the stars rotate around the center of the Milky Way, as well as the motion of stars inside other galaxies. 'We have evidence that this new view of gravity actually agrees with the observations,' says Verlinde. 'At large scales, it seems, gravity just doesn’t behave the way Einstein’s theory predicts.'

  • $\begingroup$ I'd be interested to know how this theory deals with things like the bullet cluster, which seem to be the observation that is most troubling for non-dark-matter theories. I haven't read the paper so I'm just being lazy here, but it would be cool to add a note on that to the answer. $\endgroup$ – tfb Dec 8 '16 at 13:00
  • $\begingroup$ @tfb: This article: quantamagazine.org/20161129-verlinde-gravity-dark-matter has a part where Verlinde is confronted with the Bullet Cluster issue. I don't pertain to really understand what he's saying, but I believe it amounts to "I haven't done the math yet, but I believe we'll do fine". $\endgroup$ – Guss Dec 25 '16 at 9:43
  • $\begingroup$ @Guss Thanks. I read the link and it makes me think the theory is probably hopeless, but I would be delighted (really!) to be wrong. $\endgroup$ – tfb Dec 25 '16 at 13:34

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.