arxiv.org - 2026-10-04 (Investigator, Step I, run 1)

Searched: author listing https://arxiv.org/a/verlinde_e_1 (and .html) -> "Not Found" (author-ID page does not exist under that slug; the arXiv search URL did not load in the session). Then abstract pages opened directly from leads found via Google and INSPIRE.

Findings

1. Verlinde, "Emergent Gravity and the Dark Universe", arXiv:1611.02269 (v1 7 Nov 2016, v2 8 Nov 2016); SciPost Phys. 2, 016 (2017) [web] https://arxiv.org/abs/1611.02269

Priority 1 (inventor's own work). The successor to the project paper. Abstract (paraphrase): spacetime and gravity emerge together from the entanglement structure of an underlying microscopic theory; in de Sitter space (positive dark energy) a thermal "volume law" contribution to entropy overtakes the area law at the cosmological horizon; matter causes an "entropy displacement" whose "elastic" response is an extra "dark gravity force"; strength estimated from baryonic mass, G and the Hubble acceleration scale a_0 = c H_0; argued to explain phenomena attributed to dark matter in galaxies and clusters. Bears on: claim 5 (emergent space/gravity) and the "elastic"/polymer analogy of claim 1; turns the 2010 interpretation into a model with a differing prediction at low acceleration (the 2010 paper's claim 6 said a prediction needed better theory). Note the 2016 paper replaces the 2010 area-law-only picture with area + volume entanglement, so the reviewers should not assume the two papers make identical assumptions.

2. Brouwer et al., "First test of Verlinde's theory of Emergent Gravity using Weak Gravitational Lensing measurements", arXiv:1612.03034; MNRAS 466, 2547-2559 (2017) [web] https://arxiv.org/abs/1612.03034

Priority 2 (supporting test by others). 33,613 isolated central galaxies, KiDS x GAMA (~180 deg^2). Authors: EG prediction, "despite requiring no free parameters", is in good agreement with the observed galaxy-galaxy lensing profiles in four stellar-mass bins; they caution it is "only a first step" and that EG has no direct description of lensing and cosmology yet (they assumed a LambdaCDM background). Co-author Manus Visser later co-authored with Verlinde (see INSPIRE note), Leiden/Amsterdam group.

3. Brouwer et al. (incl. Erik Verlinde and Manus Visser as co-authors), "The Weak Lensing Radial Acceleration Relation ... KiDS-1000", arXiv:2106.11677; A&A 650, A113 (2021) [web] https://arxiv.org/abs/2106.11677

Priority 2, with interested-party note: Verlinde is a co-author. Lensing RAR extended two decades lower in acceleration. Reported: measured RAR "agrees well" with MOND and EG predictions; but a difference of at least 6 sigma between RARs of early- and late-type galaxies of the same stellar mass, which the authors say current MG theories (gravity modification independent of galaxy properties) "would be unable to explain", unless only early types have large circumgalactic gas haloes; LambdaCDM (MICE) also reproduces the RAR. Evidence both for and against; both sides must be carried forward.

4. Kobakhidze, "Gravity is not an entropic force", arXiv:1009.5414; Phys. Rev. D 83, 021502 (2011) [web] https://arxiv.org/abs/1009.5414

Priority 3 (critique). Argues ultra-cold-neutron experiments in Earth's gravity (quantised bound states) disprove entropic origin of gravity. Bears on claims 1 and 6 (fluctuations/decoherence). Counter-argument noted on Wikipedia: Chaichian, Oksanen, Tureanu, arXiv:1104.4650, Phys. Lett. B 702, 419 (2011) - not opened this run.

Not reached on arXiv (next run)

Chaichian et al. 1104.4650; Kobakhidze follow-up "Once more: gravity is not an entropic force" (title from memory, low confidence - verify); Visser 1108.5240; Pardo 1706.00785; Nieuwenhuizen 1610.01543; Wang & Braunstein 2207.04390; Verlinde & Zurek 1902.08207; Jacobson gr-qc/9504004; Padmanabhan 0911.5004; Mäkelä 1001.3808; Smolin 1001.3668. Downloads: none made (file downloads need the owner's explicit permission in this session); PDFs are at https://arxiv.org/pdf/{id}.

Second pass (same run, after the first notes were written; still inside the time limit)

5. Chaichian, Oksanen, Tureanu, "On gravity as an entropic force", arXiv:1104.4650; Phys. Lett. B 702, 419-421 (2011) [web] https://arxiv.org/abs/1104.4650

Reanalyses Kobakhidze: EG "does not necessarily contradict" gravitationally bound neutron states (GRANIT experiment), since EG is equivalent to Newtonian gravity there. But certain transitions between the bound states, "in particular spontaneous decays of excited states", which future experiments may observe, "cannot be explained" in EG unless essential ingredients are added; otherwise quantized gravity is needed. Leaves an experimental test open: priority 2/3, bears on claims 1 and 6.

6. Verlinde & Zurek, "Observational Signatures of Quantum Gravity in Interferometers", arXiv:1902.08207; Phys. Lett. B 822, 136663 (2021) [web] https://arxiv.org/abs/1902.08207

Priority 1. A concrete microscopic model of energy fluctuations in holographic degrees of freedom on the surface bounding a causal region; longitudinal fluctuations accumulate in the infrared with long-distance transverse correlation; a signal that could be observed in a gravitational-wave interferometer; tied to the 't Hooft gravitational S-matrix. This is where the 2010 paper's claim 6 (force fluctuations, "not yet a prediction") became a quantitative proposal (the follow-up literature calls them "geontropic" fluctuations).

7. Vermeulen et al. (incl. K. M. Zurek), "Photon Counting Interferometry to Detect Geontropic Space-Time Fluctuations with GQuEST", arXiv:2404.07524; Phys. Rev. X 15, 011034 (2025) [web] https://arxiv.org/abs/2404.07524

Priority 2 (an experiment designed to test the inventor's line). GQuEST = "Gravity from the Quantum Entanglement of Space-Time": tabletop Michelson interferometers with photon-counting readout; detection of the predicted fluctuations claimed feasible in at least 100x shorter measurement times than conventional interferometers. No result reported in the abstract (it is a design paper). Search for results: not done this run. Interested-party note: Zurek is Verlinde's co-author on the model. Also from Google [web, snippets only]: D. Li et al. 2023, "Interferometer response to geontropic fluctuations" (OSTI); Verlinde & Zurek, "Spacetime fluctuations in AdS/CFT", JHEP 04 (2020) 209, UvA Pure PDF.

8. Carney, Karydas, Sivaramakrishnan, "Response of interferometers to the vacuum of quantum gravity", arXiv:2409.03894; Phys. Rev. D 113, 106002 (2026) [web] https://arxiv.org/abs/2409.03894

Priority 3 (opposing calculation). The usual low-energy effective field theory of gravitons "unambiguously predicts an unobservably small" length variation, Delta L ~ l_Planck ~ 1e-35 m; so a detected large signal would mean "a severe breakdown of effective quantum field theory in low energy quantum gravity". (APS page link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/j5kj-zdky was blocked by a bot check; arXiv used instead.) Sets the stakes for GQuEST: a positive result would conflict with standard EFT; a null result constrains the Verlinde-Zurek model.

9. Pardo, "Testing Emergent Gravity with Isolated Dwarf Galaxies", arXiv:1706.00785; JCAP 12 (2020) 012 [web] https://arxiv.org/abs/1706.00785

Priority 2/3. Says EG reproduces Tully-Fisher with no free parameters and fits most massive spirals well; applies only to isolated, spherically symmetric systems in a dark-energy-dominated universe; extends EG to axisymmetric distributions; 452 isolated dwarfs: EG predicts max velocities "somewhat well" near 100 km/s, "severely underpredicts" above, overpredicts below. Says rotation curves of these dwarfs "would provide the definitive test".

10. Visser, "Conservative entropic forces", arXiv:1108.5240; JHEP 10 (2011) 140 [web] https://arxiv.org/abs/1108.5240

Priority 3 (theoretical critique). A conservative force constrains the entropy and temperature functions; these constraints give "real and significant problems for any reasonable variant of Verlinde's entropic gravity proposal" but do not directly affect Jacobson's or Padmanabhan's versions; proposes multiple heat baths with multiple temperatures and entropies to fix it. v2 added a decoherence section. Bears on claims 1 and 3 (general mass distributions, Section 4 of the paper).