The only detail which differ between my idea and Verlinde's hypothesis, seems to be that Verlinde makes use of the holographic theory of the universe, while I only suppose the quantum world to be essentially dimensionless, and that time and dimensions emerge on a "higher" level; but the two images do not seem to be incompatible. Of course Verlinde's text is, in comparison, much more elaborated, detailed and with mathematical support, so I do not claim to have the honor instead of Verlinde.
My text, with the title "A modest proposal", follows below in English translation. Some small changes are marked with brackets (better choice of words, and deleted unnecessary words).
INERTIA AS A THERMODYNAMIC PHENOMENON
The mass of a body and its inertia is proportional to each other; they are somehow inextricably linked. One problem here, is that physicists do not really know what [..] mass or inertia is or what it consists of - a special "mass particle" has been proposed but not yet observed (the higgs boson). The mass is also proportional to the body's gravitational force and how it is affected by other bodies' gravity. Inertia is only noticeable in a body when it is forced to change its speed, and any such changes - acceleration and deceleration - are also equivalent. That this inertia ("weight" in everyday language) also can be measured in a body within a gravitational field, implies that even gravity is a form of accelerating or decelerating force.
The mass is also proportional to the energy that constitutes the body's atoms and elementary particles (nuclear power, that is, E = mc^2). In short: Mass, nuclear energy, inertia and gravitation are intimately linked phenomena; and among these, inertia is making itself known only when the body is not in free fall.
My modest proposal: The kinetic energy used to accelerate a body is, of thermodynamic reasons, not equivalent transferred to the body; the kinetic energy is also converted to other forms of energy. Some of this energy can turn to, say, friction, and leave the body as radiation, while the remaining energy stay in the body, such as various kinds of potential energy. In other words, it is not inertia that causes the energy to be consumed when a space shuttle launch its engines to accelerate, but the contrary: the conversion of kinetic energy to other forms of energy causes the experience of inertia.Hence one can possibly make a neat and understandable set of mass, inertia and energy. In addition, it may suggest a link with quantum mechanical phenomena. The bridge between quantum mechanics and general relativity could, in short, be thermodynamic processes.
Clarification. Take the so-called twin paradox (which now is not a paradox, but it is popularly known as this). We have two identical clocks. One of them we send out on a journey in the universe near the speed of light, which can only be achieved through acceleration and deceleration -- phenomena which are equivalent. When it comes back home again, the two clocks are not showing the same time. The clock from the long-distance journey has not aged as much as the one at home.
One can correctly say that the clock from the journey exist at a higher energy level than the other; its entropy is simply lower. This because of my proposal, that energy have been added from the acceleration. It is obviously also a question about potential energy. When you carry (or "accelerate") a rock to a mountain top it will be ["loaded" with] potential energy, which is then released back into kinetic energy when it falls down again. The clock here has been subject to acceleration and entered, or rather been detained at, a higher [energy level], unlike the other clock, which only has "fallen".
WHAT IS TIME?
Time, like inertia, is not explained by the theory of relativity; it is taken only as a starting point - a given foundation if you like. In thermodynamics, there is something that can be used as an explanation: irreversible processes. Simply put, it is just more likely that the physical processes evolve in a particular direction and not the opposite, or in completely erratic ways. A coffee cup falls down and is smashed against the floor.The reverse - that the scattered pieces would spontaneously assemble themselves, and the cup just as spontaneously jump up on the table again - can happen. But this is also non-existent unlikely.
Time can thus be considered as a matter of mere probability, a statistical phenomenon. On the lowest level of the universe, the quantum world, one can say that there is only changes, but not a sufficient number of "units" that can provide a clear, albeit statistically significant, time concepts. Hence all the strange quantum phenomena which seems to odds with every day experiences, such as the repeal of causality principle.
In order to reverse or at least postpone an irreversible process, there is always needed an addition of energy.This is added by acceleration to one of the clocks in the example, while the other has been without.
WHAT IS SPACE?
If the time is "only" a statistical phenomenon, how do you do with the other dimensions in the spacetime? Length, width and depth can similarly be viewed as statistical properties -- and why not? If quantum phenomena can exist without time or time direction (which can be considered as one and the same thing, a matter of definition), it should also be possible to describe the quantum world as dimensionless. The simplest particles have no "interest" of various space and time dimensions and exist unhindered by them, but cumulatively taken together, they create our space-time.
Compare this with the development of classical quantum mechanics, the quantum electrodynamics, which resulted in the Nobel Price 1965 to Richard Feynman et al. All phenomena and processes occurring in [quantum physics] can be regarded as the statistical average of all the possible ways they can be executed, and in a sense also do. Or, as Feynman writes in his book QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter:
Throughout these lectures I have delighted in showing you that the price of gaining such an accurate theory has been the erosion of our common sense. We must accept some very bizarre behavior: the amplification and suppression of probabilities, light reflecting from all parts of a mirror, light travelling in paths other than a straight line, photons going faster or slower than the conventional speed of light, electrons going backwards in time, photons suddenly disintegrating into a positron-electron pair, and so on. That we must do, in order to appreciate what Nature is really doing underneath nearly all the phenomena we see in the world.
WHAT IS GRAVITATION?
As mentioned earlier, all the changes in speed of a body is equivalent. Acceleration and deceleration is basically exactly the same phenomenon. The perception of weight (just another word for inertia) in a gravitational field can not be distinguished from an accelerated or decelerated motion. How hard we have to treat this as the same phenomena, because we are so accustomed to speak of them in different contexts, the nature in itself does not make any distinctions between them.
If inertia is a thermodynamic phenomenon, speed changes become, in a [..] fundamental sense, a question of energy changes.The violent energy developments that occur initially when two asteroids collide in empty space and unite into a larger body, will gradually calm down, and the overall result of the collision becomes higher entropy (lower energy level). In other words, what we have here is a process who search thermal equilibrium. Thermal equilibrium is here also on a par with free fall, as the new asteroid will return to that state.
But obviously, this free fall is only the total sum of the body's thermal state. The overall result of the collision defines the new speed, direction and energy content. But that does not mean that every single part of the asteroid must be in thermal equilibrium with other parts of the body. There are always a degree of thermal processes and increasing entropy, of which one of the most fundamental is radioactive decay. The "conflict" when the two asteroids collided was relatively quickly resolved with general equilibrium as a result, but a myriad of other thermal "conflicts" - both initiated and not initiated by the collision - takes place continuously in the gas, rocks, crystals, molecules and atoms which constitute this new asteroid.
The bigger a body becomes, the higher and more volatile the energy level tends to be, and the more intense becomes the thermodynamic processes. They are barely noticeable in a small asteroid, unlike the violent energy conversion of the sun and other stars.
This free fall + declining energy level (increasing entropy), should be equal to gravity. Differences in attraction / gravitational force follows obviously because a larger body exist at a higher energy level than the smaller body.
The space-time structure in relativity, which bend around solid bodies and give rise to gravitational fields, should correspond to different energy levels in a thermodynamic description.
Clarification. A thermodynamic process always results in higher entropy than the initial state, as in the example of the two colliding asteroids. It is basically no difference between the asteroids in the example and what happens when a body in free fall meets the Earth's surface. The overall result of this "process" becomes higher entropy. The only difference is the proportions, when the falling body is much smaller than the globe. For this reason is the process toward thermal equilibrium more protracted. The falling body can not easily bounce back into space and retain much of its movement and potential energy, but must find other paths in pursuit of lowest possibly energy level. Hence the sense of gravity and gravitational force. Weight in a gravitational field is thus the same as the body's inertia, when the kinetic energy is released for other forms of energy. See "Inertia as a thermodynamic phenomenon" above.
Anyone who knows his thermodynamics, also understand that this - ever-increasing entropy as a result of the bodies' interaction - does not contradict the principle that a small astronomical body can accumulate so much material, that it eventually reaches the same high and volatile energy level such as the sun. Although molecules and matter are collected and packed together into a high-energy plasma ball, yet more energy have been wasted on the process than which have been "packaged". Thus, smaller bodies will always be attracted to larger, simply because the overall result will be higher entropy.
* * *
Appendix. Relativistic thermodynamics exist but is still in its infancy. Considerably longer has quantum mechanics reached to combine with thermodynamics. It is telling that "Relativistic thermodynamics" does not even exist as an entry in the English Wikipedia.
