Compare · The Nature of Space & Time

Verlinde Entropic Gravity vs Banks-Fischler Holographic Space-Time

Emergent Spacetime & Gravity· within family

	Verlinde Entropic Gravity Frontier	Banks-Fischler Holographic Space-Time Frontier
Proposed	2011 / 2017	2001 / 2020
Key figures	Erik Verlinde	Tom Banks, Willy Fischler
In one sentence	Verlinde proposed that gravity is not a fundamental force but an entropic effect arising from changes in information on holographic screens. The 2016 extension to dark matter has been substantially constrained by 2017-2019 weak-lensing and radial-acceleration-relation tests.	Tom Banks and Willy Fischler are developing a de Sitter holography framework in which spacetime has a finite-dimensional Hilbert space tied to the area of the cosmological horizon. The program began with the 2001 'M-theory observables for cosmological space-times' paper and continues actively through 2020 (Banks-Fischler 'Holographic space-time, Newton's law, and the dynamics of horizons'). Holographic Space-Time (HST) is an alternative to AdS/CFT for our positive-cosmological constant universe: instead of an infinite-dimensional CFT on a conformal boundary, the framework posits a finite-dimensional Hilbert space whose size grows with the area of the cosmological event horizon.
Predictions	2010 framework: Newton's law of gravity recovered as an entropic force on holographic screens; relativistic generalization should match GR at leading order 2016 dark-matter extension: a specific scale-dependent extra gravitational potential producing MOND-like behavior in galaxies, without dark-matter particles Specific baryonic Tully-Fisher-like relations between baryonic mass and apparent dark mass; deviations from the predicted scaling falsify the dark-matter extension	Spacetime has a finite-dimensional Hilbert space whose dimension grows with the area of the cosmological horizon, in Planck units The cosmological horizon is the carrier of physical degrees of freedom; observers in different causal diamonds have access to different finite-dimensional Hilbert spaces with consistent overlap structure Newton's law of gravity emerges from the holographic structure at large distances; the 2020 Banks-Fischler paper makes this connection technically explicit The framework predicts that black-hole and cosmological horizons evolve differently than standard approaches expect, because their physics is set by a finite count of horizon states rather than an infinite boundary theory; the concrete observable signatures that would distinguish it from AdS/CFT have not yet been worked out
Where it breaks	Lelli, McGaugh & Schombert (2017) tested the 2016 prediction against the radial acceleration relation across ~150 SPARC-database galaxies and found inconsistencies with the predicted scaling at low accelerations Tamosiunas et al. (2019) tested the prediction at galaxy-cluster scales and found significant tension with observed lensing profiles The original 2010 entropic derivation has been criticized for assuming too much input (Bekenstein-Hawking entropy-area law, Unruh temperature) to legitimately derive Newton's gravity from first principles The microscopic model of underlying degrees of freedom remains vague; critics see the framework as under-specified compared to explicit dark-matter models No fully relativistic, calculable version of the 2016 dark-matter scheme exists; observational analyses use phenomenological approximations	The framework is a minority position in the broader holography landscape; the AdS/CFT correspondence dominates the empirical and conceptual conversation The de Sitter holography problem remains unsolved despite Banks-Fischler's work and parallel efforts (Anninos-Hartman-Strominger, others); no consensus de Sitter holography has emerged The framework's predictive content beyond consistency with known physics is limited; few unique observational signatures distinguish it from alternative de Sitter holographic programs Some of the central technical claims (finite-dimensional Hilbert space, specific causal-diamond structure) are framework-defining choices rather than derived properties; the choice itself shapes what can be calculated
Key unresolved problem	The cluster mismatch: the 2016 version that tries to do away with dark matter predicts how galaxy clusters should bend light, but those predictions miss the real measurements by a wide margin, and no fully worked-out relativistic version exists to fix it.	The no-fingerprint problem: the theory's central claim, that our universe holds only a finite number of quantum states set by the horizon, makes almost no unique observable prediction to tell it apart from rival de Sitter holography ideas or from standard cosmology.
Reader vote	No votes yet	No votes yet

Verlinde Entropic Gravity

2011 / 2017 · Frontier

Banks-Fischler Holographic Space-Time

2001 / 2020 · Frontier

Proposed

2011 / 2017

2001 / 2020

Key figures

Erik Verlinde

Tom Banks, Willy Fischler

In one sentence

Verlinde proposed that gravity is not a fundamental force but an entropic effect arising from changes in information on holographic screens. The 2016 extension to dark matter has been substantially constrained by 2017-2019 weak-lensing and radial-acceleration-relation tests.

Tom Banks and Willy Fischler are developing a de Sitter holography framework in which spacetime has a finite-dimensional Hilbert space tied to the area of the cosmological horizon. The program began with the 2001 'M-theory observables for cosmological space-times' paper and continues actively through 2020 (Banks-Fischler 'Holographic space-time, Newton's law, and the dynamics of horizons'). Holographic Space-Time (HST) is an alternative to AdS/CFT for our positive-cosmological constant universe: instead of an infinite-dimensional CFT on a conformal boundary, the framework posits a finite-dimensional Hilbert space whose size grows with the area of the cosmological event horizon.

Predictions

2010 framework: Newton's law of gravity recovered as an entropic force on holographic screens; relativistic generalization should match GR at leading order
2016 dark-matter extension: a specific scale-dependent extra gravitational potential producing MOND-like behavior in galaxies, without dark-matter particles
Specific baryonic Tully-Fisher-like relations between baryonic mass and apparent dark mass; deviations from the predicted scaling falsify the dark-matter extension

Spacetime has a finite-dimensional Hilbert space whose dimension grows with the area of the cosmological horizon, in Planck units
The cosmological horizon is the carrier of physical degrees of freedom; observers in different causal diamonds have access to different finite-dimensional Hilbert spaces with consistent overlap structure
Newton's law of gravity emerges from the holographic structure at large distances; the 2020 Banks-Fischler paper makes this connection technically explicit
The framework predicts that black-hole and cosmological horizons evolve differently than standard approaches expect, because their physics is set by a finite count of horizon states rather than an infinite boundary theory; the concrete observable signatures that would distinguish it from AdS/CFT have not yet been worked out

Where it breaks

Lelli, McGaugh & Schombert (2017) tested the 2016 prediction against the radial acceleration relation across ~150 SPARC-database galaxies and found inconsistencies with the predicted scaling at low accelerations
Tamosiunas et al. (2019) tested the prediction at galaxy-cluster scales and found significant tension with observed lensing profiles
The original 2010 entropic derivation has been criticized for assuming too much input (Bekenstein-Hawking entropy-area law, Unruh temperature) to legitimately derive Newton's gravity from first principles
The microscopic model of underlying degrees of freedom remains vague; critics see the framework as under-specified compared to explicit dark-matter models
No fully relativistic, calculable version of the 2016 dark-matter scheme exists; observational analyses use phenomenological approximations

The framework is a minority position in the broader holography landscape; the AdS/CFT correspondence dominates the empirical and conceptual conversation
The de Sitter holography problem remains unsolved despite Banks-Fischler's work and parallel efforts (Anninos-Hartman-Strominger, others); no consensus de Sitter holography has emerged
The framework's predictive content beyond consistency with known physics is limited; few unique observational signatures distinguish it from alternative de Sitter holographic programs
Some of the central technical claims (finite-dimensional Hilbert space, specific causal-diamond structure) are framework-defining choices rather than derived properties; the choice itself shapes what can be calculated

Key unresolved problem

The cluster mismatch: the 2016 version that tries to do away with dark matter predicts how galaxy clusters should bend light, but those predictions miss the real measurements by a wide margin, and no fully worked-out relativistic version exists to fix it.

The no-fingerprint problem: the theory's central claim, that our universe holds only a finite number of quantum states set by the horizon, makes almost no unique observable prediction to tell it apart from rival de Sitter holography ideas or from standard cosmology.

Reader vote

No votes yet