HomeThe World We DiscoverGravity might be a push, not a pull

Gravity might be a push, not a pull

Could gravity be a push rather than a pull? New physics models suggest disorder itself creates attraction.

Share
The World We Discover · Explore this series
June 15, 2025
Key Takeaways
  • Two quantum models produce Newtonian gravity from entropy alone.
  • Gravity may be disorder pushing masses together, not a fundamental pull.
  • The models reproduce Newton but cannot yet recover Einstein's relativity.

Daniel Carney has spent his career thinking about a result that should not exist. Black holes have temperature. They radiate heat. A phenomenon defined by the most extreme gravitational collapse in nature behaves, somehow, like a thermodynamic system.

"I've been mystified by this result for my entire adult life," says Carney, a theoretical physicist at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.

The mystery led him toward an old and unsettling question: could gravity, the force that holds galaxies together, be an illusion produced by entropy? The idea, known as entropic gravity, has circulated in theoretical physics for decades – but nobody had built a working microscopic model.

Now Carney and four colleagues have done something about it. In a paper published in Physical Review X in August 2025, they built two microscopic quantum models in which gravitational attraction emerges not from a fundamental force but from entropy. The tendency of any system to drift toward maximum disorder.

In their models, gravity is not pulling. The universe's disorder is pushing.

Three centuries of pulling

Isaac Newton published his law of universal gravitation in 1687. Two masses attract each other in proportion to their sizes and in inverse proportion to the square of the distance between them. The mathematics worked beautifully.

The mechanism remained a mystery. Newton himself called it "so great an absurdity" that action at a distance needed explaining.

Einstein replaced Newton's invisible rope with curved spacetime. Mass tells space how to bend; space tells mass how to move. Both frameworks treat gravity as something fundamental, built into the fabric of reality.

What is entropic gravity?

The idea that gravity is not a fundamental force but an emergent effect, arising from the statistical tendency of physical systems to maximize their entropy (disorder). Just as gas molecules spread to fill a room without any force pushing them, gravitational attraction could be a macroscopic consequence of microscopic disorder seeking its maximum.

A different tradition asks whether gravity might be neither a force nor a curvature, but a statistical consequence. In 1995, theoretical physicist Ted Jacobson at the University of Maryland derived Einstein's equations of general relativity from thermodynamic principles alone.

Fifteen years later, Erik Verlinde at the University of Amsterdam argued that gravity is entirely entropic. A by-product of information and disorder.

The physics community was intrigued. Then sceptical. The arguments were elegant but abstract, operating at the level of thermodynamic reasoning without specifying what microscopic system could produce such behaviour.

Two toy universes made of qubits

Carney's contribution is making the idea concrete. His team constructed two models from qubits, the basic units of quantum information.

In the first, qubits sit in a crystalline grid and align in the presence of massive objects, creating small pockets of order. In the second, qubits lack fixed positions but carry energy capacities that depend on how far apart objects are.

Key figure

2

The number of independent microscopic quantum models that reproduce Newtonian gravity from entropy alone, presented in a single paper.

In both cases, the same thing happens. The system's drive to maximize total entropy nudges ordered regions closer together. The result looks precisely like Newtonian gravitational attraction.

No fundamental force required.

"There's some kind of gas or some thermal system out there that we can't see directly," Carney says.

Where Jacobson and Verlinde worked from the top down, starting with thermodynamic equations and deriving gravitational ones, Carney's group works from the bottom up. They specify microscopic components and let gravity emerge.

The distinction matters. Top-down arguments show that gravity and thermodynamics share mathematical structure. Bottom-up models suggest that structure might reflect physical reality.

Newton, yes. Einstein, not yet

The models have limits, and Carney is characteristically candid about them. "It actually seems to require a peculiar engineered-looking interaction to get this to work," he says. The qubit interactions need precise tuning to reproduce gravitational behaviour.

That tuning could signal hidden structure. It could also simply mean the models are too simple.

More significantly, they reproduce Newton but not Einstein. The gravitational attraction that emerges is Newtonian, valid for weak fields and low speeds. General relativity, with its curved spacetime, gravitational waves, and black holes, remains out of reach.

Mark Van Raamsdonk, a theoretical physicist at the University of British Columbia, has pointed out that the models do not capture key features of general relativity. The absence of gravitational force during free fall, a hallmark of Einstein's equivalence principle, is missing entirely.

For entropic gravity to graduate from curiosity to contender, it would need to recover Einstein's full theory.

I've been mystified by this result for my entire adult life.

Daniel Carney, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

The weak-field test

Separately, Ginestra Bianconi at Queen Mary University of London published a framework in Physical Review D in March 2025 that derives gravitational effects from quantum relative entropy. Her approach treats the spacetime metric itself as a quantum operator.

It hints at connections to dark matter. A very different direction from Carney's, but rooted in the same conviction: gravity and information are entangled at some fundamental level.

Verlinde, whose 2010 paper started much of this conversation, sees the path forward in observation rather than theory. "You have to go to very weak fields, because then these fluctuations might become observable," he says.

In strong gravitational environments, any entropic signal would be drowned out by conventional physics. In the quietest gravitational environments, such as the outer edges of galaxy clusters, the statistical noise that entropic models predict could become detectable.

The textbooks still describe gravity as a fundamental force. Carney's qubit models will not change that tomorrow. But other groups are now designing experiments to test whether entropic signatures appear in precisely those weak-field regimes where Verlinde says to look.

The question is no longer purely theoretical - and it connects to related proposals that treat gravity as an emergent byproduct of deeper computational or informational principles. If the signatures are there, three centuries of asking what gravity is may give way to a stranger question: whether gravity is a thing at all.

That question could carry some real weight.


Sources

Fact Check: Claim-by-Claim Verification Verified

The article accurately summarizes Carney et al.'s 2025 Physical Review X paper and historical context of entropic gravity, with correct names, dates, affiliations, and limitations.

1 Verified
Carney is a theoretical physicist at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory working on quantum models of entropic gravity
2 Verified
Paper published August 2025 in Physical Review X presents two qubit-based models reproducing Newtonian gravity from entropy maximization
3 Verified
Jacobson (1995) derived GR from thermodynamics; Verlinde (2010) proposed fully entropic gravity; models are bottom-up and Newtonian-only
4 Verified
Bianconi's March 2025 Physical Review D paper on quantum relative entropy gravity exists

Commentary

  • Article simplifies qubit models (grid vs. non-local) but captures essence without errors; dramatic phrasing like "push not pull" is acceptable for popular science.
  • Quotes from Carney align with Quanta article; no misattributions found.

Sources used for verification

Academic/Peer-reviewed:

Other reliable sources:

Share
Related Articles
Riemann Hypothesis, Energy Levels and the Endless Hunt for Zeros

A New Scientist video on the Riemann hypothesis is a fine guide to one of mathematics' deepest puzzles. Here is what lies beyond it: the 2024 breakthrough and the stranger...

Quantum Physics Explained: Where Reality Gets Strange

Quantum physics governs atoms, light, and the technology in your pocket. It is also the most counterintuitive framework in all of science. Here is what we know, what we don't,...

Mathematics: The Language That Describes Reality

Mathematics is the language scientists use to describe reality. From prime numbers to infinity, from fractals to unsolved conjectures, here is what makes mathematics so powerful and so strange.

Endless Numbers, Endless Beauty: About Quanta's Infinity Piece

A stunning article from Quanta Magazine walks you through Cantor's diagonal proof for uncountable sets of infinite numbers - and puts the sizes of infinity in context.