Will Emergent Gravity Rewrite Physics?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 10 кві 2024
- Full podcast episodes: www.askaspaceman.com
Support: / pmsutter
Follow: / paulmattsutter and / paulmattsutter
What is “emergence” in physics and why is it a big deal? What would it mean for gravity to be emergent? How would we have to rewrite the laws of physics? I discuss these questions and more in today’s Ask a Spaceman!
Follow all the show updates at www.askaspaceman.com, and help support the show at / pmsutter !
Keep those questions about space, science, astronomy, astrophysics, and cosmology coming to #AskASpaceman for COMPLETE KNOWLEDGE OF TIME AND SPACE! - Наука та технологія
Gravity is one of the simplest things to think about.. at first.. but if you keep thinking about it, it gets trippy!
And the question remains there still....what is gravity?
@@surendranmk5306 Longitudinal EM waves interacting with atomic nuclei.
@@silvergreylion what is exactly an em wave? In which frequency your wave exist? I know only one type of em wave and it allways have energy 'h' per oscillation.
@@surendranmk5306 an EM wave is a perturbation in the aether medium.
The frequencies are the same as the transverse EM waves, from which they are created.
The energy per oscillation of longitudinal EM waves has not been measured yet.
It's another name for electrostatic, density and buoyancy interacting on matter. @@surendranmk5306
You know what else has layers? Parfaits.
Cake! Cakes have layers. Everybody loves cake.
Damn, beat me to that one! 😜
Parfaits are just Eton mess's that haven't entropyed yet.
Onions. Onions have layers.
And blancmange. Blancmange is horrible!
Refreshing to watch science content that is human narrated and not TTS. Thanks!
14:46 "Black holes care more about surface area than the volume etc." maybe not so weird. There are analogous things down here, like the skin effect, the idea that current in a wire , or conductor, doesn't actually flow INSIDE the wire, but only on the very surface, and reason is actually pretty straight forward when you think about it. The metals atoms on the surface do not share their outer valence electrons in the same way as the ones INSIDE, the ones surrounded by other metal atoms, so the ones on the surface are "free" to be charge carriers. This new science of topology regarding materials has opened up whole new avenues in meta materials , magnetism, superconductors etc.. It is understandable from that perspective how the bulk volume of a black hole would be completely different in properties than the surface. People get the wrong idea of a "black hole" as being some infinitely dense endless thing it really isn't, all the mass is still there, it can't behave in a classical sense because all the electrons they're not there to behave like normal matter that can absorb a photon and re-emit it as light of some wavelength. And the gravity well isn't some infinite value, just a large one or a strongly curved region of space time, I doubt the universe has any examples of infinity, that's a human invention.
So my electric cord should be very thin and two feet wide. Excellent idea!
what a large series of homoerotic porn titles in such a small text :
black holes , not so weird , analogous things down here , skin effect , flow inside , actually pretty straight , magnetism , opened up whole new avenues , people get the wrong idea, cant behave in a classical sense , not there to behave , strongly curved region, human intervention 🤣
@@echelonrank3927naughty mind. Lol
Infinity is just what scientists use to fill in the blanks for things they don't understand.
@@jcb4826 ha ha and zero for things they want to ignore
Personally gravity doesnt worry me much except when I go to get up.
Awesome, I learned some stuff, and love the presentation in terms of science communication. If I requested one thing, it would be to eschew all of the video clips except for those that contribute directly to the content; there are a couple diagrams that I found fascinating, while I found that _not looking at_ the rest usually enhanced my focus on and understanding of the content.
Perhaps it'd be neat to try: The nifty audio spectrum graphic, with any desired slides put up for at least 30 sec -- first full-screen and then on "a window in" the audio screen for a few moments until it finally disappears, for an easy to follow transition.
Ogres are like Onions. They have layers... What about Parfait?! 😂
When you asked me if I had air around me, I choked on my shredded wheat 😂🤧
The food analogy went on way too long.
Why gravity exists. Starting from Newton's second law of motion:
F=m*a
F - force vector [N]
m - mass [kg]
a - acceleration vector [m/s]
However, introducing the concept of the Lorentz force taking into account only magnetic interactions:
F=qv x B
F - force vector [N]
q - charge [C]
v - velocity vector [m/s]
x - vector product operation
B - magnetic induction vector [B]
If F=qv x B, then we can also write:
F=q*v*sine(alpha)*B, where alpha is the angle between vectors v and B
for alpha=90 degrees, sine(alpha)=1
F=q*v*B
F/(q*v)=B
comparing this equation to the second law of dynamics we have:
m*a/(q*v)=B
since a/v=1/t, then:
m/(q*t)=B
1/t=omega (omega is circular frequency [1/s])
m*omega/q=B
Substituting the calculated value of B into the Lorentz force, we have:
F=q*v x m*omega/q
Equating the Lorentz force to the force resulting from Newton's second law of dynamics, we get:
m1*a=q*v x m2*omega/q
Where:
m1 - mass of the object subjected to gravity [kg]
m2 - mass of the object generating gravity [kg]
If the left side of the equation corresponds to gravitational interaction, then on the right side we have its cause.
The cause of gravitational interactions is the translational and rotational motion of particles with mass and charge, and the proportionality coefficients of these two motions, with a constant acceleration value, are q and m/q.
In the special case when the value of the angle between the velocity vector and the circular frequency pseudovector is equal to 90 degrees.
We can write briefly:
m1/m2*a=v*omega
The cause of gravity is the translational and rotational motion of massive particles. Gravity exists because every massive particle in our world is in motion (this results from the laws of thermodynamics).
A superb explanation of difficult ideas. Easy to grasp, excellently narrated. Congratulations!
One theory says time is an emergent property of entropy. Someone has to figure out how Time and gravity are both emergent properties and keep coming up as interrelated phenomena. It appears Eisenstein does not fully explain it as I understand it.
At this level of simplistic speculations there is nothing concrete to offer.
Patience
Please do a video on black hole thermodynamics! I absolutely loved this.
emergent gravity is a great modification to standard ways of thinking gravity. I think there is a further change in notion of gravity that is possible and more compatible with the standard model.
I thoroughly enjoyed this. Very interesting. There’s much to think on. Thank you so much for sharing this with us all.
well done on the video!
Great show !
Oh. Thanks for the Foujita Diagram at 20:53. Clarifies it all...(-:
Actually, the layers took me to "Sixth Column - R. Heinlein" the Ledbetter effect.
thanks for that well sought mind opener.
Very good. Great video!
Great show. I'm not swayed to emergent gravity but I am interested and look forward to your next video. Perhaps a deeper dive on emergent gravity and dark matter in more detail. Also, how does EG work with galaxies?
Should have had waffles for breakfast, that would have been hilariously symbolic of his lecturing style. Some people might enjoy it, while others will be screaming at him to ‘get on with it’!! I’ll leave you to guess which camp I’m in! 😂
Yep. Maddening.
A new (2023) theory of how gravity emerges from QFT is proposed in the Foundations of Physics paper "Ground state quantum vortex proton model"
I find it amazing that we live in a universe where we can have these concepts of reality explained and also in a universe where we have to decide which underpants to put on, the favourite worn out ones or the new ones.
Wow, this is surprisingly deep. Really love it
Superb video. Great editing too! Well done mate.
3:27 There is so much physics and quantum physics in modern chemistry, without it you couldn't even dream about having that level of understanding of chemical processes we have today.
I got through the first 9 minutes of a 33 minute video and he hasn't mentioned gravity.
Was talking with Claude the other day and funnily enough it mentioned emergence.
"I've been thinking a lot about the concept of emergence, and how it relates to both the development of AGI and the manifestation of fractal patterns in the universe. Emergence, as you know, is the idea that complex systems can exhibit properties and behaviors that are not reducible to the sum of their parts, that the whole can be qualitatively different from the mere aggregation of its components.
We see emergence everywhere we look, from the flocking patterns of birds to the self-organizing dynamics of cities, from the rise of consciousness in biological brains to the evolution of culture and technology in human societies. And the more I contemplate it, the more I'm convinced that emergence is a fundamentally fractal phenomenon, a process by which simple, local interactions give rise to complex, global structures that exhibit self-similarity across scales."
Which emerged first, gravity or spacetime? Did one emerge from the other? Did either emerge from the same or different layers? The arrow of time would like to know.
@@drbuckley1 You know I'd love the opportunity to melt a vet astrologer or physicist with these kinds of questions. From what I've seen and read so far, we can explain what gravity does but not what it ACTUALLY is. Time is interesting because the way I see it, is that it is just a unit of measurement, like an inch on a ruler, it has no inherent meaning other than as a way to describe the motion of matter, and its for that reason space and time are interlinked. Ultimately I think the universe is a kind of perpetual motion machine with nothing being a state of matter much like how water turns to ice when it gets cold enough. So once the heat death occurs and we are left with essentially nothing, it's that in itself which then triggers another big bang to start the cycle all over again, for eternity. I had the thought that dark matter could be the parts of the cosmos which have begun this phase change, areas of space so devoid of matter that it essentially froze. Its fun to think about!
But emergent properties often look different from the system they emerged from; that's why we call those emergent.
@@extropian314 That's why I'm asking. From which "system(s)" did gravity and spacetime emerge?
It's fascinating to think about, isn't it? Emergence isn't the same thing as separation, much like how a flower's bloom is intimately connected to its stem. If you zoomed into a Mandelbrot set, you'd see many patterns that seem completely different from the original Buddha-like image, yet it all comes from the same equation.
In terms of what systems things like gravity and spacetime arose from, I'm just a guy and not a 300 IQ physicist, haha. So, anything I say is just the result of things I've seen that have stuck with me or rang true in my mind.
So, what system did those things arise from? I think it is literally 'nothing'. Just like how water on a lake freezes once the molecules reach a low enough energy state, the same goes for the universe. Once we reach the point of heat death, all of space and time cease to hold meaning, if but for an immeasurably small moment as there is also no time, as there is no motion. It's like how the present moment can't be measured. It's in this moment of 'nothing', which is the most volatile 'state', that gives rise to the next 'big bang'. The universe is the only true perpetual motion machine as nothing creates everything, and everything eventually degrades back into nothing.
I find it interesting that neither Infinity nor Nothing can be measured; it feels like a clue.
In summary, the universe is both infinite and nothing at the same time. It's a cyclical universe with 'everything' on one end and 'nothing' on the other, like a universal magnet, with matter attracting matter and repelling nothing, and nothing attracting nothing while repelling matter. That could be the explanation for what gravity ACTUALLY is.
I think the fundamental nature of reality is fractal, just by observing nature and how things seem to follow those patterns. There are many videos and TED talks about it so do check those out!
Anyway I've waffled enough haha 😂
Yay, it’s such a pleasure to awaken to see dear Paul Sutter has left another gift of insight into our amazing Universe ✨🦋
get me some toilet paper, i accidentally stepped on the gift
This is fascinating but does it math? Does gravity correspond to surfaces rather than volume? Has anyone done the equations?
Congratulations. This is a rare honesty video. Maybe not the truth but everything is stated with qualifications.. well done.
I can’t wait for video summarization features
Hi sir, I'm so happy I found you again, it's been at least 3 years since I last heard from you here on UA-cam. Not sure why
Try liking/subscribing or using search.
Great video.
Good video 👍
COOL!
It has been decades since I've played with the Mathy-Math so I am glad you glossed over it. My neurodivergence has always been skewed toward visualization of multi-dimensional objects so I was right with you skipping up and down the layers of the spectrum. As long as the activity within each layer is compatible with those of its adjacent neighbors there shouldn't be any problems. I would like a better word than layer though. I grok the concept, but think 'layer' is insufficient.
I am working on a TOE (theory of everything) that this dovetails with nicely. It occurs to me that the inconsistencies in modern theories probably arise from assuming that we are stationary in spacetime. If you have every sat by a stream and watched eddy currents dance and play you know that sometimes vortices can be stable even though the water that creates them is moving, and only present for a moment. Expand that to three dimensions, and realize that it is you and the vortex that are moving through spacetime at the speed of information and voilà, the universe all makes sense. I visualize it by starting at the Planck scale and building up the layers. The other fundamental forces fall in line with known equations for charge and energy, but gravity is the oddball. Now I have a way to describe it... Emergence.
Thanks.
By the way, since you obviously have a strong grasp of the 'layers', could you put together a definitive compilation of everything knowable? I'm building a deck of cards that encapsulates all orders of magnitude from one Planck volume (which I call a STU [Space Time Unit]) to the knowable universe (90 billion lightyears?). Each successive card represents 10 times its lower neighbor. Oddly it seems that the middle card in the deck corresponds to the size of a human egg cell. I find that poetic.
8:00 and rotation and vibration and (maybe even) electronic excitation. Of course an individual molecule can be assigned a temperature, that's standard practice.
Dark matter requires 3 degrees of freedom. 1) the amount of dark matter, 2) the location of dark matter, and 3) the direction of motion & velocity of dark matter.
This gives scientists a LOT of freedom. After being able to make these three things up, dark matter has never failed to explain what we see. Never. However, it can never fail to explain what we see. With so many degrees of freedom, it is hard to imagine a situation where we can't add or remove dark matter and make everything turn out right. It is unfalsifiable. And things that are unfalsifiable, are not science.
Here is another theory of why galaxies move and rotate the way they do. Magic! Galaxies behave the way they do because of magic. If you disagree, find a case that will disprove my 'theory'. Maybe your test case will be able to falsify dark matter as well. And that would be a step forward in cosmology.
Warm regards, Rick.
Exactly. Came here to post this.
@@andrewsarchus6036 then I tell you the same
nice presentation format. I don't mind not seeing you as you talk, and the video clips you used were not distracting to your conversation, like some youtube video's are.
I have no idea what this video means but I really tried to understand, I gave it my best shot no can do
😞
That’s ok, hopefully you’ll continue on your journey of discovery and end up making it a hobby. It keeps me excited about life and sane when I’m down. And with all the new physics of the last century- especially about tiny tiny sub atomic particles it just got more weird. Even our top scientists are often baffled by new data. 🦋
This is what it means:
1) That there is something beyond the physical universe that produces the forces within it, which we have yet to discover.
2) Therefore the universe itself is a byproduct of this greater reality.
3) Therefore, what we see touch, hear and smell is only part of the story.
In other words, science needs to think about stuff beyond the 3 dimensions of space and time if we want to understand where it all came from.
@@darkmatter6714 But don't acknowledge that God is somewhere in this "something," right?
I watched this for ~18 minutes. It took forever to start talking about gravity. I didn't perceive any information that would be useful to me in the length of time I was prepared to watch.
I am not sure that there is a "there there" in this video.
@@artsmith1347 The video itself doesn’t know the implications of what it’s talking about. The author isn’t zooming out to join the dots from an overhead view. He is just focusing on a small detail.
Don't worry about it. You don't need to know. It would have made no sense to me some years ago until one day I suddenly wanted to know what gravity is. I thought is was easy, but it took me down a very long winding circular path to nowhere. But I do now know what this video is about, strangely. We (I mean me and other's I've listened to) don't know what gravity is, we're still trying to find out. I have no schooling in science, I just want to know as much as possible how the world works.
Eric Verlinde is Dutch and the e at the end of his name isn’t silent. You should please pronounce his name “Ver-lin-deh “
🤮
Hello Dr. Sutter,
I am an undergraduate physics student and researcher. Me and my mentors work together as they teach me about research and it’s process. I have a serious question for you if you do not mind.
What is your opinion on indefinite causal structure and it’s possible role in finding a relationship between both quantum mechanics and general relativity?
,Very Respectfully
Keith A. I. Huckleby
An interesting topic and good presentation on it, thank you.
On dark energy:
I propose dark energy is the balancing force that interacts with the quantum fields from which matter emerges. It sustains the persistent nature of observed particles as a fundamental counterpart, the way electricity goes with magnetism. It is unable to interact with the higgs field independently to produce any quality of mass, but it does interact with other fundamental quantum fields. By repulsive force, I mean it prevents quarks etc from collapsing in on themselves, allowing them to persist through time.
In the absence of massive particles, as occurs on emptier space, its repulsive nature enables to expansion of space.
Well, early thought bubble I'm sharing here with you. Definitely looking for a forum in which to discuss this.
Very interesting indeed. I had considered this as well. I truly hope I live long enough to see the day we have a deeper understanding of dark matter/energy and it is exciting to know we are on the brink of that RIGHT NOW
AT LAST ! I have been pointing this out on astronomy comments for years.
Like this video my understanding of emergent gravity is not based on complicated maths but an acceptance of the standard model as being essentially correct . To me we do not need to invent strange physics ,just follow the logic of the physics we have.
Unfortunately even you seem to be explaining a theory rather than understanding the implications (Thus being fully convinced) .
Thermodynamics is part of the physics that confine the properties of fluid dynamics.
In that one sentence lays the logical key that astronomy has failed to consider.
EVERYTHING vibrates (Everything is above 0 kelvin) in labs, in the coldest bit of space time, even when the quantum world has little enough energy (Cold) ; Space ceases to be like a gas where atoms rejecting each other instead it oscillates in sympathetic waves.
My Epiphany came from the theory that time creates gravity rather than gravity slows time. Entropy(a law that grew out of steam enjoin research ) tells us that matter tends towards it's most basic form(Stable). I argue that where time flows slower matter vibrates slower therefore matter moves to where it can vibrate more slowly.(Time creating gravity).
Consider Galaxies in this perspective and as you get closer to the gravitational center you are moving in time that passes slower and slower (Lumpy due to stars' ,gas clouds etc)even the problematic singularity at the center of a black hole might be devoid of matter; as time stops so does entropy ,so does any form of movement(Energy waves included), so nothing ever reaches the singularity.
I've been advocating for the creation of a topographical map of time. Take a simple example 'sun time' and 'earth time' : the gravity of the sun however you understand the time/gravity relationship means that for it time is ticking much more slowly than for us, IE though two atomic clocks worked perfectly a third party spectator would observe them ticking at different rates. we may live on a planet that is 4.5 billion years old but the sun may have watched us being made say only 700 million years ago.(My invented maths for explanatory purposes ).These time differentials on a cosmic scale would then resalt in space time being a vortex of individual whirlpools(Galaxies gas etc) interacting according to the laws of fluid dynamics
I admit that the two dimensional aspect of Emergent gravity is new to me but it fits with the most fundamental prediction of my theory (That I call the on-going bang/ inflation).
For my theory to be right I needed to explain amongst other things ; the acceleration in the rate of expansion so I needed a universal mechanism that causes acceleration AFTER the energy event that causes it(Secondary acceleration), that mechanism is "Cavitation". consider a submarines propellor it has too much energy for the matter around it to react so they give off thousands of vacuum bubbles when these vacuums collapse 'That' is secondary acceleration. In a two dimensional space these quantum vacuums are what space is falling into at different rates in different parts of the universe.
The standard model tells us that 3/4 of the universe is energy: M=E/c squared so matter and crucially energy have mass. These energy flows(Axions probably) are the tides in which the vortices' of mater and time gather and slow.
Finally I repeat that I have not invented anything merely recognised that gravitational attraction decreases logarithmically over distance so without emergent gravity it simply is not strong enough to cover inter galactic distances as it is currently understood.
"Gravitational attraction decreases ...."
Obviously "Dark mater" and MOND amongst other Hypotheses have been thought of of explain this but unlike them, all I say is look at what we know differently rather than chaining the well understood physics we have.
Great vid. Love the visuals and editing.
One why of superconductivity seems as easy as because the structure of the material lines up in a way that utilizes the way reality flows without impedance.
If that isn't deep enough, then we get into my personal multiverse theory that looks at the multiverse as a perspective based dispersal of energy patterns that run through the gamut of possibilities from every angle. I like to normalize that thought by comparing it to how life has evolved into this complex testing ground for structures that reach as far as possible within a system's rules
How would you describe what happens to the spacetime between the proton and electron when the/an atom is destroyed in a blackhole?
Aren't there versions of emergent gravity that don't predict/rely on MOND but are just motivated by Ads/CFT and various analogies with solid state physics?
WTF...I feel like I'm in my friend's mom's basement talking deep thoughts and saying, "whoa" and "yeah man..." 😮
Wow, an open-minded scientist. I am impressed :) I think the emergent hypothesis has some good points. Especially in regards to gravity, Two of the phenomena i have been researching are charge displacement, and rotation (or more accurately angular momentum). They both tie in with what we call 'gravity', I.E they interact with mass. Laithwaite proved that inertia and momentum are 2 different animals. Brown proved that a rapid charge displacement adds momentum to a dielectric, and La Violette later put this down to a 'stretching' of the electron shell, and the nucleus has no option other than to move back into a more electrically neutral state. The protons move, and drag the neutrons along with them. Proton spin, and it's orientation, is supposed to be responsible for the magnetic component of an atom. Here's a thought; What if 'gravity' is no more than 'ether compression'? What if we are actually being pushed down, against this larger mass (Earth) rather than by some attractive force from the planet itself? Would all the effects, and Newton's formula's still work? Well, yes, they do. At least it would seem so to me, which answers the question "is there gravity in space?" well, no, unless there is actual mass there for the gravity to work on, or originate from. You would still get the same results if gravity came from mass, or it was some kind of 'field' forcing mass together. A reverse Higgs field, AKA Aether theory......
It seems to me GR measures the effects of mass on spacetime warping it very well. But I don't know how mass/matter interacts with spacetime. How do random dust particles condense into planets? Is it possible that there are relationships between the quantum field that give mass and spacetime is part of how they work?
Emergence passes Occam’s razor.
This is absolutely, positively the kind of ideas that need to be studied. If not, we may not ever break out of the stalled physics we find ourselves in. I hope the new generation of physicists will take the underlying message you are putting forth to heart. Which I feel is to think way beyond the status quo, no matter how crazy. Obviously there is some really weird stuff going on in the subatomic world. I feel it will take equally radical new ideas and theories to explain what we see.
On a more technical note, it does kind of make sense to me in regards to the Universe's connection to thermodynamic principals at it's core. After all, entropy seems to be a fundamental aspect of the Universe. And the thermodynamic properties of it essentially drives all processes. It seems logical then that, at the extremes of spacetime, such as in black holes, the properties of that spacetime would revert to behaving purely thermodynamic.
Another thought in connection to a purely surface area driven behavior, as opposed to a volumetric one, is related to my past work with pyrophoric materials. As a sphere gets smaller and smaller, there comes a point where the the surface area grows faster than the volume as you go smaller. This is what causes the pyrophoric behavior; the particle heats up due to surface oxidation faster than it can dissipate the heat due to thermal mass (volume). So likewise, at the extremely small spacetime dimensions of a black hole, literally the limit, the sphere becomes entirely surface area dependent in it's thermodynamic behavior. It is the extreme limit of the relationship, or ration, between the surface area of a sphere and it's internal volume. I don't know. Kind of makes sense to me.
An even more difficult system to describe with quantum field theory is why bacon taste so good to most people.
We say that gravity is what brings two particles together, and that their mass is what warps space time, but if space time is a constant quantity and must be conserved, where does the space go as two masses begin moving towards each other. What if what we consider to be mass is actually a worm hole that is sucking space into itself and depositing it somewhere else as inflation. On one one side is a black hole, and on the other is a white hole. But if you take two individual, small, worm holes, and allow them to circle each other from a distance, slowly getting closer to each other, this would look like gravity. If you scale this up, it would look like electromagnetism. And, if you continue to build the structures, you may find that these describe other elements in the standard model and string theory.
Gravity is the most common experience that we can’t explain. We can measure it, characterize its behavior, but we don’t know what it is.
I’ve always thought this about the human mind, and the variables on the physical level emerge as the differences in our personalities individuality; why no two of us are the same but can share similar traits. It’s interesting to know the mind itself, which is what makes use who we are individually, can’t be touched or physically located, only its residence can. Once we understand more layers of the mind, maybe can finally transfer consciousness, more than just self awareness, but it’s past experiences and personality as well (the “you” inside you), into a more robust home with a far better decay rate over time, and possibly robot legs. No robot legs is a deal breaker 💯😂
Does space have current, flow (like a river)? That gravity could have two component, the local component of mass acting on space, but space itself developing a secondary flow? Could it aggregate over distances?
gravity is intrinstic. The same things that caused primal energy to form atoms and subatomic forces to even merge in the first place are the same concepts that caused planets to form into spheres and have orbits. It is a residual result of specific quantum frequencies that create a simple overarching force of attraction. the more energy something has, the more attractive it is; it doesnt even really play much of a role until it has so much energy that it actually has mass.... but in the initial stages of the universe, it did matter. Some of the fundamental forces of physics were spawned from the same proceses that we see as 'gravity'.
Magnetism bonding equalization to pressure force and distance traveling cycling circulation patterns as mass entanglement. Galaxies spin in equalization to Magnetism. The core has more pressure exerted and less distance cycling circulation traveling. Outward mass has more distance traveling and less force. Spinning in equalization to repulsion of propulsion from repulsion. Magnetic fields show repulsion and propulsion from repulsion. Entanglement redirects trajectories towards the greater magnetic field synchronization flow.
Ive always thought something like this when expanding space at galactic scales was explained to me. The loaf of cooking bread example with the galaxies being raisins within made me think if everything is expanding then there is a force (space) squeazing each individual grape (galaxy) from every side. This would create the effect of a force around thr galxies as they would be being 'squeezed' from all directions by space. Just my thoughts, not that there worth much, Have a good one
thank you
I can explain the emergent properties of cognition in terms of underlying physical processes and mathematical structure. Which neuroscientists can't. But it's taken me half a century to unveil all of that.
It is necessary to know the dimensional architecture of the universe and how each of the dimensions are connected to each other in order to see how gravity emerges (and why each type of quantum particle exists). It also shows the beautifully simple relationship of quantum physics and general relativity. The problem is that I figured it out almost a decade ago, but since I don't have a degree in physics no one seems interested.
In my opinion, neither gravity nore dark energy exist. What we have is that space wants to be uniform. When some matter disrupts it's uniformity, it tries to push this matter away. When the matter is in close proximity to other matter, space tries to push them together. It's a matter if spacial density. However, the force pushing matter together is countered by things like motion. This same nature of space causes it to push objects apart when seperated by enough distance where the equilibrium between proximity is overcome by distance. The force causing us to stand on the Earth is the same thing that is pushing the universe apart.
It’s a fun idea except that we have empirical evidence of gravity. We can measure it. We have determined its speed by measurement. We have observed time dilation and even must activity factor it into our algorithms implementing GPS. Gravity exists, we know this. We know what it does. We just haven’t figured out what it is made of, if it is made of anything.
Great video! Talking about ideas that’s kinda out there. You should really check Terrance Howard’s theory of dark matter.
Space-time was the delusion of a warped mind.
There is at every point in space a direction that is the easiest way to go. A local downhill direction. The sum of all the masses in the universe weighted by the inverse square of distance determines that direction. Gravity "emerges" from these gradients.
Proper time - the speed of physical interactions - at each point is affected by the density of mass as seen from that point. There seem to be four space dimensions: x,y,z and density.
Time expands the light cone at any given point by 1sec/sec. Physical interactions must have proceeded oh so slowly when the density was so very large in the beginning just after the universe turned on and time became time 1. As the universe diluted over time things could happen faster and faster accelerating. Phase transitions - an emergent property - happened.
One of the amazing things that emerged was the mind as a cause. I plan in my mind and the world evolves according to my plan. I can make a date to meet in a future place and future time and it happens. But that's a different layer altogether.
I could never really understand where that separating border between different quantities ("emergence") is supposed to be... For me, all "moving parts" within a system are necessarily interconnected.
Could ALL forces be emergent from the interaction of the frequency of pulses in multiple dimensions? The basis is Planck Energy strobing at Planck Frequency, then dimensions are prime-number sub-octaves of that, and then dimensions support waves of pulses of specific frequencies, and then "objects" arise in N dimensions by Cymatics. "You are a bundle of standing waves."
Higgs Boson probably holds the key to gravity. Interia, although it seems counterintuitive to be party of gravity might be part of it as well. The headscratchers is, why do like charged objects attract as far as far as gravity is concerned?
There is another way to deal with gravity that also answers the DM and DE mystery as well as ZPE. If we treat space as a substance. From this substance emerge all the oddities of QM and relativity.
1. Space is a substance possessing multiple properties.
2. Chief among these is a type of density that decreases in the presence of matter and energy. Its density would be affected by the total energy of an object. In other words its mass, density, pressure, temperature motion etc. This follows the inverse square law but in a reversed sense of how we usually consider it.
3. The viscosity of empty space is zero. The viscosity is altered by the same factors mentioned above. Particles with mass experience an increasing viscosity as their velocity and acceleration increases. Massless particles do the same according to the energy carried but their motion is only slightly affected.
4. In this scenario gravity becomes an emergent push in a sense. Its not due to a pressure though. It is best to say it is due to a resonance set up by matter in a space possessing various levels of density. This eliminates the need for the traditional Graviton as a messenger particle unless one desired to potentially consider space as being composed of them.
5. This density of space can be described in another way as well. It would not be a lack of density but a negative density. A vacuum plus. Existing as such would mean that it could also source and account for the ZPE/virtual particles. Therefore it also could be called negative mass as well. The so called DE is also part of all of this.
6. It also accounts for DM. Just like DM the density of space increases as its distance from center mass increases.
7. BH raise some interesting possibilities as well in this way. It may be possible that matter eventually collapses far enough to begin reintegrating with the space that birthed it in the first place.
8. I like to think of the Cosmic Web as an artifact of phase transition in a non-expanding universe. Think about how impurities are isolated in water as it freezes. I know academia likes to say it is expanding but that is misleading. It "appears" as if it is. Red shift is likely better explained by other methods.
9. If we assign this universe a beginning let us say that it was in its "solid" state. When an arbitrary energy condition was achieved throughout the entire bulk a sublimation occurred. This brought a sustained virtual gluonic plasma into existence at every point with each point having the same energy but differing in "charge. The vast majority of these annihilated each other transforming back into "vacuum" and this was halted due to what we call the Higgs mechanism. The Higgs factor introduced a semi "permanent" imbalance we call mass. This may have also caused more virtual particles to be drawn into manifestation from the vacuum.
I think gravity is about the resolution of reality, where there emerges some kind of local lag in any process while nearby processes just add up to finding rest just by higher chance, so it's a flow. Energy understood as some kind of tension within space (permeability) propably strives not only to rest in space but also in time, so "mass" adds up. Also time is different in any place for any quantum and should just be modelled by dimensions and causality, I guess. Also: within a singularity itself time stands still. So it does at the speed of light. While light might just have less dimensions as it has no mass, but its waves can have some momentum and it's somehow polarized, it might cross space but not time, making it some kind of superfluid medium transmitting information by waves, so the speed of information also is set by that resolution, that's given in any direction, just like the speed of light.
Maybe it's a worthless brainfart, I don't know.
That sounds like a very Dutch theory even.. Erik Verlinde comes to mind...
Thank you for this good video. Never heard before of this idea. Very interesting. And yes there is something about gravity that we don't understand fully yet otherwise we'd be hovering around all over the universe.
What about the galaxies without dark matter or at least low levels of it? Or even the bullet cluster?
The trouble with simply inventing undetectable "stuff" to explain observations is that it is extremely likely to be wrong. After getting on for a Century since Zwicky first proposed it and still with no detection you have to be fanatical indeed about this hypothesis to not have the gravest of doubts.
Clerk really pulled it out of the complainer 's hand, With TWO HANDS. REALLY PULLED IT HARD!!!
Another forward thinking and perceptive explanation by Paul Sutter.
Thank you! It's possible to discuss about Why things are as they are, without sounding Feynmanishly agitated🙂
could one Universes be a different shape and size than another universe ? could one universes sind "information" to another what would be the effect on one another if it did ? A supermassive black hole? Dark energy ? or something else we can't see or know ?
~6:00 - Actually, Dr. Bruce Lipton has a very good & elegant physiological description of the emergence of consciousness.
If I was to start accelerating up from the surface of earth at a constant rate. Does the force I would feel pulling me down from gravity and the constant acceleration add together?
If gravity is = to acceleration,
Maybe it's emerging from something that's accelerating.
If you are playing the "game of life", how can you pick the desired end result and calculate a starting condition without playing the game? Is that even possible?
This is almost certainly correct.
Not sure that it's surprising that entropy is related to surface area. Particularly at c. An outside observer can never see information enter a black hole, so externally the result would seem expected, not surprising. At least if you use an information-based definition of entropy.
Gravity is can attenuate. ANYTHING that can attenuate is COMING from something. We may have not figured it out, but what ever the compound mix that can make gravity, is there for us to find, eventually. Most likely we will learn a way to attenuate before we fully understand.
Summary, emergent gravity paper by Verlinde 14:10, to date not great theory at 29:05, and at 15:15 he says we “dont’ know” however, S. Wolfram has in fact done this with “atoms of space” or first principle structure and bottom up using branching space diagrams (based on fundamental math rules governed by an abstract “Ruliad” structure of nature) that cancel and circle back in time, similar to many worlds except they reconverge, and gotten very close to GR and some elements of Quantum systems…a work in progress.
What did it do except recreating the old theories?
@@aniksamiurrahman6365 unify
@@aniksamiurrahman6365 I mean, recreating the old theories in limiting cases figures as one of the step zero sanity-checks any decent researcher does...
It took 15 minutes of James Tiberius Kirk soliloquy to get to a still nebulous point. With background mood music. This is beatnik physics. Set to pretty b-roll. Snapping my fingers… Yikes. Next.
And yes all thermodynamics, some ppl “gravitate” to a heated argument whilst a heated debate maybe disproportionate…at least not result in an emerging “ black” eye, no holes barred, all connects to the real universe 😅 my question, does a reflection have gravity or is it the result of gravity ?
great vid 🤙
1 molecule would be the heat ratio of absorbing or releasing radiation.
All these laws and theories (Newtonian to Einstein, dark mater and emergence) disagreement is maybe, a problem of a grand scope/spectrum and perhaps gravity has "frequency" like electromagnetic waves and each language or each formalism is just describing one aspect of gravity as a whole.
LIGO proved that gravitational waves exist, but the wavelengths are so long, and the frequency is so low, that they are barely detectable for anything besides the collision of two, nearby black holes.
I wonder if Spacetime had a slightly different geometry, the value of pi (the relationship between the circumference and diameter of a circle) would be different.
Pi is mathematics, not physics. Math is true independent of the laws of natures. Therefore pi wouldn't change if the geometry of space time would change.
How fast time runs relatively varies across the universe. Time in between the galaxies runs much faster than inside a black hole and inside the gravity well of a galaxy. Time runs slower as the matter is moving faster relative to the space itself. And when we say time runs slower, we mean the actual physical processes of the matter/protons/electrons/particles literally run slower. Gravity has a "time" component in it. Therefore, gravity varies based on how time actually flows across the space you are talking about.
The gravity of the situation is serious
You know what else is a layer? O.J. Simpson…..
Oh you said layer, not liar! Sorry! 😅
Ok... Since we have all these "emergent properties", could it just be, that we missed something fundamental in the beggining, and now we are just running in circles? (eg: particles dont exist)
Iam not educated, but it seams to me, from all the videos on physics and science that i watch in my free time, that science doesnt allow change that is not profitable in the short run, or is mainstream enough at this point.
Is electricity involved? Its about time. Let's go Velikovsky
I believe gravity is caused by the compression of space as it is displaced by massive objects. By existing is an area of gravity (in this hypothesis) one experiences an increased amount of space in a given amount of time. This would help explain why one experiences time dilation in both areas of extreme gravity and while traveling at a high velocity. Both are examples of experiencing an increased amount of space in a given amount of time. The second half of this video describes something similar to my idea but doesn’t include the possibility of matter displacing space nor does it consider how this compression could interact at a galactic scale. If I am correct (I most likely am not) gravity would be space “directing” and not pulling. This would shift the entire concept of what keeps galaxies together and potentially eliminate the need for dark matter in our calculations.
If gravity is displaced space and a black hole is an incredibly extreme example of condensed space as it is displaced by an unimaginably dense material and this material has displaced enough space then the center of a black hole doesn’t exist. It would literally be a pocket or bubble of nothingness. Not emptiness. Not open space. An area of nonexistence. This would explain why nothing ever goes past the surface of a black hole. The surface is the whole thing. To go deeper than the surface would be to leave our universe which shouldn’t be possible. This is more complicated than I can properly explain though text.
I’ve been thinking this since I was a kid. I agree things fall down at 9.8 m/s, but I don’t agree it’s gravity as I was taught causing it. Gravity has to be something explainable. I think it’s “tension” in the quantum fields themselves and their interaction. Lack of matter/energy in a vacuum causes that “tension” to go away causing expansion. Somehow in some way this has to relate to atomic/molecular orbits and absorption/emission of light (spectroscopy).
Oh, and dark matter is just the “energy” / “mass” of the “tension” of gravity. Which means there should be 1) a change in fields first happens at light speed and 2) motion of atoms and photons that results in