@@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.
the degree of expressiveness you use in your voice not only makes the speech much more interesting, but also simplifies the understanding of the concepts! Really good!
The expressions in his voice show his passion for the topic. It definitely makes it more interesting. Sounds like a conversation rather than a lecture.
So, if I understand this right, the fundamental problem with emergence is that, as we zoom in on deeper layers, we can't observe enough of those deeper layers to give us enough information to discern how they translate to higher layers. I think that it's like the coastline paradox. The length of a coastline is almost infinite, depending on the resolution that you're measuring it at. The higher the resolution, the deeper you're going in its "layers." If you measure it from space, then you can see the entire thing easily, but if you were measuring it at an atomic level, it would be almost impossible to gather enough information to form a coastline at all. Increasing resolution without increasing total information gathered naturally decreases the area that we can gather information at. It seems to me that the issue with emergence is of that nature. Looking at clouds has an incredibly low resolution, but we get to see the motions of the entire cloud. Another way of looking at it, I'd say, is a little like Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. It's almost impossible to gather information at both a very high resolution and a very wide area. That's my hypothesis, anyway.
Really interesting thought, and I thought he would argue against this when he brought the three examples of why emergence isn't always computable from the lower level. But the examples boil down to either requiring a bigger sample size (for example individual molecules and temperature). I feel like the fact that a single molecule doesn't have a temperature doesn't mean temperature can't be computed at the lower level.
Absolutely. To get an experience of this, try to write a fully functional business website using ONLY binary code. Yeah, it's theoretically possible....but just try it. If you have to leave it to your heirs to finish, that doesn't count 😄
@@YogiMcCawThat sounds like owning a timeshare. They are worse than herpes. At least with herpes it’s over when you die and isn’t passed on to your heirs.
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.
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 🤣
I have worked out a completion of General Relativity to help people understand gravity better, if you can approach Einstein's field equation the right way, gravity as we know it pops out mathematically. Leaving quantum mechanics to be the underlying framework for maintaining classical symmetries. This equation has been misunderstood so often that many have gone down odd paths in order to explain "why gravity?", current physics still believes that we must find a way to reconcile Quantum Mechanics with General Relativity, but actually, when you analyse the equations from a certain valid perspective, it becomes a necessity to have gravity given the baryonic matter that inhabits our known universe. "Matter tells spacetime how to curve, and spacetime tells matter how to move." This encapsulates the idea that the presence of mass and energy warps the fabric of spacetime, and that curvature, in turn, affects the motion of objects. This a good summation of GR, let's break it down looking at Einstein's equation, we have 2 fundamental tensors that are in Einstein's field equation, the Stress Energy tensor and the Ricci tensor (There are others too, but these 2 represent the above English summation well.) The Ricci tensor represents the shape of the curvature and the Stress Energy tensor represents all the stuff that moves, they affect each other in a continuous feedback loop, at the speed of light, hence the English summation above. It is commonly thought that there is a conflict between Newton's laws and GR, because Newton's laws apply to a Euclidean space geometry and Einstein's spacetime is curved, but it turns out, if we accept some axioms, what we experience as gravity will just pop out as an artefact of the math. The Answer? Gravity is the result of applying Newton's laws of motion to the presence of baryonic matter in space, specifically, the conservation of momentum and in the case of baryonic matter, which is all the matter we know so far, it is the conservation of *angular* momentum that helps us see Gravity clearly. That is actually the answer, so, let me explain it. Why *Angular* momentum? This is because the matter we deal with is made of tiny spheroidal shaped atoms, that's all of it too, other than dark matter, which we don't understand yet. These are the reason gravity exists given some basic valid postulates: 1. Space is all connected together as a fabric, whereby energy radiates at the speed of light throughout in all directions, it is all connected up and interacting with itself at the speed of light. 2. Atoms posses angular momentum not just from quantum spin, but from the intense vibration it undergoes being held together as an atom in the first place, the strong force and the weak force are binding the atom, if we consider these vibrations as actually rotations of electrons around a nucleus, held inside the atom, then we can see that the electron clouds possess much angular momentum, even when they connect up from atom to atom in molecules. Tiny little gyroscopes. 3. Newton's law of conservation of Angular momentum in a closed system says that if an object rotates, the surrounding environment rotates in a real sense , the *opposite* way slightly to balance it and that this is very small, but for this purpose, it is not negligible. This is not frame-dragging, that is different again and is another artefact. This is all we need to establish that something like gravity must exist and when I say like, I mean directly correlated leaving only a scale factor to consider. The curvature is an eigenvector of balanced motion. How is this true? Let's consider a simple thought experiment involving 2 atoms of the same atomic mass in our known universe and a point P, at some distance away from these atoms. Each of these atoms possess rotating energy in the form electrons with some mass and therefore angular momentum. Postulate 3 above is basically saying that when you consider what happens to a gyroscope as you change its rotation speed with energy, this energy is conserved in it's environment too, meaning that if I spin the gyroscope faster, I must impart rotational energy that will rotate me the other slightly, in balance. Given postulate 1, space is a connected fabric, the surrounding universe can be said to rotate on summation, the opposite direction. This conservation of angular momentum around one atom can be imagined like a balance of 2 regional fields, the rotation within the atom and the rotation of the surrounding region, speed one up, the other speeds up the opposite way, in balance. So let's say that our 2 atoms are rotating in opposite directions to each other, just for the sake of argument, then the inverted angular momentum of the surrounding region superimpose over each other to affect position P together, but rotating in opposite directions. In reality, there are many more atoms, but the principle is the same. There is a philosophical connection as to to why the entire universe around a rotating object rotates the other way, it's not just a simple closed system, the surrounding region does not affect itself in any way in our simplified universe model of an atom, it can be considered as a whole connected region where it moves one way relative to the motion of the gyroscope within. Again, somewhat simplified for an atom or 2, but I'm focusing on the rotation as a minimal required transformation of inner and outer regions. So position P has a combined affect from the inverted rotation of the space fabric that almost cancels in this case, if you consider one cycle of rotation, point P is moved slightly one way and the other by the 2 atoms, but, this is the key, they don't entirely cancel each other out, because the atoms are in different positions in space, the combined affect after one rotation of both atoms is going to be a motion vector that is the residual of this motion, which is going to be tiny vector pointing back to the centre position sitting between the 2 atoms, otherwise known as the centre of mass, for generalising out to different atom types. You can draw a few triangles to see that is true. How does this tiny vector change according to the distance from our system of 2 atoms? Well, if we consider that philosophical principle well, we can see that it is rotational in space by the inverse square law, because the vector's energy is the almost cancelling of 2 sphere surfaces overlapping where the surfaces are rotating, it is related to the nature of the surface of a sphere, that is why it is inverse square, it's the energy at the surface of a sphere that is rotating. See the formula for angular momentum. We see that the energy is proportional to R². This means that if we double the radius while keeping the angular velocity constant, the rotational energy of a point on the surface will increase by a factor of 4. So, we have now discovered that by allowing our universe of 2 atoms to rotate, a residual vector pointing back to the centre of mass with strength proportional to the inverse distance squared pops out in Euclidean space! We just discovered gravity by defining the Ricci tensor in terms of the conservation of angular momentum of the stress energy tensor remembering that Energy and Mass and therefore momentum are equivalent. Voila! Gravity exists because we combined Newton's Laws of motion and Einstein's GR together. What does this mean for everything? It means that gravity as described by GR exists in Euclidean geometry! The curved geometry is merely a snapshot from a single perspective of matter to matter within the frame. Why? because atoms can be considered as tiny gyroscopes with non-negligible rotational effects on their surrounding universe. We assumed that our universe contained 2 atoms that specifically mostly cancelled each other, but if we extend this to orders of magnitude higher, the atoms of any rotational origin will cancel with this consistent tiny residual on average anyway. Gravity is perception we have of attraction in a world of flowing electrons around many nuclei, governed by Newton's laws of motion alone.
@saxtant: Thank you for adding this explanation, which is much more clearly presented than the video making comparisons to digestion and other everyday concepts. Although I’m not a physics PhD, I don’t prefer Dr. Sutter to dumb his theory down so much that it cannot be understood by anyone, PhD or not. Your explanation is very clear, and actually makes a lot of sense from both a deep understanding of physics as well as from common experience. Thanks for posting your explanation, or I would have felt the long and rambling presentation by Dr. Sutter was a complete waste of time. Perhaps he should rethink his bio as a “science communicator,” (meant as constructive feedback).
@@markalbrecht6989 Thank you... I believe it's important to break down the issues carefully and to climb into GR realising that the underlying reality does makes sense, despite being mathematically challenging and so therefore must be explainable to people from first principles.
I will add that my explanation is all Einstein's, except for the angular momentum interpretation, no one else sees it this way yet, otherwise they wouldn't bother with quantum gravity, since my claim is that there is no quantum gravity, gravity is just the conservation of angular momentum.
Thermodynamics of "Space" emerging as Gravity If space is to move, a sink and a source must be defined. Let the mass provide the sink for space and an interface (envelope) around our galaxy separating the MW from extragalactic space be the source. The envelope carries out the mechanism for producing quantized particles of space. (QPS) Without sink(s), QPS inside our galaxy would not appear to be contracting. QPS appears unstable around sink(s) / matter resulting in the decay of QPS, The amount of QPS to decay QPS is based on the UniversaL constant and the surface area of a particle. The greater the surface area the more mass the particle will appear to have. Mass is based on surface area and not on volume of a particle.
If one looks at the parameters for "G" m^3/kt^2, It is evident that G could stand for amount of QPS deleted by each kilogram per second squared. The actual value should be 4piG except that 4pi was cancelled out to simplify the calculation of force in Newtons Gravitational Equation (F=GmM/r^2) .... If 4pi is reintroduced, the Newtons Gravitational Equation becomes F=4piGmM/(4pir^2). The importance of area becomes more apparent in the description of gravity... By introducing a galactic envelope as a QPS source, DM and DE can cancelled out as necessary to explain behavior of mass in our universe. For large cluster(s) of galaxies, the source of QPS comes from an envelope and a core for very large clusters. If QPS is being created in envelopes or cluster cores, what by byproducts are also being generated at those locaitions. My guess would be high amounts of high energy rays (x-rays).
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.
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?
Einstein explained that spacetime near mass is more dense. An object near mass experiences the same effect as if it were being pushed/pulled from one side. It starts to move to preserve momentum in its local frame of reference, but that doesn't solve differences in spacetime density. Movement accumulates, hence actual acceleration. Photons have no mass, yet star light was also 'attracted' by the sun, as made visible during that solar eclips. Einstein demonstrated that spacetime is like a curved surface.
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.
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.
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.
@@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.
Thanks for another entertaining, educational, and detailed video! I always enjoy how you are willing to make longer videos in order to do justice to a topic. I recently saw an article about the Fourier Transform. It reminded me of this video. Is there any work being done on trying to apply a quantum version of the Fourier Transform to the idea of emergent gravity, similar to the way a song can be modeled as the combination of its component waves?
14:48 is understandable. Time stops at the event horizon (due to Gravitational time dilation) for any object falling into a blackhole from the perspective of any remote observer not falling with the object. So, things are never *SEEN* falling into a blackhole but *waiting forever* to cross the event horizon boundary. If every object stays stuck to the surface of a blackhole waiting endlessly to cross the boundary and never falling successfully into it, then the collective quantum state of all falling objects will be proportional more obviously to the *surface area* than to the volume of the blackhole. The guy who fell inside the blackhole (no relative time dilation) cannot come out of the blackhole and disagree with the remote observer. So all rules of thermo-dynamics of blackholes remains consistent across all remote observers.
I like ur mode of presenting emergent gravity. Sets an open mind to new ideas without putting down others. So does this imply that theory of everything will will never emerge? Or is there a need for 1? Or we leave it as such until the cloud of uncertainties clear up as we know more and more?
18:37 just because you can, does not mean you should. We have a problem. We tend to build upon already established information considered theoretical. Gravity as i understand it is still a theory. Sometimes one must realize a loss and go back to the drawing board. There are such possibilities that an observation, while looking like a why is plausible, are just incorrect. This is how i observe gravity. Misobservation founded on an incorrect perception. An apple falling hardly proves or even suggests gravity. From another perception the apple sinks. As i understand it, fluid dynamics applies to gasses. Gasses have fluid like properties. I know when i sink through water, it is very similar to a "fall" through the atmosphere. The more we sink in water, the pressure works like the pressure of the atmosphere. I have observed nothing, indicating an attachment of something to myself, that is pulling on me from motion in a downward direction when i climb a tree. Logic says if im pulled on then i should feel resistance. I observe and feel no gravity. What i do feel are changes in pressure at different elevations. In water it is either crushing at depths or closer to equalizing near the surface. I assume since we are oxygen breathing that this is why the other end of the scale works in the atmoshpere. At depths equalized, and i cant quite say for heights that matter since i have never been at those heights to experiment, but know what others teach from theirs. In all this i do not understand where gravity fits in the equation. I feel the same way about gravitational waves. 2 merging black holes do not indicate gravity waves flowing through matter or the fabric of space. What it does indicate to me, from others observations and studies, is that whatever energy is exerted outward from and away from 2 black holes is the wave of energy flowing through space, as we observe in water as an effect from a cause. Gravity has always been defined as a force that pulls. With that one could say the pull of the air from a fast moving car or plane passing by or over someone is gravity. Any that understands the physics in this example knows it is not gravity. It will be a misobservation for anyone that would claim a gravitational force or even an effect happening in this example. A pull is either an intent of will, a man exerting energy to move an object his direction, or a consequence of a sequence of events such as someone getting a part of themselves caught on an object in motion, like hair or loose clothing caught in a conveyer of some kind. Even then, it would be said to be dragging someone. A pull more closely relates to an intent of will. Back to gravity, though, the wave in effect caused by the 2 merging blackholes is just the outward force of energy flowing through space. Gravity pulls, not pushes, by definition, as i recall from junior high science, maybe grade school. Light is not bent because of gravitational warping of space either, again as i understand it, but refracted because of the curvature of space by the matter exerting what seems pressure upon space outward from matters position or coordinates, which would seem to cause a ruffling, wrinkling, or warping of space and that light is just following the direction through this ruffled, wrinkled, or warped space. As i recall from science class almost three decades ago, this is how what we observe is explained when light passes through other mediums like water. Refraction. The current flow exhibiting similar effects as warped space, the light just passing through the medium, which gives a seemingly apparent reduction in speed of light. Not quite as science class explained it, but how i understand it to be after much thought and many different people explaining the same concepts that to me somewhere will pop up a contradiction in the explanation, mainly and especially because of the contradicting words and terms used in defining the observation, seemingly from an incorrect perception. I believe we sink within the atmosphere for there being no pull or drag that i must resist and expend double energy to overcome. I believe it is not gravity flowing through space and pushing against space because gravity has always been described and defined as a pull from something exerted upon an object. The contradiction in that is when it is said that gravity holds us to the planet. This cant be if it is pulling. We will feel resistance we must overcome. The atmosphere, and our lack of buoancy within it, along with the ground beneath our feet hold us in position. Near the surface of the atmosphere, pressure exerted externally upon us drops and is less than the pressure internally exerted from us upon the atmosphere, making us buoant. Therefore, we float away past a certain threshhold. The key word is float. So i ask of the narrator of this video, where in all my explanations from my deep thoughts on the topic of gravity, does gravity fit into the equation of all observations performed, accepted, and taught, but from my own understanding that is emergent from listenining closely and intently as i can to these contradictions in explanations by different men and women holding closely relatable observations of the same events?
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.
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.
Love the content, I especially appreciate your editing style! Very conversational and more easily allows for digestion of kinda heady topics like this as opposed to a perfectly executed script or getting rid of all the filler words and pauses. More of that please @ all content creators lol
Important factor in emergence is the measurement scale. Emergent property arise through applying different measurements. As you keep changing the measurement you will keep finding emergent properties. Reality is based on what you are able to measure not really a start and end scenario. Our "black" issue is more or less an emergent problem. The interesting question is at least to me is "What is emerging from us?" Consciousness, hate/love some emotional state of existence... here be dragons? :D
With regard to Dark Matter vs Emergent Gravity, does it have to be one or the other? Or can it be both (and more) working together with observations that are mixed and not fully predictable because their interactions themselves are mixed?
I really love the way you describe these theories in such a simple way that its easy to grasp! For I would love to nerd out with some theories iv made up on gravity for a story im writing and would love to hear the input of others regarding it! My idea goes that 1st Dimension - The Realm of Potentiality: In the first dimension, there exists a realm of pure potentiality, where particles dwell in a state of suspended motion. This dimension is devoid of light and sound, representing the raw building blocks of existence waiting to be shaped. 2nd Dimension - The Emergence of Time and Form: As matter begins to vibrate within the second dimension, time emerges, accompanied by the creation of sound waves. These vibrations interact with one another, giving rise to form and structure. Imagine particles waving to one another, signaling their presence and creating a sense of spatial arrangement. 3rd Dimension - Space and Pressure: The third dimension represents the realm of space, where matter takes on physical form and structure. It interacts with the fourth dimension, which exerts a pressure akin to an invisible force field. This pressure influences the arrangement and behavior of matter within the third dimension, shaping the landscapes and structures we perceive. 4th Dimension - The Dimension of Pressure and Life Force: Pressure from the fourth dimension permeates the third, influencing the dynamics of existence. Imagine the fourth dimension as a translucent quartz crystal, embodying the life force generated by the interactions of the dimensions. This pressure molds reality, influencing the creation and evolution of life forms within the third dimension. Interplay of Black Holes and White Holes: Black holes and white holes serve as portals between dimensions, facilitating the flow of matter and energy. Black holes absorb matter from the third dimension, while white holes release matter into the fourth dimension. This interplay creates a dynamic exchange, shaping the landscapes and realities of existence. Creation and Coexistence: Reality emerges from the interplay of dimensions and the flow of matter through black holes and white holes. Each dimension contributes to the fabric of existence, influencing the formation of galaxies, stars, and planets. Black holes and white holes create and sustain one another, forming a symbiotic relationship that drives the evolution of reality itself. In summary, the dimensions and their interplay with black holes and white holes form the foundation of existence, shaping the landscapes and life forms within the universe. The basic concept, for gravity is that the electrons are particles from the 4th influencing the 3rd, where if there is enough matter in one place in the 3rd the 4th can push them together creating the warp in space where matter attracts to one another. For a black hole is the point where the 4th is compressing the 3rd down and reaching the 2nd D at a point. Again im making this up so I can quantify what magic is and how it works in my story. I have so much more lore on how reality could work as well, for what black hole do is take the energy out of matter causing its time to stop and turn back to dark matter and no longer move for the energy goes back into the 4th. If anyone is interested i have so much more regarding these ideas as well as the 5th D where it exist outside the 4th but inside the 1st, for the reality simply turns in on itself. Thus from above the 4th you could look inside your reality and inside the 1st you would look out to hire realities! Sorry for the long comment, I've been writing this idea for the last 9 months and would love some feedback! Thank you kindly! 😅
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?
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
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?
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.
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).
I hope that you continue to put out educational content. Your narration has something to it that I can not explain.. its like all the aspects of your presentation perfectly interact and speaking excellence simply emerges.
15:22 let’s build a giant flat plane in space I do believe it would collapse on its self into a sphere and in this moment t will will disprove flat earth!
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! 😂
I’ve got another possible explanation, but a really good question. When the matter & ant-matter annihilated each other in the early universe, where did the E go? E=mc(2) as we all know heat/energy doesn’t just disappear into the universe.
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."
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 ?
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?
So gravitons are produced in dark matter regions and travel along a cloud like or tendril like conveyance to anything with mass, once the mass limit “determined by the Higgs” is reached then gravitons start a process called entanglement and are popped out of existence and popped back into the dark matter region where they began their journey this process repeats and remains constant?
Can I/we use the following simple analogy to help me visualize and develop intuition? Imagine a one dimensional universe (closed) represented by a circle: Given spatial expansion, each point on the circle is dividing into two points at some average rate, unless mass is present. So the size of the circle (one dimensional universe) is expanding at some constant rate everywhere along its circumference in the absence of matter. If a test-point mass (M1) is present on the circle, then the local rate of spatial expansion at M1 is reduced in proportion at that location. Then imagine a second (much smaller) mass (M2) observed in the vicinity of M1. In this case M2 would not be found to "motionless", i.e. found on a single radial line drawn from the center of the circle as its size continuously expands. Thus gravitational acceleration of M2 towards M1 naturally arises (emerges) from conservation of angular momentum and inertia, and of course the inverse square law applies... What is correct or useful about this analogy? What is wrong or misleading about this analogy? Thank you.
If the surface edge of the Univers would control/interact with things, then would need to be some way higher than light communocation going, also regarding to Holographic-theory from many different directions of the surface
Translate the "Layers" into "Fractals" apply that into a repeating Log scale for eatch "layer" were all "emergent" properties are the result of the interactions of the "3D cymatics patterns". This is a teory i like to call "Field Perturbation Teory" were "ALL" can be scaled and explained with cymatic patterns deformations in Space/time. "The are no particles... only energy & vibration (amplitude, frequency & phase)." *Eletromagnetism and Charge: (concept) Nature of Charge: In the cymatic model, electric charge could be interpreted as a characteristic of the vibrational pattern of particles. Positive and negative charges might correspond to different modes or phases of these vibrations. Interaction: Just as waves can interfere constructively or destructively, charges might interact based on the phase alignment of their underlying frequency patterns. Opposite charges (positive and negative) could attract due to constructive interference at certain points, while like charges repel due to destructive interference. Scale: Fractal to the power of 1 (example = Very High frequency ( light speed) + Very low amplitude (mass) + Very Low Energy ) -Quantum superpossition can be explain doe to the fact that in the experiments we are only able to mesure one side of the sine wave. -Quarks: Each type of quark (up, down, strange, charm, top, and bottom) could be associated with its unique frequency pattern. These frequencies could be related to the quark's mass (amplitude of the field pretrubation they cause) and charge (energy volume), dictating their behavior and interactions. Fractal to the power of 2 = Very High frequency (speed) + low amplitude (mass) + Low Energy -Protons and neutrons are made up of three quarks. In this theory, their formation could be viewed as a superposition of the individual quark frequencies (net equilibium). The resulting composite pattern would be a stable cymatic structure witch woud in turn cause the "emerget" strong nuclear force. Fractal power 3 example = High frequency (speed) + medium amplitude (mass) + Low Energy -ATOM struture is defined/caused by a space/time field petrubation (3D cymatic pattern), from there "emerges" the strong nuclear force, and eletromagnetism. (are nothing more than intencety or amplitude of the field preturbations. The bigger the atom the more complex) At this point you can call "amplitude" as "mass" (but mass dosent existe its just a name reference). -Eletron Shells are the circular "Levels" (nodes & antynodes) of the cymatic paterns. This explains the fixed possition of the Eletron Shells. -ATOM decay: Due to constructively or destructively interference caused by phase alignment of protons and neutrons underlying frequency patterns causes a temporary neutral field reagion inside the cymatic pattent core alowing momentum conservation to expel the exess energy. Fractal Power 4 example = medium frequency (speed) + medium amplitude (mass) + medium Energy Chemistry: The chemical bonds are nothing more than overlaping/interlacing nodes in the outmost shell off the patterns in subjacent atoms (were eletrons flow). ...... ..... .....ect. (1st resonant scale) Fractal power 20 = Low frequency (speed) + high amplitude (mass) + high Energy Planetary Scale: Eatch solar system is viewed as a single Eletron on a massive flow ATOM (galaxy) (2nd resonant scale) Fractal power 30 = Low frequency (speed) + high amplitude (mass) + high Energy -Galaxy: Repetition of the Atom structure were the Super massive black hole is the nucleus and the solar systems are the eletrons. (3nd resonant scale) Fractal power 300 = Super Low frequency (speed) + Super high amplitude (mass) + Super high Energy -Universe scale: The Visible universe, and the strings of galaxys are like the gluons in a MASSIVE quark. Gravity is nothing more than the NET gain from all superpossitioning nodes of the cymatic patterns in the messured system.... What do you think? did it blow your mind? :P
Dr Paul you are obviously the only one that can shade so much light on this type of topics. Thank you very much, the explanation has had an impact. Perhaps everything emerges from consciousness.
Gravity cannot be quantized because gravity is not a force, and there is no such thing as a singularity. Nobody has physically demonstrated singularities to exist. There is no reason to believe that singularities exist, not even in black holes. Gravity is merely and ONLY curvature of space; gravity is not a force but merely redirection or reflection of kinetic energy; therefore, singularities cannot exist inside black holes. NOTHING is inside a black hole, not even existence of space or spatial dimensions; all of its matter that cause curvature of space is contained in its event horizon surface. Time stops at the event horizon surface, so nothing can "fall" inside the black hole. The event horizon surface of the black hole is an "edge" of the universe reality. Gravity is merely the curvature of space as it is "pushed out of the way" by matter. Gravity is not a force, but only the reflection or redirection of kinetic energy that is already in the matter. That's why objects of unequal mass will accelerate at the same rate under the influence of gravity. If gravity was a force that was imparting its energy into objects, then the objects would not accelerate at the same rate. Where did that original kinetic energy come from? Cosmic inflation (aka Big Bang) provided the original "lift" to create kinetic energy.
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
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.
Bacon may be a mystery, but the spontaneous symmetry breaking of the electroweak interaction (a quantum field) is related to the isotropy of space, which is important in cosmology.
Probability is a measure of grey scale between 1 and 0 but never inclusive of 1 and 0. It's the doors question. Option 1; Choose door A, Option 2: Choose door B, or C choose neither and then ask another question then wait for confirmation. Its 123? What is 4? VERY stable. The reverse of light through space IS gravity catching up to us. Cold and blue-shifted = Forward in time C=3 (conceptually), Hot and Red-shifted= Gravity (past).
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.
Are "dark matter" and "dark energy" even things in themselves or more like placeholders for forces/processes we don't understand yet? It seems counterproductive to name something "matter" or "energy" if we don't know what they are. It looks more like they are the names we give for the observed effects of universal expansion (which can be accounted for by even weirder things, like the effects of gravity in higher dimensions of space or even the effects of photons pushing against the universal speed limit of the speed of light).
As I exist on this planet as mass, I’ve often wondered to myself, why should I believe that the unexplained force of gravity is explained as an attraction force coming from the greater mass; ie, a pulling force similar to that of a magnet. We tend to draw a stick figure person placed on a drawn circle with an arrow starting at the feet pointing to the center as if pulled. I would instead place a halo of arrows above and around the stick figure getting compressed to the larger mass.
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.
Isn't there an experiment showing that certain photons and electrons are 'reactive' to observation and/or exposure, comparatively to stem cells reprogramming to become whatever organic materials they are exposed to or built with or whatever the process entails, but on a quantum level, but with energy, metals, elements, gravity, etc. Just a thought, or maybe everything continues to move infinitely small or large, quantum and quanta, thought patterns and vibration waves could be the same, thats my theory, just dont know the math or science to propose it accurately.
Matter is a phenomenon. Energy is a physical property. The two can't be equated because they are in different categories. Mass is, like energy, a physical property, so the correct equivalence is mass-energy.
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.
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.
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.
i like the hypothesis & like even more that you are willing to admit that a) it is very hard to test right now b) it might not be at all true and c) it does kind of fly against established norms so there is a lot of uphill work to do before it can claim success. there are a lot of assumptions made, but at this stage you basically need to in order to progress. it is a very intriguing potential.
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?
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.
Nothing says it has to be a 2D space, it could be a 3D space or as some say a 4D hypersphere, maybe more dimensions. I tend to the idea that everything is emergent, it can be both emergent and fundamental at the same time I guess depending on your frame of reference. I get to this from thinking as everything coming from a 1D object and projecting out from there, sort of like you can't know both speed and position at the same time, you have an event add time you have 2D, add movement you have length, skew it and you have width, this is why I think most forces are emergent as how do they act on a 1D object?
here is a theory/example of emergent gravity when you look at a black hole it looks as though its pulling everything into its event horizon because of gravity but imagine for a bit that the black holes and dark energy work like magnets repelling dark energy away from the black so imagine the space around a black hole as a bedroom the door being the event horizon of the black hole the dark energy which permiates all of space that usually keeps celestial bodies galaxies ect. from crashing into eachother well dark energy being repelled away from the black hole would push all the visible matter out the bedroom door or right into the event horizon so to us unable to see dark energy it looks as though the black hole is pulling everything with a force of gravity but actually the blackhole is being force fed the matter around it not gravity pulling it in but electromagnetism effect between dark energy and rotating masses such as planets stars and even black holes they are all spinning which creates poles usually north and south there are exceptions but this is the rule so that is my theory no way to prove it yet but in full belief we will in my lifetime
Can we associate the ideas (1) that gravity emerges in volume from information codified at the surface of space; to (2)the idea that all matter arriving at the event horizon of a black hole somehow stays there for eternity or, at least, until the black hole totally evaporates by force of Hawkig radiation? Matter should not be frozen at the event horizons but moving at quasiluminar speed into their everlasting assymptotic geometry, as event horizons are always and forever in the future for all external observers. Does that imply the existence of a fourth spacial dimension in direction of which black hole event horizons sink by virtue of gravity (as well as finite ondulations around any massive corps, and as well as the ondulations of the flexible carpet sink in a third dimension in the 2d-analogy tovsoace used to explain general relativity? Can our universe be the emergence of gravity and spacetime inside a massive blackhole in an upper level universe?
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.
The theory of chaos says when there are too many variables to an equation, it becomes impossible to solve the equation. Some variables will take on hyper sensitivity and others will have seemingly zero sensitivity, thus we have chaos, sometimes referred to the butterfly effect. I see the theory of chaos and the concept of emergence as two side of the same coin. Order arises from that chaos but is beyond detailed explanation. I use the concept of emergence in animal training when allowing the bottom up rules to produce the natural behaviors by controlling the environment the behaviors are developing in. The rules of behavior when applied to real world behavior results in an equation that is beyond solvable. But I can still allow the behavior to develop in the direction I want by letting the bottom up rules to function as expected (even if not entirely predictable) within specifically limited environments.
What I love is that you present and explain the ideas but admit that it is theoretical and that there are holes that need to be filled if emergent gravity is going to beat out dark matter!
I agree with you about the concept of layers and emergent properties. The universe is built up in layers of scale and complexity. Each layer has a set of rules that creates the next layer up, even if it is not always obvious how it does it. Some emergent properties are the result of the rules of more than one layer. Here is my take on emergent inertia and gravity. Matter and space is made of the same base material. Matter is structure with volume and surface area and space is a fluid composed of simple particles without mass or chemical bonds between them causing space to have no drag or viscosity. Those particles are tiny compared to proton and can be polarized and organized into magnetic field lines when opposite charges move relative to each other. Protons and neutrons may contain quarks but they do have volume and surface area. The curved space observed around massive objects is not a curvature of a flexible fabric but instead a curved region of flow as a result of relative motion between the structure of matter and space. The gravity field is a type of wave that carries matter through space. Inertial and gravitational forces are a pressure interaction between structure and fluid. When an external force causes a change in speed and/or direction, the structure moves relative to the field causing asymmetrical flow around the structure and a corrective pressure differential is applied to the surface. The pressure differential depends on the rate of change. The force generated to resist the change depends on the pressure differential and the exposed surface area. Gravitational force between two or more structures is caused by the same general thing. If two structures move side by side at the same velocity. both are off-center of each others field. Both structures will have a corrective pressure differential applied by the other structure's field to resist the apparent change in speed and/or direction. The result is a force of mutual attraction. Just like inertia, the force will depend on the applied pressure differential and exposed surface area. Fusion of hydrogen into helium and the creation of the heavy hydrogen isotopes deuterium and tritium causes a mass defect. Energy is released and the mass is reduced but it is not a conversion. The bonding of protons and neutrons has a violent reduction of volume and the bonding point reduces the exposed surface area so the same pressure differential will result in less force. You can agree with this or disagree with it. I bet you cannot come up with something better.
Time is an instantaneous pulse. period. Many pulses create a frequency. Frequency is a repeat of a prior event, and that is what we call "time". Since a pulse happens very very fast, its voltage happens over a vast distance, therefore distance over time creates a concept of space and time (which have nothing to do with "spacetime"). The voltage charge have to travel "there and back", i.e. to 'matter' and back to the eather. The matter becomes magnetic and clumps together so forming a magnet because of its density creating magnetism. That density prevents the following pulse from destroying the created magnitism. Get it? Space, Time and Gravity.......and that is the basis which we call " objective reallity"
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.
Not really, Gravity is well understood by some people, lots Of good information on this, the idea is Relationships make up things, and Time, gravity is a byproduct of relationships and things "feeling" time. Things that have mass attract things because they are bending time, and the illusion we get is a pull, which is actually acceleration.
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.
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
Looking forward to theories of gravity where an emergent property is it's fluid mechanical aspects, that there can be localized variations in density that could account for changes that are now attributed to "dark matter". I would prefer that theory as more likely. It is possible that this emergent property could be measured and account for the anomalies we see in the physical functioning of galaxy rotations.
The idea that gravity breaks down to EM interactions of invariant vacuum fluctuations of virtual particles is not new. Gravity then emerges like Van der Waals. The arguments become circular at some point, no matter which approach you take. Puthoff and others have already shown mathematically, in simplified situations, both the strong and gravity forces can be expressed as such EM fluctuations, emerging, based on the relative geometrical distances of objects within the universe. Dark matter could then me explained as simply secondary or tertiary terms, making gravity non-linear. Physics arguments becomes circular at some point, no matter which model you take. My question is (since forever): can some method be devised, like reverse-phase conjugation, which could invert the effects of such an emergent force? Because negative gravity, and lower cost methods to generate gravity are the major hurdle to manipulation of space-time to effect non-Newtonian propulsion. Before pooping that idea: each atom is like a mini solar system, so wouldn't space-time be distorted and deflected by the nucleus, as it is with our sun?
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......
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.
Boyle's law was seeded by his notions of corpuscular motions. More analogous is the emergence of the phenomenon called "planets going retrograde", the modeling of which was not based on an understanding of mechanism. Geocentricism was easy to correct. Just one shift of perspective required. The unconsciously assumed modern paradigm is more tricky, being a threefold inversion of the actuality. Substance, void and moment, not space, matter and time. Manage that, and sure, a black hole can only have a surface, the volume of which is true vacuum, cavitating into being each Moment, collapsing between moments.
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
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?
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
the degree of expressiveness you use in your voice not only makes the speech much more interesting, but also simplifies the understanding of the concepts! Really good!
The expressions in his voice show his passion for the topic. It definitely makes it more interesting. Sounds like a conversation rather than a lecture.
Refreshing to watch science content that is human narrated and not TTS. Thanks!
Right?? This is my first time finding this channel and I didn't realize how much better it is
@@jrspringstonyou didn't realize til THIS video???? 🙄
Yes but the distracting busy music makes it unlistenable for me...sorry ,thumbs down 😢
So, if I understand this right, the fundamental problem with emergence is that, as we zoom in on deeper layers, we can't observe enough of those deeper layers to give us enough information to discern how they translate to higher layers.
I think that it's like the coastline paradox. The length of a coastline is almost infinite, depending on the resolution that you're measuring it at. The higher the resolution, the deeper you're going in its "layers." If you measure it from space, then you can see the entire thing easily, but if you were measuring it at an atomic level, it would be almost impossible to gather enough information to form a coastline at all.
Increasing resolution without increasing total information gathered naturally decreases the area that we can gather information at. It seems to me that the issue with emergence is of that nature. Looking at clouds has an incredibly low resolution, but we get to see the motions of the entire cloud.
Another way of looking at it, I'd say, is a little like Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. It's almost impossible to gather information at both a very high resolution and a very wide area.
That's my hypothesis, anyway.
Really interesting thought, and I thought he would argue against this when he brought the three examples of why emergence isn't always computable from the lower level. But the examples boil down to either requiring a bigger sample size (for example individual molecules and temperature).
I feel like the fact that a single molecule doesn't have a temperature doesn't mean temperature can't be computed at the lower level.
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
Absolutely. To get an experience of this, try to write a fully functional business website using ONLY binary code.
Yeah, it's theoretically possible....but just try it.
If you have to leave it to your heirs to finish, that doesn't count 😄
@@YogiMcCawThat sounds like owning a timeshare. They are worse than herpes. At least with herpes it’s over when you die and isn’t passed on to your heirs.
Personally gravity doesnt worry me much except when I go to get up.
Or when I take a dump !!! Then I love gravity 😮
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
When you asked me if I had air around me, I choked on my shredded wheat 😂🤧
Ogres are like Onions. They have layers... What about Parfait?! 😂
Ain't nobody don't like no parfait.
@@wiseoldfool I bet you never saw a Donkeyfly! 🫏🪰
I have worked out a completion of General Relativity to help people understand gravity better, if you can approach Einstein's field equation the right way, gravity as we know it pops out mathematically. Leaving quantum mechanics to be the underlying framework for maintaining classical symmetries.
This equation has been misunderstood so often that many have gone down odd paths in order to explain "why gravity?", current physics still believes that we must find a way to reconcile Quantum Mechanics with General Relativity, but actually, when you analyse the equations from a certain valid perspective, it becomes a necessity to have gravity given the baryonic matter that inhabits our known universe.
"Matter tells spacetime how to curve, and spacetime tells matter how to move."
This encapsulates the idea that the presence of mass and energy warps the fabric of spacetime, and that curvature, in turn, affects the motion of objects.
This a good summation of GR, let's break it down looking at Einstein's equation, we have 2 fundamental tensors that are in Einstein's field equation, the Stress Energy tensor and the Ricci tensor (There are others too, but these 2 represent the above English summation well.)
The Ricci tensor represents the shape of the curvature and the Stress Energy tensor represents all the stuff that moves, they affect each other in a continuous feedback loop, at the speed of light, hence the English summation above.
It is commonly thought that there is a conflict between Newton's laws and GR, because Newton's laws apply to a Euclidean space geometry and Einstein's spacetime is curved, but it turns out, if we accept some axioms, what we experience as gravity will just pop out as an artefact of the math.
The Answer? Gravity is the result of applying Newton's laws of motion to the presence of baryonic matter in space, specifically, the conservation of momentum and in the case of baryonic matter, which is all the matter we know so far, it is the conservation of *angular* momentum that helps us see Gravity clearly.
That is actually the answer, so, let me explain it.
Why *Angular* momentum? This is because the matter we deal with is made of tiny spheroidal shaped atoms, that's all of it too, other than dark matter, which we don't understand yet. These are the reason gravity exists given some basic valid postulates:
1. Space is all connected together as a fabric, whereby energy radiates at the speed of light throughout in all directions, it is all connected up and interacting with itself at the speed of light.
2. Atoms posses angular momentum not just from quantum spin, but from the intense vibration it undergoes being held together as an atom in the first place, the strong force and the weak force are binding the atom, if we consider these vibrations as actually rotations of electrons around a nucleus, held inside the atom, then we can see that the electron clouds possess much angular momentum, even when they connect up from atom to atom in molecules. Tiny little gyroscopes.
3. Newton's law of conservation of Angular momentum in a closed system says that if an object rotates, the surrounding environment rotates in a real sense , the *opposite* way slightly to balance it and that this is very small, but for this purpose, it is not negligible. This is not frame-dragging, that is different again and is another artefact.
This is all we need to establish that something like gravity must exist and when I say like, I mean directly correlated leaving only a scale factor to consider. The curvature is an eigenvector of balanced motion.
How is this true?
Let's consider a simple thought experiment involving 2 atoms of the same atomic mass in our known universe and a point P, at some distance away from these atoms.
Each of these atoms possess rotating energy in the form electrons with some mass and therefore angular momentum.
Postulate 3 above is basically saying that when you consider what happens to a gyroscope as you change its rotation speed with energy, this energy is conserved in it's environment too, meaning that if I spin the gyroscope faster, I must impart rotational energy that will rotate me the other slightly, in balance. Given postulate 1, space is a connected fabric, the surrounding universe can be said to rotate on summation, the opposite direction.
This conservation of angular momentum around one atom can be imagined like a balance of 2 regional fields, the rotation within the atom and the rotation of the surrounding region, speed one up, the other speeds up the opposite way, in balance.
So let's say that our 2 atoms are rotating in opposite directions to each other, just for the sake of argument, then the inverted angular momentum of the surrounding region superimpose over each other to affect position P together, but rotating in opposite directions.
In reality, there are many more atoms, but the principle is the same.
There is a philosophical connection as to to why the entire universe around a rotating object rotates the other way, it's not just a simple closed system, the surrounding region does not affect itself in any way in our simplified universe model of an atom, it can be considered as a whole connected region where it moves one way relative to the motion of the gyroscope within. Again, somewhat simplified for an atom or 2, but I'm focusing on the rotation as a minimal required transformation of inner and outer regions.
So position P has a combined affect from the inverted rotation of the space fabric that almost cancels in this case, if you consider one cycle of rotation, point P is moved slightly one way and the other by the 2 atoms, but, this is the key, they don't entirely cancel each other out, because the atoms are in different positions in space, the combined affect after one rotation of both atoms is going to be a motion vector that is the residual of this motion, which is going to be tiny vector pointing back to the centre position sitting between the 2 atoms, otherwise known as the centre of mass, for generalising out to different atom types.
You can draw a few triangles to see that is true.
How does this tiny vector change according to the distance from our system of 2 atoms?
Well, if we consider that philosophical principle well, we can see that it is rotational in space by the inverse square law, because the vector's energy is the almost cancelling of 2 sphere surfaces overlapping where the surfaces are rotating, it is related to the nature of the surface of a sphere, that is why it is inverse square, it's the energy at the surface of a sphere that is rotating. See the formula for angular momentum.
We see that the energy is proportional to R². This means that if we double the radius while keeping the angular velocity constant, the rotational energy of a point on the surface will increase by a factor of 4.
So, we have now discovered that by allowing our universe of 2 atoms to rotate, a residual vector pointing back to the centre of mass with strength proportional to the inverse distance squared pops out in Euclidean space!
We just discovered gravity by defining the Ricci tensor in terms of the conservation of angular momentum of the stress energy tensor remembering that Energy and Mass and therefore momentum are equivalent.
Voila! Gravity exists because we combined Newton's Laws of motion and Einstein's GR together.
What does this mean for everything?
It means that gravity as described by GR exists in Euclidean geometry! The curved geometry is merely a snapshot from a single perspective of matter to matter within the frame.
Why? because atoms can be considered as tiny gyroscopes with non-negligible rotational effects on their surrounding universe.
We assumed that our universe contained 2 atoms that specifically mostly cancelled each other, but if we extend this to orders of magnitude higher, the atoms of any rotational origin will cancel with this consistent tiny residual on average anyway.
Gravity is perception we have of attraction in a world of flowing electrons around many nuclei, governed by Newton's laws of motion alone.
@saxtant: Thank you for adding this explanation, which is much more clearly presented than the video making comparisons to digestion and other everyday concepts. Although I’m not a physics PhD, I don’t prefer Dr. Sutter to dumb his theory down so much that it cannot be understood by anyone, PhD or not. Your explanation is very clear, and actually makes a lot of sense from both a deep understanding of physics as well as from common experience. Thanks for posting your explanation, or I would have felt the long and rambling presentation by Dr. Sutter was a complete waste of time. Perhaps he should rethink his bio as a “science communicator,” (meant as constructive feedback).
@@markalbrecht6989 Thank you... I believe it's important to break down the issues carefully and to climb into GR realising that the underlying reality does makes sense, despite being mathematically challenging and so therefore must be explainable to people from first principles.
I will add that my explanation is all Einstein's, except for the angular momentum interpretation, no one else sees it this way yet, otherwise they wouldn't bother with quantum gravity, since my claim is that there is no quantum gravity, gravity is just the conservation of angular momentum.
Thermodynamics of "Space" emerging as Gravity
If space is to move, a sink and a source must be defined. Let the mass provide the sink for space and an interface (envelope) around our galaxy separating the MW from extragalactic space be the source. The envelope carries out the mechanism for producing quantized particles of space. (QPS)
Without sink(s), QPS inside our galaxy would not appear to be contracting. QPS appears unstable around sink(s) / matter resulting in the decay of QPS, The amount of QPS to decay QPS is based on the UniversaL constant and the surface area of a particle. The greater the surface area the more mass the particle will appear to have. Mass is based on surface area and not on volume of a particle.
If one looks at the parameters for "G" m^3/kt^2, It is evident that G could stand for amount of QPS deleted by each kilogram per second squared.
The actual value should be 4piG except that 4pi was cancelled out to simplify the calculation of force in Newtons Gravitational Equation (F=GmM/r^2) ....
If 4pi is reintroduced, the Newtons Gravitational Equation becomes F=4piGmM/(4pir^2). The importance of area becomes more apparent in the description of gravity...
By introducing a galactic envelope as a QPS source, DM and DE can cancelled out as necessary to explain behavior of mass in our universe.
For large cluster(s) of galaxies, the source of QPS comes from an envelope and a core for very large clusters.
If QPS is being created in envelopes or cluster cores, what by byproducts are also being generated at those locaitions. My guess would be high amounts of high energy rays (x-rays).
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.
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?
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!
Einstein explained that spacetime near mass is more dense. An object near mass experiences the same effect as if it were being pushed/pulled from one side. It starts to move to preserve momentum in its local frame of reference, but that doesn't solve differences in spacetime density. Movement accumulates, hence actual acceleration. Photons have no mass, yet star light was also 'attracted' by the sun, as made visible during that solar eclips. Einstein demonstrated that spacetime is like a curved surface.
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.
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.
Please do a video on black hole thermodynamics! I absolutely loved this.
YES! Or a vid unpacking that first paragraph of Verlinde's original paper. That's very juicy stuff!
I third this request. Subscribing for the update 😊
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.
A superb explanation of difficult ideas. Easy to grasp, excellently narrated. Congratulations!
Thanks for another entertaining, educational, and detailed video! I always enjoy how you are willing to make longer videos in order to do justice to a topic.
I recently saw an article about the Fourier Transform. It reminded me of this video. Is there any work being done on trying to apply a quantum version of the Fourier Transform to the idea of emergent gravity, similar to the way a song can be modeled as the combination of its component waves?
14:48 is understandable. Time stops at the event horizon (due to Gravitational time dilation) for any object falling into a blackhole from the perspective of any remote observer not falling with the object. So, things are never *SEEN* falling into a blackhole but *waiting forever* to cross the event horizon boundary. If every object stays stuck to the surface of a blackhole waiting endlessly to cross the boundary and never falling successfully into it, then the collective quantum state of all falling objects will be proportional more obviously to the *surface area* than to the volume of the blackhole. The guy who fell inside the blackhole (no relative time dilation) cannot come out of the blackhole and disagree with the remote observer. So all rules of thermo-dynamics of blackholes remains consistent across all remote observers.
I like ur mode of presenting emergent gravity. Sets an open mind to new ideas without putting down others. So does this imply that theory of everything will will never emerge? Or is there a need for 1? Or we leave it as such until the cloud of uncertainties clear up as we know more and more?
18:37 just because you can, does not mean you should. We have a problem. We tend to build upon already established information considered theoretical. Gravity as i understand it is still a theory. Sometimes one must realize a loss and go back to the drawing board. There are such possibilities that an observation, while looking like a why is plausible, are just incorrect. This is how i observe gravity. Misobservation founded on an incorrect perception. An apple falling hardly proves or even suggests gravity. From another perception the apple sinks. As i understand it, fluid dynamics applies to gasses. Gasses have fluid like properties. I know when i sink through water, it is very similar to a "fall" through the atmosphere. The more we sink in water, the pressure works like the pressure of the atmosphere. I have observed nothing, indicating an attachment of something to myself, that is pulling on me from motion in a downward direction when i climb a tree. Logic says if im pulled on then i should feel resistance. I observe and feel no gravity. What i do feel are changes in pressure at different elevations. In water it is either crushing at depths or closer to equalizing near the surface. I assume since we are oxygen breathing that this is why the other end of the scale works in the atmoshpere. At depths equalized, and i cant quite say for heights that matter since i have never been at those heights to experiment, but know what others teach from theirs. In all this i do not understand where gravity fits in the equation. I feel the same way about gravitational waves. 2 merging black holes do not indicate gravity waves flowing through matter or the fabric of space. What it does indicate to me, from others observations and studies, is that whatever energy is exerted outward from and away from 2 black holes is the wave of energy flowing through space, as we observe in water as an effect from a cause. Gravity has always been defined as a force that pulls. With that one could say the pull of the air from a fast moving car or plane passing by or over someone is gravity. Any that understands the physics in this example knows it is not gravity. It will be a misobservation for anyone that would claim a gravitational force or even an effect happening in this example. A pull is either an intent of will, a man exerting energy to move an object his direction, or a consequence of a sequence of events such as someone getting a part of themselves caught on an object in motion, like hair or loose clothing caught in a conveyer of some kind. Even then, it would be said to be dragging someone. A pull more closely relates to an intent of will. Back to gravity, though, the wave in effect caused by the 2 merging blackholes is just the outward force of energy flowing through space. Gravity pulls, not pushes, by definition, as i recall from junior high science, maybe grade school. Light is not bent because of gravitational warping of space either, again as i understand it, but refracted because of the curvature of space by the matter exerting what seems pressure upon space outward from matters position or coordinates, which would seem to cause a ruffling, wrinkling, or warping of space and that light is just following the direction through this ruffled, wrinkled, or warped space. As i recall from science class almost three decades ago, this is how what we observe is explained when light passes through other mediums like water. Refraction. The current flow exhibiting similar effects as warped space, the light just passing through the medium, which gives a seemingly apparent reduction in speed of light. Not quite as science class explained it, but how i understand it to be after much thought and many different people explaining the same concepts that to me somewhere will pop up a contradiction in the explanation, mainly and especially because of the contradicting words and terms used in defining the observation, seemingly from an incorrect perception. I believe we sink within the atmosphere for there being no pull or drag that i must resist and expend double energy to overcome. I believe it is not gravity flowing through space and pushing against space because gravity has always been described and defined as a pull from something exerted upon an object. The contradiction in that is when it is said that gravity holds us to the planet. This cant be if it is pulling. We will feel resistance we must overcome. The atmosphere, and our lack of buoancy within it, along with the ground beneath our feet hold us in position. Near the surface of the atmosphere, pressure exerted externally upon us drops and is less than the pressure internally exerted from us upon the atmosphere, making us buoant. Therefore, we float away past a certain threshhold. The key word is float. So i ask of the narrator of this video, where in all my explanations from my deep thoughts on the topic of gravity, does gravity fit into the equation of all observations performed, accepted, and taught, but from my own understanding that is emergent from listenining closely and intently as i can to these contradictions in explanations by different men and women holding closely relatable observations of the same events?
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.
gravitation theory from Ferland? some links?
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.
Love the content, I especially appreciate your editing style! Very conversational and more easily allows for digestion of kinda heady topics like this as opposed to a perfectly executed script or getting rid of all the filler words and pauses. More of that please @ all content creators lol
A new (2023) theory of how gravity emerges from QFT is proposed in the Foundations of Physics paper "Ground state quantum vortex proton model"
How would you describe what happens to the spacetime between the proton and electron when the/an atom is destroyed in a blackhole?
Important factor in emergence is the measurement scale.
Emergent property arise through applying different measurements.
As you keep changing the measurement you will keep finding emergent properties.
Reality is based on what you are able to measure not really a start and end scenario.
Our "black" issue is more or less an emergent problem.
The interesting question is at least to me is "What is emerging from us?"
Consciousness, hate/love some emotional state of existence... here be dragons? :D
Michael levins talks about the natural emergence of intelligence in biological life, really interesting
With regard to Dark Matter vs Emergent Gravity, does it have to be one or the other? Or can it be both (and more) working together with observations that are mixed and not fully predictable because their interactions themselves are mixed?
Dark matter is an observation. Emergent gravity is not even a hypothesis.
I really love the way you describe these theories in such a simple way that its easy to grasp! For I would love to nerd out with some theories iv made up on gravity for a story im writing and would love to hear the input of others regarding it!
My idea goes that
1st Dimension - The Realm of Potentiality: In the first dimension, there exists a realm of pure potentiality, where particles dwell in a state of suspended motion. This dimension is devoid of light and sound, representing the raw building blocks of existence waiting to be shaped.
2nd Dimension - The Emergence of Time and Form: As matter begins to vibrate within the second dimension, time emerges, accompanied by the creation of sound waves. These vibrations interact with one another, giving rise to form and structure. Imagine particles waving to one another, signaling their presence and creating a sense of spatial arrangement.
3rd Dimension - Space and Pressure: The third dimension represents the realm of space, where matter takes on physical form and structure. It interacts with the fourth dimension, which exerts a pressure akin to an invisible force field. This pressure influences the arrangement and behavior of matter within the third dimension, shaping the landscapes and structures we perceive.
4th Dimension - The Dimension of Pressure and Life Force: Pressure from the fourth dimension permeates the third, influencing the dynamics of existence. Imagine the fourth dimension as a translucent quartz crystal, embodying the life force generated by the interactions of the dimensions. This pressure molds reality, influencing the creation and evolution of life forms within the third dimension.
Interplay of Black Holes and White Holes: Black holes and white holes serve as portals between dimensions, facilitating the flow of matter and energy. Black holes absorb matter from the third dimension, while white holes release matter into the fourth dimension. This interplay creates a dynamic exchange, shaping the landscapes and realities of existence.
Creation and Coexistence: Reality emerges from the interplay of dimensions and the flow of matter through black holes and white holes. Each dimension contributes to the fabric of existence, influencing the formation of galaxies, stars, and planets. Black holes and white holes create and sustain one another, forming a symbiotic relationship that drives the evolution of reality itself.
In summary, the dimensions and their interplay with black holes and white holes form the foundation of existence, shaping the landscapes and life forms within the universe.
The basic concept, for gravity is that the electrons are particles from the 4th influencing the 3rd, where if there is enough matter in one place in the 3rd the 4th can push them together creating the warp in space where matter attracts to one another. For a black hole is the point where the 4th is compressing the 3rd down and reaching the 2nd D at a point.
Again im making this up so I can quantify what magic is and how it works in my story.
I have so much more lore on how reality could work as well, for what black hole do is take the energy out of matter causing its time to stop and turn back to dark matter and no longer move for the energy goes back into the 4th. If anyone is interested i have so much more regarding these ideas as well as the 5th D where it exist outside the 4th but inside the 1st, for the reality simply turns in on itself. Thus from above the 4th you could look inside your reality and inside the 1st you would look out to hire realities!
Sorry for the long comment, I've been writing this idea for the last 9 months and would love some feedback! Thank you kindly! 😅
What do you mean by 'time emerges'? I know nothing but extremely curious... I thought time was a measurement created by man for man's understanding.
When is your new book coming out?
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?
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
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?
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 “
🤮
I thoroughly enjoyed this. Very interesting. There’s much to think on. Thank you so much for sharing this with us all.
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.
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).
I hope that you continue to put out educational content. Your narration has something to it that I can not explain.. its like all the aspects of your presentation perfectly interact and speaking excellence simply emerges.
Great video. Just thinking about emergence trips me out. Will we ever be able to see behind the curtain?
15:22 let’s build a giant flat plane in space I do believe it would collapse on its self into a sphere and in this moment t will will disprove flat earth!
The only thing that can simulate the universe is the universe itself. And emergence can be explained if things are top-down rather than bottom-up.
Nope
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
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.
I’ve got another possible explanation, but a really good question. When the matter & ant-matter annihilated each other in the early universe, where did the E go? E=mc(2) as we all know heat/energy doesn’t just disappear into the universe.
It's changed into smaller elementary particles (bearers of energy) it doesn't disappear
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."
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 ?
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?
So gravitons are produced in dark matter regions and travel along a cloud like or tendril like conveyance to anything with mass, once the mass limit “determined by the Higgs” is reached then gravitons start a process called entanglement and are popped out of existence and popped back into the dark matter region where they began their journey this process repeats and remains constant?
Can I/we use the following simple analogy to help me visualize and develop intuition? Imagine a one dimensional universe (closed) represented by a circle: Given spatial expansion, each point on the circle is dividing into two points at some average rate, unless mass is present. So the size of the circle (one dimensional universe) is expanding at some constant rate everywhere along its circumference in the absence of matter. If a test-point mass (M1) is present on the circle, then the local rate of spatial expansion at M1 is reduced in proportion at that location. Then imagine a second (much smaller) mass (M2) observed in the vicinity of M1. In this case M2 would not be found to "motionless", i.e. found on a single radial line drawn from the center of the circle as its size continuously expands. Thus gravitational acceleration of M2 towards M1 naturally arises (emerges) from conservation of angular momentum and inertia, and of course the inverse square law applies... What is correct or useful about this analogy? What is wrong or misleading about this analogy? Thank you.
If the surface edge of the Univers would control/interact with things, then would need to be some way higher than light communocation going, also regarding to Holographic-theory from many different directions of the surface
Translate the "Layers" into "Fractals" apply that into a repeating Log scale for eatch "layer" were all "emergent" properties are the result of the interactions of the "3D cymatics patterns".
This is a teory i like to call "Field Perturbation Teory" were "ALL" can be scaled and explained with cymatic patterns deformations in Space/time.
"The are no particles... only energy & vibration (amplitude, frequency & phase)."
*Eletromagnetism and Charge: (concept)
Nature of Charge: In the cymatic model, electric charge could be interpreted as a characteristic of the vibrational pattern of particles. Positive and negative charges might correspond to different modes or phases of these vibrations.
Interaction: Just as waves can interfere constructively or destructively, charges might interact based on the phase alignment of their underlying frequency patterns.
Opposite charges (positive and negative) could attract due to constructive interference at certain points, while like charges repel due to destructive interference.
Scale:
Fractal to the power of 1 (example = Very High frequency ( light speed) + Very low amplitude (mass) + Very Low Energy )
-Quantum superpossition can be explain doe to the fact that in the experiments we are only able to mesure one side of the sine wave.
-Quarks: Each type of quark (up, down, strange, charm, top, and bottom) could be associated with its unique frequency pattern. These frequencies could be related to the quark's mass (amplitude of the field pretrubation they cause) and charge (energy volume), dictating their behavior and interactions.
Fractal to the power of 2 = Very High frequency (speed) + low amplitude (mass) + Low Energy
-Protons and neutrons are made up of three quarks. In this theory, their formation could be viewed as a superposition of the individual quark frequencies (net equilibium). The resulting composite pattern would be a stable cymatic structure witch woud in turn cause the "emerget" strong nuclear force.
Fractal power 3 example = High frequency (speed) + medium amplitude (mass) + Low Energy
-ATOM struture is defined/caused by a space/time field petrubation (3D cymatic pattern), from there "emerges" the strong nuclear force, and eletromagnetism. (are nothing more than intencety or amplitude of the field preturbations. The bigger the atom the more complex) At this point you can call "amplitude" as "mass" (but mass dosent existe its just a name reference).
-Eletron Shells are the circular "Levels" (nodes & antynodes) of the cymatic paterns. This explains the fixed possition of the Eletron Shells.
-ATOM decay: Due to constructively or destructively interference caused by phase alignment of protons and neutrons underlying frequency patterns causes a temporary neutral field reagion inside the cymatic pattent core alowing momentum conservation to expel the exess energy.
Fractal Power 4 example = medium frequency (speed) + medium amplitude (mass) + medium Energy
Chemistry: The chemical bonds are nothing more than overlaping/interlacing nodes in the outmost shell off the patterns in subjacent atoms (were eletrons flow).
...... ..... .....ect.
(1st resonant scale)
Fractal power 20 = Low frequency (speed) + high amplitude (mass) + high Energy
Planetary Scale: Eatch solar system is viewed as a single Eletron on a massive flow ATOM (galaxy)
(2nd resonant scale)
Fractal power 30 = Low frequency (speed) + high amplitude (mass) + high Energy
-Galaxy: Repetition of the Atom structure were the Super massive black hole is the nucleus and the solar systems are the eletrons.
(3nd resonant scale)
Fractal power 300 = Super Low frequency (speed) + Super high amplitude (mass) + Super high Energy
-Universe scale: The Visible universe, and the strings of galaxys are like the gluons in a MASSIVE quark.
Gravity is nothing more than the NET gain from all superpossitioning nodes of the cymatic patterns in the messured system....
What do you think? did it blow your mind? :P
Dr Paul you are obviously the only one that can shade so much light on this type of topics.
Thank you very much, the explanation has had an impact. Perhaps everything emerges from consciousness.
No field. No particle. Just the geometry of concentrated curvature and associated geodesics.
"just?" 😕😉
This is fascinating but does it math? Does gravity correspond to surfaces rather than volume? Has anyone done the equations?
Gravity cannot be quantized because gravity is not a force, and there is no such thing as a singularity.
Nobody has physically demonstrated singularities to exist.
There is no reason to believe that singularities exist, not even in black holes.
Gravity is merely and ONLY curvature of space; gravity is not a force but merely redirection or reflection of kinetic energy; therefore, singularities cannot exist inside black holes.
NOTHING is inside a black hole, not even existence of space or spatial dimensions; all of its matter that cause curvature of space is contained in its event horizon surface.
Time stops at the event horizon surface, so nothing can "fall" inside the black hole.
The event horizon surface of the black hole is an "edge" of the universe reality.
Gravity is merely the curvature of space as it is "pushed out of the way" by matter.
Gravity is not a force, but only the reflection or redirection of kinetic energy that is already in the matter.
That's why objects of unequal mass will accelerate at the same rate under the influence of gravity.
If gravity was a force that was imparting its energy into objects, then the objects would not accelerate at the same rate.
Where did that original kinetic energy come from?
Cosmic inflation (aka Big Bang) provided the original "lift" to create kinetic energy.
You know what else is a layer? O.J. Simpson…..
Oh you said layer, not liar! Sorry! 😅
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
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.
Bacon may be a mystery, but the spontaneous symmetry breaking of the electroweak interaction (a quantum field) is related to the isotropy of space, which is important in cosmology.
Probability is a measure of grey scale between 1 and 0 but never inclusive of 1 and 0. It's the doors question. Option 1; Choose door A, Option 2: Choose door B, or C choose neither and then ask another question then wait for confirmation. Its 123? What is 4? VERY stable. The reverse of light through space IS gravity catching up to us. Cold and blue-shifted = Forward in time C=3 (conceptually), Hot and Red-shifted= Gravity (past).
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.
Are "dark matter" and "dark energy" even things in themselves or more like placeholders for forces/processes we don't understand yet? It seems counterproductive to name something "matter" or "energy" if we don't know what they are. It looks more like they are the names we give for the observed effects of universal expansion (which can be accounted for by even weirder things, like the effects of gravity in higher dimensions of space or even the effects of photons pushing against the universal speed limit of the speed of light).
As I exist on this planet as mass, I’ve often wondered to myself, why should I believe that the unexplained force of gravity is explained as an attraction force coming from the greater mass; ie, a pulling force similar to that of a magnet. We tend to draw a stick figure person placed on a drawn circle with an arrow starting at the feet pointing to the center as if pulled. I would instead place a halo of arrows above and around the stick figure getting compressed to the larger mass.
Wow, this is surprisingly deep. Really love it
Great work from Scientists and you as well 👏🏻😊
I hope in future i will give theory of everything🙏🏻
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.
Isn't there an experiment showing that certain photons and electrons are 'reactive' to observation and/or exposure, comparatively to stem cells reprogramming to become whatever organic materials they are exposed to or built with or whatever the process entails, but on a quantum level, but with energy, metals, elements, gravity, etc. Just a thought, or maybe everything continues to move infinitely small or large, quantum and quanta, thought patterns and vibration waves could be the same, thats my theory, just dont know the math or science to propose it accurately.
Micro versus macro, in all fields
What if all matter and energy is gravitons infinitely small with spin and energy defining measurable characteristics
Matter is a phenomenon. Energy is a physical property. The two can't be equated because they are in different categories. Mass is, like energy, a physical property, so the correct equivalence is mass-energy.
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.
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.
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.
i like the hypothesis & like even more that you are willing to admit that a) it is very hard to test right now b) it might not be at all true and c) it does kind of fly against established norms so there is a lot of uphill work to do before it can claim success. there are a lot of assumptions made, but at this stage you basically need to in order to progress. it is a very intriguing potential.
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?
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.
Nothing says it has to be a 2D space, it could be a 3D space or as some say a 4D hypersphere, maybe more dimensions. I tend to the idea that everything is emergent, it can be both emergent and fundamental at the same time I guess depending on your frame of reference. I get to this from thinking as everything coming from a 1D object and projecting out from there, sort of like you can't know both speed and position at the same time, you have an event add time you have 2D, add movement you have length, skew it and you have width, this is why I think most forces are emergent as how do they act on a 1D object?
Way better then string theory
here is a theory/example of emergent gravity when you look at a black hole it looks as though its pulling everything into its event horizon because of gravity but imagine for a bit that the black holes and dark energy work like magnets repelling dark energy away from the black so imagine the space around a black hole as a bedroom the door being the event horizon of the black hole the dark energy which permiates all of space that usually keeps celestial bodies galaxies ect. from crashing into eachother well dark energy being repelled away from the black hole would push all the visible matter out the bedroom door or right into the event horizon so to us unable to see dark energy it looks as though the black hole is pulling everything with a force of gravity but actually the blackhole is being force fed the matter around it not gravity pulling it in but electromagnetism effect between dark energy and rotating masses such as planets stars and even black holes they are all spinning which creates poles usually north and south there are exceptions but this is the rule so that is my theory no way to prove it yet but in full belief we will in my lifetime
Can we associate the ideas (1) that gravity emerges in volume from information codified at the surface of space; to (2)the idea that all matter arriving at the event horizon of a black hole somehow stays there for eternity or, at least, until the black hole totally evaporates by force of Hawkig radiation? Matter should not be frozen at the event horizons but moving at quasiluminar speed into their everlasting assymptotic geometry, as event horizons are always and forever in the future for all external observers. Does that imply the existence of a fourth spacial dimension in direction of which black hole event horizons sink by virtue of gravity (as well as finite ondulations around any massive corps, and as well as the ondulations of the flexible carpet sink in a third dimension in the 2d-analogy tovsoace used to explain general relativity? Can our universe be the emergence of gravity and spacetime inside a massive blackhole in an upper level universe?
Can we equate two kinds of bullshit? Yes. ;-)
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.
The theory of chaos says when there are too many variables to an equation, it becomes impossible to solve the equation. Some variables will take on hyper sensitivity and others will have seemingly zero sensitivity, thus we have chaos, sometimes referred to the butterfly effect. I see the theory of chaos and the concept of emergence as two side of the same coin. Order arises from that chaos but is beyond detailed explanation. I use the concept of emergence in animal training when allowing the bottom up rules to produce the natural behaviors by controlling the environment the behaviors are developing in. The rules of behavior when applied to real world behavior results in an equation that is beyond solvable. But I can still allow the behavior to develop in the direction I want by letting the bottom up rules to function as expected (even if not entirely predictable) within specifically limited environments.
What I love is that you present and explain the ideas but admit that it is theoretical and that there are holes that need to be filled if emergent gravity is going to beat out dark matter!
Very good. Great video!
I agree with you about the concept of layers and emergent properties. The universe is built up in layers of scale and complexity. Each layer has a set of rules that creates the next layer up, even if it is not always obvious how it does it. Some emergent properties are the result of the rules of more than one layer. Here is my take on emergent inertia and gravity. Matter and space is made of the same base material. Matter is structure with volume and surface area and space is a fluid composed of simple particles without mass or chemical bonds between them causing space to have no drag or viscosity. Those particles are tiny compared to proton and can be polarized and organized into magnetic field lines when opposite charges move relative to each other. Protons and neutrons may contain quarks but they do have volume and surface area. The curved space observed around massive objects is not a curvature of a flexible fabric but instead a curved region of flow as a result of relative motion between the structure of matter and space. The gravity field is a type of wave that carries matter through space. Inertial and gravitational forces are a pressure interaction between structure and fluid. When an external force causes a change in speed and/or direction, the structure moves relative to the field causing asymmetrical flow around the structure and a corrective pressure differential is applied to the surface. The pressure differential depends on the rate of change. The force generated to resist the change depends on the pressure differential and the exposed surface area. Gravitational force between two or more structures is caused by the same general thing. If two structures move side by side at the same velocity. both are off-center of each others field. Both structures will have a corrective pressure differential applied by the other structure's field to resist the apparent change in speed and/or direction. The result is a force of mutual attraction. Just like inertia, the force will depend on the applied pressure differential and exposed surface area. Fusion of hydrogen into helium and the creation of the heavy hydrogen isotopes deuterium and tritium causes a mass defect. Energy is released and the mass is reduced but it is not a conversion. The bonding of protons and neutrons has a violent reduction of volume and the bonding point reduces the exposed surface area so the same pressure differential will result in less force. You can agree with this or disagree with it. I bet you cannot come up with something better.
Time is an instantaneous pulse. period. Many pulses create a frequency. Frequency is a repeat of a prior event, and that is what we call "time". Since a pulse happens very very fast, its voltage happens over a vast distance, therefore distance over time creates a concept of space and time (which have nothing to do with "spacetime"). The voltage charge have to travel "there and back", i.e. to 'matter' and back to the eather. The matter becomes magnetic and clumps together so forming a magnet because of its density creating magnetism. That density prevents the following pulse from destroying the created magnitism. Get it? Space, Time and Gravity.......and that is the basis which we call " objective reallity"
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.
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.
Not really, Gravity is well understood by some people, lots Of good information on this, the idea is Relationships make up things, and Time, gravity is a byproduct of relationships and things "feeling" time. Things that have mass attract things because they are bending time, and the illusion we get is a pull, which is actually acceleration.
We also don't know what electricity is.
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
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
Looking forward to theories of gravity where an emergent property is it's fluid mechanical aspects, that there can be localized variations in density that could account for changes that are now attributed to "dark matter". I would prefer that theory as more likely. It is possible that this emergent property could be measured and account for the anomalies we see in the physical functioning of galaxy rotations.
The idea that gravity breaks down to EM interactions of invariant vacuum fluctuations of virtual particles is not new. Gravity then emerges like Van der Waals. The arguments become circular at some point, no matter which approach you take. Puthoff and others have already shown mathematically, in simplified situations, both the strong and gravity forces can be expressed as such EM fluctuations, emerging, based on the relative geometrical distances of objects within the universe. Dark matter could then me explained as simply secondary or tertiary terms, making gravity non-linear. Physics arguments becomes circular at some point, no matter which model you take.
My question is (since forever): can some method be devised, like reverse-phase conjugation, which could invert the effects of such an emergent force? Because negative gravity, and lower cost methods to generate gravity are the major hurdle to manipulation of space-time to effect non-Newtonian propulsion. Before pooping that idea: each atom is like a mini solar system, so wouldn't space-time be distorted and deflected by the nucleus, as it is with our sun?
Time, changes Everything! Fine work on this idea.
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......
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.
Boyle's law was seeded by his notions of corpuscular motions.
More analogous is the emergence of the phenomenon called "planets going retrograde", the modeling of which was not based on an understanding of mechanism.
Geocentricism was easy to correct. Just one shift of perspective required.
The unconsciously assumed modern paradigm is more tricky, being a threefold inversion of the actuality. Substance, void and moment, not space, matter and time.
Manage that, and sure, a black hole can only have a surface, the volume of which is true vacuum, cavitating into being each Moment, collapsing between moments.
I don't know, after all these years of studies, I think when my dad said when I was boy that "Maybe we are just all living in a fart in a car."
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
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?