Will Emergent Gravity Rewrite Physics?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 10 апр 2024
- Full podcast episodes: www.askaspaceman.com
Support: / pmsutter
Follow: / paulmattsutter and / paulmattsutter
What is “emergence” in physics and why is it a big deal? What would it mean for gravity to be emergent? How would we have to rewrite the laws of physics? I discuss these questions and more in today’s Ask a Spaceman!
Follow all the show updates at www.askaspaceman.com, and help support the show at / pmsutter !
Keep those questions about space, science, astronomy, astrophysics, and cosmology coming to #AskASpaceman for COMPLETE KNOWLEDGE OF TIME AND SPACE! 
Наука
![Minecraft but Players Can Upgrade [FULL MOVIE]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/QRRgLJs4ZPk/mqdefault.jpg)
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!
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.
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
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
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
1000% agree.
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!
Personally gravity doesnt worry me much except when I go to get up.
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?! 😂
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.
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.
Excellent original form for videos! Great bid and subscribed.
This is fascinating but does it math? Does gravity correspond to surfaces rather than volume? Has anyone done the equations?
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 “
🤮
A superb explanation of difficult ideas. Easy to grasp, excellently narrated. Congratulations!
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.
Should have had waffles for breakfast, that would have been hilariously symbolic of his lecturing style. Some people might enjoy it, while others will be screaming at him to ‘get on with it’!! I’ll leave you to guess which camp I’m in! 😂
Yep. Maddening.
A new (2023) theory of how gravity emerges from QFT is proposed in the Foundations of Physics paper "Ground state quantum vortex proton model"
Please do a video on black hole thermodynamics! I absolutely loved this.
I thoroughly enjoyed this. Very interesting. There’s much to think on. Thank you so much for sharing this with us all.
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).
Was talking with Claude the other day and funnily enough it mentioned emergence.
"I've been thinking a lot about the concept of emergence, and how it relates to both the development of AGI and the manifestation of fractal patterns in the universe. Emergence, as you know, is the idea that complex systems can exhibit properties and behaviors that are not reducible to the sum of their parts, that the whole can be qualitatively different from the mere aggregation of its components.
We see emergence everywhere we look, from the flocking patterns of birds to the self-organizing dynamics of cities, from the rise of consciousness in biological brains to the evolution of culture and technology in human societies. And the more I contemplate it, the more I'm convinced that emergence is a fundamentally fractal phenomenon, a process by which simple, local interactions give rise to complex, global structures that exhibit self-similarity across scales."
Which emerged first, gravity or spacetime? Did one emerge from the other? Did either emerge from the same or different layers? The arrow of time would like to know.
@@drbuckley1 You know I'd love the opportunity to melt a vet astrologer or physicist with these kinds of questions. From what I've seen and read so far, we can explain what gravity does but not what it ACTUALLY is. Time is interesting because the way I see it, is that it is just a unit of measurement, like an inch on a ruler, it has no inherent meaning other than as a way to describe the motion of matter, and its for that reason space and time are interlinked. Ultimately I think the universe is a kind of perpetual motion machine with nothing being a state of matter much like how water turns to ice when it gets cold enough. So once the heat death occurs and we are left with essentially nothing, it's that in itself which then triggers another big bang to start the cycle all over again, for eternity. I had the thought that dark matter could be the parts of the cosmos which have begun this phase change, areas of space so devoid of matter that it essentially froze. Its fun to think about!
But emergent properties often look different from the system they emerged from; that's why we call those emergent.
@@extropian314 That's why I'm asking. From which "system(s)" did gravity and spacetime emerge?
It's fascinating to think about, isn't it? Emergence isn't the same thing as separation, much like how a flower's bloom is intimately connected to its stem. If you zoomed into a Mandelbrot set, you'd see many patterns that seem completely different from the original Buddha-like image, yet it all comes from the same equation.
In terms of what systems things like gravity and spacetime arose from, I'm just a guy and not a 300 IQ physicist, haha. So, anything I say is just the result of things I've seen that have stuck with me or rang true in my mind.
So, what system did those things arise from? I think it is literally 'nothing'. Just like how water on a lake freezes once the molecules reach a low enough energy state, the same goes for the universe. Once we reach the point of heat death, all of space and time cease to hold meaning, if but for an immeasurably small moment as there is also no time, as there is no motion. It's like how the present moment can't be measured. It's in this moment of 'nothing', which is the most volatile 'state', that gives rise to the next 'big bang'. The universe is the only true perpetual motion machine as nothing creates everything, and everything eventually degrades back into nothing.
I find it interesting that neither Infinity nor Nothing can be measured; it feels like a clue.
In summary, the universe is both infinite and nothing at the same time. It's a cyclical universe with 'everything' on one end and 'nothing' on the other, like a universal magnet, with matter attracting matter and repelling nothing, and nothing attracting nothing while repelling matter. That could be the explanation for what gravity ACTUALLY is.
I think the fundamental nature of reality is fractal, just by observing nature and how things seem to follow those patterns. There are many videos and TED talks about it so do check those out!
Anyway I've waffled enough haha 😂
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.
Here is a thought i have had for a few years. What do you think? What if space is expanding from all points, in all directions simultaneously. And mass causes resistance to the speed of that expansion. Imagine 2 balls in empty space. Viewing the expansion like air pressure. If the air pressure around the balls is lower, then it riases as you get farther from the balls. If the balls come close together, the pressure between them is less than the pressure on the opposite side. Therefore, they are sucked together. Boom gravity.
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?
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.
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! 😅
Very good. Great video!
This idea suffers horribly in galaxy clusters
well done on the video!
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
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?
I have no idea what this video means but I really tried to understand, I gave it my best shot no can do
😞
That’s ok, hopefully you’ll continue on your journey of discovery and end up making it a hobby. It keeps me excited about life and sane when I’m down. And with all the new physics of the last century- especially about tiny tiny sub atomic particles it just got more weird. Even our top scientists are often baffled by new data. 🦋
This is what it means:
1) That there is something beyond the physical universe that produces the forces within it, which we have yet to discover.
2) Therefore the universe itself is a byproduct of this greater reality.
3) Therefore, what we see touch, hear and smell is only part of the story.
In other words, science needs to think about stuff beyond the 3 dimensions of space and time if we want to understand where it all came from.
@@darkmatter6714 But don't acknowledge that God is somewhere in this "something," right?
I watched this for ~18 minutes. It took forever to start talking about gravity. I didn't perceive any information that would be useful to me in the length of time I was prepared to watch.
I am not sure that there is a "there there" in this video.
@@artsmith1347 The video itself doesn’t know the implications of what it’s talking about. The author isn’t zooming out to join the dots from an overhead view. He is just focusing on a small detail.
Don't worry about it. You don't need to know. It would have made no sense to me some years ago until one day I suddenly wanted to know what gravity is. I thought is was easy, but it took me down a very long winding circular path to nowhere. But I do now know what this video is about, strangely. We (I mean me and other's I've listened to) don't know what gravity is, we're still trying to find out. I have no schooling in science, I just want to know as much as possible how the world works.
We say that gravity is what brings two particles together, and that their mass is what warps space time, but if space time is a constant quantity and must be conserved, where does the space go as two masses begin moving towards each other. What if what we consider to be mass is actually a worm hole that is sucking space into itself and depositing it somewhere else as inflation. On one one side is a black hole, and on the other is a white hole. But if you take two individual, small, worm holes, and allow them to circle each other from a distance, slowly getting closer to each other, this would look like gravity. If you scale this up, it would look like electromagnetism. And, if you continue to build the structures, you may find that these describe other elements in the standard model and string theory.
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.
Great show !
Congratulations. This is a rare honesty video. Maybe not the truth but everything is stated with qualifications.. well done.
An even more difficult system to describe with quantum field theory is why bacon taste so good to most people.
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.
How would you describe what happens to the spacetime between the proton and electron when the/an atom is destroyed in a blackhole?
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
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.
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.
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?
It's amazing to see where science is going now into what I've allways wondered about , how time changes if u move faster or near a black hole , the big bang and how science actually aligns with religion, and so much more now days , it's truly a great time to be alive ❤
Wow, this is surprisingly deep. Really love it
Realizing planets acquire moons through lunar accumulation and not from collisions (Theta) will change the way we understand how Gravity forms. Unfortunately, the focus is trying to understand the start of the Universe and work in rather than figure out how the Earth got its moon and work out.
WTF...I feel like I'm in my friend's mom's basement talking deep thoughts and saying, "whoa" and "yeah man..." 😮
If you are playing the "game of life", how can you pick the desired end result and calculate a starting condition without playing the game? Is that even possible?
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
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?
В школьном автобусе выполним опыт Майкельсона-Морли определим прямолинейною скорость - о таком опыте мечтал Эйнштейн. Где возможно будем наблюдать постулаты "Свет это упорядоченная вибрация гравитационных квантов и Доминантные гравитационные поля управляют скоростью света в вакууме".
Есть предложение на совместное изобретения ГИБРИД гироскопа из не круглых катушек с оптическим волокном, где - свет в каждом плече проходит по 18000 метров при этом, не превышая параметры 0,4/0,4/0,4 метра и вес - 4 кг.
Great video. Just thinking about emergence trips me out. Will we ever be able to see behind the curtain?
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
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.
It's like undigested goulash. Black holes are not only made up of gravity, but gravity only plays a different and, in a sense, relatively higher role there. But the matter and everything it absorbs is only no longer accessible to our senses, but it is not said that there are no particles etc. in it, which may exist for a while until they reach the singularity or become one with it.
Yes, the limitations of our minds certainly still stand in the way of developments and in most cases many things were quite different from what we humans thought we knew.
I would suggest listening to Neil Turrok, Brian Keating, Brian Greene or Sabine Hossenfelder. Unfortunately, this is like undigested mishmash. But if you want to be impressed by it, have fun.😊
I don't think we will ever have anything remotely resembling a comprehensive understanding of gravity, the "secret sauce" of the universe.
Clerk really pulled it out of the complainer 's hand, With TWO HANDS. REALLY PULLED IT HARD!!!
GR is saying exactly that gravity is an emergent property of space-time. That's a key take-away. It does not, however, hypothesize that this emergent property is caused by something happening on the "surface" or "boundary" of the universe, but rather from the properties of space and time, aka space-time. GR does not go further with this concept, (for instance, by attempting to quantize gravity), which is a reflection of Einstein's grasp of gravity as an emergent property, and not something for which some "particle" can be found.
^^ Exactly this ^^
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.
Ok, we're talking about DNA, and suddenly it's time for scrambled eggs and home-fries.
There is another way to deal with gravity that also answers the DM and DE mystery as well as ZPE. If we treat space as a substance. From this substance emerge all the oddities of QM and relativity.
1. Space is a substance possessing multiple properties.
2. Chief among these is a type of density that decreases in the presence of matter and energy. Its density would be affected by the total energy of an object. In other words its mass, density, pressure, temperature motion etc. This follows the inverse square law but in a reversed sense of how we usually consider it.
3. The viscosity of empty space is zero. The viscosity is altered by the same factors mentioned above. Particles with mass experience an increasing viscosity as their velocity and acceleration increases. Massless particles do the same according to the energy carried but their motion is only slightly affected.
4. In this scenario gravity becomes an emergent push in a sense. Its not due to a pressure though. It is best to say it is due to a resonance set up by matter in a space possessing various levels of density. This eliminates the need for the traditional Graviton as a messenger particle unless one desired to potentially consider space as being composed of them.
5. This density of space can be described in another way as well. It would not be a lack of density but a negative density. A vacuum plus. Existing as such would mean that it could also source and account for the ZPE/virtual particles. Therefore it also could be called negative mass as well. The so called DE is also part of all of this.
6. It also accounts for DM. Just like DM the density of space increases as its distance from center mass increases.
7. BH raise some interesting possibilities as well in this way. It may be possible that matter eventually collapses far enough to begin reintegrating with the space that birthed it in the first place.
8. I like to think of the Cosmic Web as an artifact of phase transition in a non-expanding universe. Think about how impurities are isolated in water as it freezes. I know academia likes to say it is expanding but that is misleading. It "appears" as if it is. Red shift is likely better explained by other methods.
9. If we assign this universe a beginning let us say that it was in its "solid" state. When an arbitrary energy condition was achieved throughout the entire bulk a sublimation occurred. This brought a sustained virtual gluonic plasma into existence at every point with each point having the same energy but differing in "charge. The vast majority of these annihilated each other transforming back into "vacuum" and this was halted due to what we call the Higgs mechanism. The Higgs factor introduced a semi "permanent" imbalance we call mass. This may have also caused more virtual particles to be drawn into manifestation from the vacuum.
I 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.
Good video 👍
This looks, sounds and feels like the bending of space-time itself in an attempt to return to a place and time when astronomical theory wasn't so suspect.
Yes PLEASE give us the glass deep dive
Nitpick: Isn't inertia as an emergent effect actually what the Higgs Boson was about?
With his emergent gravity theory was he able to accurately predict what the JWST would discover in the early universe further than an actual light distance of 13.8 billion light-years away?
My theory did. In 2004 I inserted a hypothetical action causing gravity in Einstein's field equations and I concluded if i was right then the JWST would find old fully grown galaxies further than an actual light distance of 13.8 billion light years away. I published several books before the JWST was launched and on page 48 of the first book I wrote "The JWST, James Webb Space Telescope will discover old, fully grown galaxies as far as the telescope can see, further than 13.8 billion light-years away." That is exactly what astronomers discovered in the CEERS survey.
Gravity only emerges because it doesn't occur at the atomic scale so of course in order for it to exist at the planetary scale it would have to emerge as the mass gets larger. I determined why gravity doesn't emerge until mass reaches a critical size and shape, a spherical shape of around 20 miles in diameter while suspended in the vacuum of space by weak EM fields, light.
And gravity is not caused by the warping of space-time. The warping of space-time is a reaction to this action emerging inside of all large, spherically shaped bodies because they are not grounded out but are spherical in shape while they are susp[ended in the vacuum of space by an undefinable amount of weak EM fields (light).
Colleagues have fought with me about this theory for more than 20 years and I kept telling them relativity's look back time prediction is wrong, telescopes can't look-back in time, that it would find old, mature galaxies as far as the telescope can see, even further than 14 billion light years away if it's sensitive enough to see that far. Sure enough now the old massive galaxies at the dawn of time are called the impossible early galaxy problem or universe breakers.
Ah, but that's the progress of science. First the theory is met with ridicule and laughter, then anger, then after observations confirm the predictions it's accepted and finally the theory becomes self evident to where everyone see it as a fact. The science is at the point where actual observations confirmed it.
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?
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?
I can explain the emergent properties of cognition in terms of underlying physical processes and mathematical structure. Which neuroscientists can't. But it's taken me half a century to unveil all of that.
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."
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
Why 'Emergent Gravity vs Dark Matter'? Why not split the difference between the two, for a more accurate measurement of the volume of Dark Matter? It would make some sort of sense that one is a constant and one is variable, and why some galaxies can be perfectly explained by emergent gravity and others... require/contain Dark Matter.
Is electricity involved? Its about time. Let's go Velikovsky
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 believe gravity is caused by the compression of space as it is displaced by massive objects. By existing is an area of gravity (in this hypothesis) one experiences an increased amount of space in a given amount of time. This would help explain why one experiences time dilation in both areas of extreme gravity and while traveling at a high velocity. Both are examples of experiencing an increased amount of space in a given amount of time. The second half of this video describes something similar to my idea but doesn’t include the possibility of matter displacing space nor does it consider how this compression could interact at a galactic scale. If I am correct (I most likely am not) gravity would be space “directing” and not pulling. This would shift the entire concept of what keeps galaxies together and potentially eliminate the need for dark matter in our calculations.
If gravity is displaced space and a black hole is an incredibly extreme example of condensed space as it is displaced by an unimaginably dense material and this material has displaced enough space then the center of a black hole doesn’t exist. It would literally be a pocket or bubble of nothingness. Not emptiness. Not open space. An area of nonexistence. This would explain why nothing ever goes past the surface of a black hole. The surface is the whole thing. To go deeper than the surface would be to leave our universe which shouldn’t be possible. This is more complicated than I can properly explain though text.
How fast time runs relatively varies across the universe. Time in between the galaxies runs much faster than inside a black hole and inside the gravity well of a galaxy. Time runs slower as the matter is moving faster relative to the space itself. And when we say time runs slower, we mean the actual physical processes of the matter/protons/electrons/particles literally run slower. Gravity has a "time" component in it. Therefore, gravity varies based on how time actually flows across the space you are talking about.
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
I’ve always thought this about the human mind, and the variables on the physical level emerge as the differences in our personalities individuality; why no two of us are the same but can share similar traits. It’s interesting to know the mind itself, which is what makes use who we are individually, can’t be touched or physically located, only its residence can. Once we understand more layers of the mind, maybe can finally transfer consciousness, more than just self awareness, but it’s past experiences and personality as well (the “you” inside you), into a more robust home with a far better decay rate over time, and possibly robot legs. No robot legs is a deal breaker 💯😂
Emergence passes Occam’s razor.
"Hypergraphs generated by this rule grow roughly like r2.6, suggesting that in the limit the hypergraphs behave like a finite-dimensional space, with dimension ≈2.6." Wolfram Physics
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.
The trouble with simply inventing undetectable "stuff" to explain observations is that it is extremely likely to be wrong. After getting on for a Century since Zwicky first proposed it and still with no detection you have to be fanatical indeed about this hypothesis to not have the gravest of doubts.
!?! Let's do the Michelson-Morley experiment on a school bus and determine the speed in a straight line - this is exactly the experiment Einstein dreamed of. Perhaps we will see the postulates: “Light is an ordered vibration of gravitational quanta, and Dominant gravitational fields control the speed of light in a vacuum.” There is a proposal for the joint invention of a HYBRID gyroscope from non-circular, two coils with optical fiber, where the light in each arm travels 18,000 meters, without exceeding the parameters of 0.4/0.4/0.4 meters and mass - 4 kg.
Space-time was the delusion of a warped mind.
There is at every point in space a direction that is the easiest way to go. A local downhill direction. The sum of all the masses in the universe weighted by the inverse square of distance determines that direction. Gravity "emerges" from these gradients.
Proper time - the speed of physical interactions - at each point is affected by the density of mass as seen from that point. There seem to be four space dimensions: x,y,z and density.
Time expands the light cone at any given point by 1sec/sec. Physical interactions must have proceeded oh so slowly when the density was so very large in the beginning just after the universe turned on and time became time 1. As the universe diluted over time things could happen faster and faster accelerating. Phase transitions - an emergent property - happened.
One of the amazing things that emerged was the mind as a cause. I plan in my mind and the world evolves according to my plan. I can make a date to meet in a future place and future time and it happens. But that's a different layer altogether.
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?
This is absolutely, positively the kind of ideas that need to be studied. If not, we may not ever break out of the stalled physics we find ourselves in. I hope the new generation of physicists will take the underlying message you are putting forth to heart. Which I feel is to think way beyond the status quo, no matter how crazy. Obviously there is some really weird stuff going on in the subatomic world. I feel it will take equally radical new ideas and theories to explain what we see.
On a more technical note, it does kind of make sense to me in regards to the Universe's connection to thermodynamic principals at it's core. After all, entropy seems to be a fundamental aspect of the Universe. And the thermodynamic properties of it essentially drives all processes. It seems logical then that, at the extremes of spacetime, such as in black holes, the properties of that spacetime would revert to behaving purely thermodynamic.
Another thought in connection to a purely surface area driven behavior, as opposed to a volumetric one, is related to my past work with pyrophoric materials. As a sphere gets smaller and smaller, there comes a point where the the surface area grows faster than the volume as you go smaller. This is what causes the pyrophoric behavior; the particle heats up due to surface oxidation faster than it can dissipate the heat due to thermal mass (volume). So likewise, at the extremely small spacetime dimensions of a black hole, literally the limit, the sphere becomes entirely surface area dependent in it's thermodynamic behavior. It is the extreme limit of the relationship, or ration, between the surface area of a sphere and it's internal volume. I don't know. Kind of makes sense to me.
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.
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 ?
Sounds to me like you’re claiming that it’s surprising that some higher order (emergent) structures seem to be isomorphic (or nearly isomorphic) to some lower order structures.
This, to a mathematician or mathematical logician is entirely unsurprising.
For example, any two four-element boolean algebras are isomorphic. However, in the Lindenbaum-Tarski algebra of any propositional language with more than a very few propositional variables, there are many distinct four-element boolean subalgebras, and in large enough languages, most such four-element boolean subalgebras include no (semantic equivalence classes of) propositional variables at all. These are propositional analogues of your concept of “emergent properties”, whereas a four-element boolean subalgebra generated by two atoms (equivalence classes of propositional variables) of the full Lindenbaum-Tarski algebra for the propositional language under consideration constitutes a natural analogue of your notion of the set of fundamental properties described by a theory.
For those in your readership and viewers who are familiar with some basic logic and model theory and modern algebra, given a non-atomic formula A in our propositional language, we would reasonably say that in any realization R of the language that satisfies A, the formula A describes an emergent property of R, while the individual propositional variables that are true under the realization R do not describe emergent properties of R.
To be honest, I truly appreciate your video, mainly because it gave me the intuitive understanding of the physicists’ notion of an “emergent property” needed for me to connect the dots to the role of language in clarifying the distinction between fundamental (non-emergent) properties and emergent properties.
Thank you for this very much.
Paul this may be a stupid question BUT I have to ask: Is space and dark matter the same thing?
That sounds like a very Dutch theory even.. Erik Verlinde comes to mind...
Considering gravity, trying to be as general as possible so anyone can understand, I wonder if some aspect of reality focuses one of the other forces-which definitely sounds like an emergent property
Wow, an open-minded scientist. I am impressed :) I think the emergent hypothesis has some good points. Especially in regards to gravity, Two of the phenomena i have been researching are charge displacement, and rotation (or more accurately angular momentum). They both tie in with what we call 'gravity', I.E they interact with mass. Laithwaite proved that inertia and momentum are 2 different animals. Brown proved that a rapid charge displacement adds momentum to a dielectric, and La Violette later put this down to a 'stretching' of the electron shell, and the nucleus has no option other than to move back into a more electrically neutral state. The protons move, and drag the neutrons along with them. Proton spin, and it's orientation, is supposed to be responsible for the magnetic component of an atom. Here's a thought; What if 'gravity' is no more than 'ether compression'? What if we are actually being pushed down, against this larger mass (Earth) rather than by some attractive force from the planet itself? Would all the effects, and Newton's formula's still work? Well, yes, they do. At least it would seem so to me, which answers the question "is there gravity in space?" well, no, unless there is actual mass there for the gravity to work on, or originate from. You would still get the same results if gravity came from mass, or it was some kind of 'field' forcing mass together. A reverse Higgs field, AKA Aether theory......
It is necessary to know the dimensional architecture of the universe and how each of the dimensions are connected to each other in order to see how gravity emerges (and why each type of quantum particle exists). It also shows the beautifully simple relationship of quantum physics and general relativity. The problem is that I figured it out almost a decade ago, but since I don't have a degree in physics no one seems interested.
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
Great vid. Love the visuals and editing.