Can Gravity be EMERGENT ? Ads/CFT correspondence
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 19 май 2024
- In this video we will explore the possibility of gravity being emergent. The idea comes from the holographic Principle and the Ads/CFT correspondence. And it suggests that gravity in an anti de sitter space might emerge from the entanglement structure on its boundary.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We still Don't Really Understand Gravity :-
• What we still don't un...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some useful Sources
Research Papers :
arxiv.org/abs/1405.2933 , Universality of Gravity from Entanglement , Brian Swingle and Mark Van Raamsdonk
arxiv.org/abs/1609.00026 , Lectures on Gravity and Entanglement , Mark Van Raamsdonk
inspirehep.net/literature/855413 , Building up spacetime with quantum entanglement , Mark Van Raamsdonk
www.annualreviews.org/doi/ful... , Spacetime from Entanglement , Brian Swingle
Articles :
www.quantamagazine.org/where-... , Quanta Magazine , Steven Strogatz and Sean Carroll
knowablemagazine.org/article/... , Knowable Magazine
www.sciencenews.org/article/e... , sciencenews.org
magazine.caltech.edu/post/qua... , caltech magazine
www.scientificamerican.com/ar... , Scientific American
www.quantamagazine.org/tensor... , Quanta magazine , How Quantum Pairs Stitch Space-Time
RUclips videos :
World Science Festival:
Einstein and the quantum : Entanglement and Emergence (highly recommended) : • Einstein and the Quant...
PBS SpaceTime on holographic universe : • The Holographic Univer...
PBS SpaceTime on how entanglement can creates entropy :
• How Quantum Entangleme...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My Blog : thespace-timestuff.blogspot.com/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks For watching.
Written , Presented and Edited by :
PRIYANSH
That's incredible young man, this is exciting to hear a young fellow talking about the infinite ♾️ space. Without Gravity whatsoever. You are on the correct path young fellow. I recommend a listen to the young gentleman. Keep going you will get there. I will be listening and watching. Thank you. Peace ✌️ from Canada, eh. EMFS.
Lovely video, thanks for the sincere effort and cool graphics!
Many thanks!
When i first started learning about quantum mechanics, I had this intuitive thought that was basically the conclusion that gravity is just an emergent property of amalgamations of matter and their interactions with the underlying substrate of the quantum fields.
Fantastic theory. I have been thinking this for a long time
Excellent video and summary of AdS/CFT!
Good video, good explanations!
Haven’t heard about how entanglement is the thing holding spacetime together. You know where I can find more on this?
In a way gravity is already considered emergent, since it’s not a force but an effect caused by time dilation caused by mass.
A great way to model gravity in spacetime is to add a dimension, so there might be some interesting insights in comparing the Ads/CFT correspondence to spacetime.
There are no "forces". Forces are abstractions so that masons can decive ppl. There are only symmetries playing out, blowing out and sucking energy from and to the surrounding eteher. The language of "scientific deception" has poisoned the mind. Just only the frekkin term "Particle" clan poison the mind so much, all it sees is pumbing particles. Particle is just stable(ish) waveform. Think of the laughing mater of "virtual particles". Sick satanic world. Once you go other side, outside your body, you shall know its is all fake what thay claim. Just one request - jou need to remember, satanism is also spiritalism (incl light luiferian beings, I can show you one right now, i´ve seen her "glow" - "Kadri Rinaldo", obvserve and understand who they are. Fakes.) DO NOT MAKE ANY CONTRACTS OR PROMISES WITH "BEINGS" - Dont do the devils work, mkay. Thay can activate "love" in you., And it is a trick. But lets go back to physics. A lil while ago, I decided i´m look into how things really are. I might hgave some "higer help", even above Lucy, IDK, but all "constants and crap" popped out in 5 minutes. Like gravity constant, like fine structure constant. None had the formulas ppl know. As yoy may know math has many branchs how to views stuff. Take simple formula speed = dist/time. It say NOTHING how things really work :D Its just quck calulation of prenormalized values. (Not very "elegant physics speak", sry, i saw what science is and canceled that long path of being a slave to evil corps.) Now I expose all the evil that is going on. M´kay. Ask. For starters - wanna know a nice 2 scams? 1) imperial system is metric system, under spherical lense - ups, masons gonna chill me -- real inch is an trancentental value, offset abou ~1/1600, small deliberate rounding erreie can hide how inch is constrcted - btw, they actively deny this saying "nothing to see here") 2) Collatz conjecture. While I can prove it at least 4 ways, in reality it is time wasting machine, and tchuckademia does not accept the results. If you are smart enough you can find the solution how it can be proved "formally" using primes. (I got wtfvibe when crook Terence Tao talked ultra nonsence about the problem, divering everything, using misdirections - "math is not ready yet" - and solved it. Look around - other ppl have too. A million bucks is what they do not want you to have).
Excelent video!
That's why we can't measure it and it appears so small, it only acts and exists on macroscopic scales.
I thing you've got a point there.
Good job. Good humor as well. I liked it. 👍🏻
Glad to hear it!
Got it! Draw a circle and calculate the volume of the corresponding sphere! Love Geometry!!
Excellent presentation of this subject.
wait, isn't the whole idea of general relativity such that gravity is in fact an emergent phenomenon related to the interaction of matter and space-time? at least that's what i always thought
I guess it all depends on who you ask. Before I thought it was a force, but now I also think it’s an emergent effect from time dilation and it seems to make much more sense to me. Wish someone gave me that realization sooner..
Great one!
Well explained , thank you
The problem I have with holograms as an explain for the 3d universe, is that you can't project from 2d 3d, because encoding is lossy. You can project from 3d to 2d ,because you are removing information there.
Meaning the 3d universe we see is not emerging from a 2d. But you could encode a 2d representation of the universe from the 3d. It would be lossy. There would be changes you can't explain because you don't have access to all of the information, but you could do it.
However, you COULD get projection from a 4d universe onto a 3d universe.
Good summary
Very nice overview.
What if the boundary cft is replaced with de Broglie double solution theory?
Great video and graphics
🤔 Interesting to say the least. I have an Idea then, but could it be possible to achieve????
Well said. Is not consciousness itself emergent?
I just thought this myself the other day and then here we go you just made a video on it, great minds bro hahaha.
Why is an electromagnetic wave called a wave? Is it because it travels in a sinusoidal path? Or is it because it has wave function properties?
Because it has a speed, frequancy and wavelength. And it diffracts and refracts like a wave.
Gravity scales with the number of atoms - see the year 1798 (yes, 225 years ago) - the Cavendish gravity experiment
To claim gravity as emergent you'd need to identify the physical discontinuity in Nature *_below which gravity is unobservable_*
In simple terms, Earth's gravity is easily observed. But very very tiny objects by comparison to Earth's size also exhibit observable gravity, as shown in Cavendish' 1798 experiment.
You'd have to say "Okay, if you run the same gravity detection tests on objects 1000 times smaller than what Cavendish used 225 years ago, there is no longer observable gravity"
That would be the physical discontinuity in Nature: 'objects 1000 times smaller than used in Cavendish' gravity experiment' and anything smaller, no gravity.
I don't think there actually is a physical discontinuity. Gravity scales all the way down to a single atom.
Is electric charge emergent? No. A single electron is detectable in a Wilson cloud chamber, as is a proton (positive charge).
There is no physical discontinuity with the notion of *_ELECTRIC FIELD_* - a single electron has an electric field.
Likewise, the change-able conditions of the constituents of the vacuum (aka 'space') - which give rise to a wide variety of gravity field strength, and gravity waves - are not emergent. The gravity field strength of the Moon is much smaller than Earth. This means the constituents of space have variable conditions. An arbitrary unit volume of space is capable of exhibiting gravity magnitude like that of Earth, or the moon, or the small objects used by Cavendish
ELECTRIC FIELDS: not emergent (single electron, single proton exhibit electric fields)
MAGNETIC FIELDS: not emergent (spin of a single particle yields magnetic field)
GRAVITY FIELDS: not emergent
It was discovered in the 1920s that electron spin results in a magnetic field. It was discovered in the 1920s that when a large portion of electrons spins in a bulk sample of iron or nickel or cobalt are aligned ('aligned magnetic domains' from high school science class), the bulk sample exhibits a magnetic field (in iron, cobalt or nickel, or alloys of those). But the magnetic field scales all the way down to the particle. There is no physical discontinuity in Nature that depends on 'single particle' vs. 'collection of particles'
I bring up the 1920s electron spin discovery to say, losing patience with the inability to identify and manipulate the constituents of the vacuum to create artificial gravity fields, is NO REASON to abandon the search.
If we'd called electric fields 'emergent', and it was later discovered that single electrons possess an electric field, a lot of cleanup work would have been required.
Gravitational waves have been detected to travel through space at the speed of light and electromagnetic frequencies; an indication that it is generated at the quantum level of the universe by the unification of two of the other three known fundamental forces, one of which is electromagnetism, both positive, provided by the electrons of the atom, and negative, provided by its protons. The other is therefore either the weak nuclear force or the strong nuclear force: Figure out which one, and you have gravity.
Seen in this light, it can be said that gravity is an emergent property of the atom. And in fact, all forms of energy is generated by the combination of two or more of the four known fundamental forces.
I don't think you need anything this complex. If you look at inertia being relative, I suspect gravity is emergent as a simple consequence of that. For example, if one spins a pair of weights attached to an elastic band, we know that this pulls the weights apart and stretches the elastic band. But if one spins the entire universe and the heavens surrounding it, leaving the two weights still, we do not typically imagine that this stretches the elastic bands, we imagine that it pulls the heavens apart. But in a relative universe, the two scenarios are identical. It seems to me that EITHER spinning the heavens stretches the elastic bands apart, OR that the opposite occurs, namely that the pulling apart of the elastic bands which we originally conceived, is accompanied by an equal and opposite pulling together of the heavens. This latter hypothesis - that local centripetal forces induce a global, equal and opposite "gravity", is all we need - a solution of immense robustness in the face of Occam's razor. Now just quantify it and get it to match observations and you're done!
Heres my amo/noobie theory of quantum gravity, inspired by videos such as this one. I am not a physicist but I do have a high GPA honors degree with double majors in quantum physics and mathematics:
My theory is beautifully simple. Quantum gravity could be nothing more than general relativity applied for a mass distribution with mass density function that has the same shape (is proportional) to the wavefunction squared, and therefore, the same shape/proportional to the probability of particle detection. I propose that the upon measurement this mass distribution moves non locally and instantly into the location of the measured particle, from this point on its just standard GR with a point particle, but up until measurement that mass is spread through and matches the shape of the wave function, causing space curvature as GR expects. Thoughts anyone? If this is implausible, please explain why since it seems legit given my limited knowledge!
Very interesting thought. My visually inspired idea is similar in that any amount of energy that "waves" can only do so through points/nodes of spacetime which gets dragged around by the shapes of different energy configurations. The amount of nodes moved around combine to form shapes which make up the building blocks of wave functions themselves. Do you think there could be any promise to this idea?
@@das_it_mane possibly!
certainly the idea of points/nodes of space is quite probable, i think wave functions may however be irreducible, its is made of 'partial states with varying degrees of probablity as bizzare as that does sound. I simply postulate that the mass may be spread through the wavefunction
Very interesting - as far as I understand, energy also warps spacetime - how would photons be represented by a mass distribution?
@@tom-sz They only have mass through E=mc^2, they have no rest mass. The energy of a photon is always travelling at the speed of light.
I think the entire universe is spinning as one object. If I am correct then it should explain angular momentum and accelerating expansion. And maybe some other things too, like the speed of light. We are inside a black hole. If we were able to look at the black hole we are inside of from the outside it would appear much smaller. Like the Tardis on Dr. Who. Our universe has black holes inside of it even though it is a black hole, and if that's true then our black hole universe is inside of another black hole universe that also contains black hole universes.
I’d like the way you stated that! 👍
Adding the spinning to the ‘universes in universes through black holes’-idea is pretty brilliant.
@@hurmzz Thanks. It seemed obvious ( after much reflection ).
See the thing is, everything we predict with General relativity is dead on yet QM is all statistics and inherently imprecise so the fact people believe we need to make gravity Quantum instead of making the Quantum classical is mindboggling to me.
The standard model is one of the most accurate theories ever made
❤️
Max Planck made a few errors in his paper on black body radiation which caused Einstein to erroneously think he could quantize light. The equation E=hv where E is energy in Joules, h is Planck's constant in Joules*seconds and v is the frequency of light in Hertz or light waves/second. When a unit analysis is performed, it shows Joules = Joules*seconds*light waves/seconds which reduces to Joules = Joules*light waves which further reduces to light waves = 1. This should never happen in a unit analysis. This equation is mathematically wrong and cannot be correct. Physicists have been trying to pretend that the Hertz is the inverse of time to cover up this error, but this is just pure lunacy. If the unit of measure of the Hertz is 1/s, that means that the unit of measure for velocity is the meter*Hertz and the unit of measure of acceleration is the meter*Hertz^2. Poppycock. Basically, the E=hv equation is what quantized light and resulted in both special/general relativity and quantum mechanics. Both of these schools of science are founded in error. You are correct that gravity is an emergent property. It is an emergent property of the aether as are atoms and molecules. If there is no aether, everything must be done by sheer action at a distance magic, which is a completely ridiculous conception.
Assuming this isn't satire (?), what you describe as light waves is more specifically number of light waves, which of course is dimensionless - and hence appears as 1. Consider counting the number of light waves that pass a point - one, two, three, etc. Just the number - no units. E=hv is not wrong. What's your opinion on the michelson-morley experiment?
@@tom-sz Just imagine counting seconds. 1, 2, 3 seconds. Seconds are just a dimensionless number. The same goes for meters, kilograms, or practically any unit of measure. They are all just numbers. By your logic, we can do away with all units of measure. A wave is a physical phenomenon and they were literally counting them in the blackbody radiation experiment Planck used to derive his erroneous equation. Light waves are literally the unit of measure for that experiment. You cannot just discard a unit of measure to make an equation work. Waves have a wavelength, an amplitude, and exert forces on physical objects. This is fact.
Yes, Gravity results as a perturbation of EM when considering quark fields and their fractional electric charge (structure). When averaged over spin directions it becomes a very weak force akin with van der Waals force in chemistry. This is documented, experimentally verified (Gravity can be controlled) etc.
No entiendo tu ingles
There is no "entanglement" and there are no "Black Holes" anywhere in the Universe.
Um, there's empiracle evidence for both. There are stars with really wacky orbits behind the Sagittarius constallation, these stars are orbiting something really really heavy that cannot be seen.
Furthermore, quantum entanglement does exist, for example electrons in a helium atom in the 1s orbital exist in an entangled state, one is spin up the other spin down.
Spscetime is not 3 dimensional, it has curvature and thus by definition is 4 dimensional. Also, why does gravity need to emerge from a quantum process? What if gravity is more fundamental: the result of spacetime expansion itself, interacting with matter? More precisely, what if matter actually creates spsce and this additional space is what causes spacetime curvature and gravity? Expanding space would radiate outward and create "lower density" near massive objects which then causes an inward acceleration toward the mass. Just sayin'.
Neutron decay cosmology
The path of least action, physical process solution to black hole paradoxes, dark matter, dark energy and critical density maintenance.
All matter which contacts and event horizon is neutrons because of electron capture.
Neutrons/matter, when they contact an event horizon are topologically everywhere, at the same time.
Because conservation the neutrons fall THROUGH spacetime, crossing the EinsteinRosen bridge.
But the other side of the bridge is not fixed, the other side is wherever the quantum basement is lowest in the universe. Deep voids.
The neutrons re-emerge in deep voids, preserving information, and after 14minutes decay into WIMPS.
A proton, an antineutrino and an electron. Dark matter.
The decay from near point particle neutron, to one cubic meter of amorphous atomic hydrogen is a volume increase on the order of 10^45. Dark energy. The released coulomb forces.
In time this restabilizes into atomic hydrogen and follows the usual evolution pathway until in the far far distant future, 13.8 billion years? , that neutron is again about to encounter and event horizon.
This journey, from deep void to event horizon is one world line.
Of course gravity is emergent. It is a perpendicular dimension to mass and time is a hypersphere not a column.
👍⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐🤯🤯🤯😮
Although I'm familiar with everything covered here, I couldn't quite make out exactly what you were saying a lot of the time and had to enable subtitles.
It's not your accent as such but simply a lack of clear enunciation. Mainly in the elision of consonant sounds and in some cases complete syllables. Something that many otherwise well educated young people are prone to these days.
If you want to make English language videos I think you need to take some elocution lessons and learn how to use your lips and tongue in a more controlled way.
if someone says "its emergent" he means " i dont have a clue"
He gave examples.
If you fart, the gases emerge from the digestion of the food you ate. That's emergence. It doesn't mean you don't have a clue.