A new theory says gravity may come from entropy—which could lead to a unified theory of physics

[Billy_Bob]

Popular Mechanics ran this article... Now MSN linking to it... I figured I would post it up for the science enthusiasts and physics trained folks here,

Quantum theory, on the other hand, views the universe as being made of extremely small objects (think subatomic particles) that act as both particles and waves. Particles are minuscule pieces of matter, while waves are disturbances that transfer energy. According to quantum mechanics, the universe is described on micro and nano scales. Relativity is the opposite, in the sense that it describes matter on cosmic scales.

Finding a way to connect general relativity and quantum mechanics has proved to be an enduring headache for scientists. To that end, enter Bianconi’s theory. She posits that spacetime is actually a quantum operator, meaning that it acts on quantum states to turn them into different types of quantum states. Quantum entropy quantifies (no pun intended) how much disorder or unpredictability is in the state of something, which helps distinguish between two quantum states. Bianconi, in her work, found that she could use it to describe how spacetime and matter interact.

This article will make your head spin. The links inside it add even more questions.

A new theory says gravity may come from entropy—which could lead to a unified theory of physics

[Billy_Bob]

IF they find a way to bridge the gap between the two theories, this will change everything we believe.

A little "food for thought" for a Sunday..

[Rutabaga]

soooooooooooo, in other words,,,back to not knowing what it is.

its magic.

[AOF-AID-NGOs]

Has any of these super brains ever advocated that particles are waves and waves are particles?

Might just be that what the super brains think is so idiotic is exactly what answers the most difficult questions.

On the other hand, maybe it is simply that there is that third one nobody has found, yet: Particles / Waves / ?.

[old dog]

Has any of these super brains ever advocated that particles are waves and waves are particles?

Might just be that what the super brains think is so idiotic is exactly what answers the most difficult questions.

On the other hand, maybe it is simply that there is that third one nobody has found, yet: Particles / Waves / ?.

The particle/wave conundrum is due to our language and the human desire to have a "picture" of sub-microcopic quantum events.

In reality, the photon, for example, is, in it's entirety, two events: an emission at spacetime point A and an an absorption at spacetime point B. Anything in between, like a path is just happy talk. This has been verified many times in "delayed choice" and "quantum eraser delayed choice" lab experiments.

This new theory is quite novel. I'm reading Ginestra Bianconi's paper. If I grok it, I'll report back.

[AOF-AID-NGOs]

The particle/wave conundrum is due to our language and the human desire to have a "picture" of sub-microcopic quantum events.

In reality, the photon, for example, is, in it's entirety, two events: an emission at spacetime point A and an an absorption at spacetime point B. Anything in between, like a path is just happy talk. This has been verified many times in "delayed choice" and "quantum eraser delayed choice" lab experiments. <<<truncated>>>

That is an excellent summary.

[Billy_Bob]

The particle/wave conundrum is due to our language and the human desire to have a "picture" of sub-microcopic quantum events.

In reality, the photon, for example, is, in it's entirety, two events: an emission at spacetime point A and an an absorption at spacetime point B. Anything in between, like a path is just happy talk. This has been verified many times in "delayed choice" and "quantum eraser delayed choice" lab experiments.

This new theory is quite novel. I'm reading Ginestra Bianconi's paper. If I grok it, I'll report back.

I was thinking about this paper last night.

Ginestra Bianconi's paper is groundbreaking. I hypothesize, if she is correct, when we find out how to slow entropy (disorder), we will have the ability to propel ourselves in space time at unimaginable speeds using very little energy. Much like the particle/wave conundrum we cannot explain today. Interdimensional shifts might very well become possible.

Just trying to think of ways to prove or disprove her hypothesis makes my mind go numb...

[Morpheus]

Bianconi isn't saying anything fundamentally new. We already know that gravity is not fundamental, and we already know that "spacetime tells matter how to move, and matter tells spacetime how to bend".

What is new is that, whereas before, we could describe the phenomenon, Bianconi explains it. And in explaining it, reveals quite a bit more.

Spacetime is treated as a quantum state: In standard physics, spacetime is treated as a smooth, continuous mathematical field (an array of points, each populated with the information describing that point). Bianconi translates the geometry of spacetime into a quantum operator called a density matrix. So whereas before, we knew that spacetime is a field, and thus each point could be measured and described by those measurements, Bianconi treats spacetime as identical to quantum particles (which makes sense, given that in QFT, quantum particles are perturbations of the field). Thus the mathematics used for quantum particles can now be used upon spacetime. IOW, everything is a field.

Gravity is replaced by "Entropy Maximization": Remember the Entropy Maximization Principle? Yeah, turns out that's just the universe's attempt at minimizing the mathematical "difference in information (relative entropy)" between two metrics: actual spacetime (which would otherwise be geometrically flat in the absence of matter and energy) and a "shadow metric" induced by the presence of matter and energy. The geodesics of spacetime cause curvature because the universe is attempting to mathematically align its information state with the matter and energy at the given point in spacetime.

It predicts new physics: In low-energy environs such as our solar system, Bianconi's G-Field is negligible, and the maths perfectly align with the Einstein Field Equations... but in high-energy environs and on cosmic scales, the G-Field produces a cosmological constant (what we call 'dark energy' today) and proffers a candidate for dark matter without needing to invent new hypothetical particles... dark energy and dark matter are not physical substances, but are instead a result of the Entropy Maximization Principle.

Remember that all Action requires an Impetus, that Impetus will always be in the form of a Gradient of some sort, that Gradient comes about due to a differential in some Potential, all spontaneous Action is down the slope of that Gradient, with the highest probability of Action being down the steepest of that slope. That's 2LoT in a nutshell.

From the CSVFA model:
2LoT: Δu⇒∇u⇒𝕀(Impetus,[𝕀=∇(u+P)][Vector Calculus: 𝕀⃗_resultant=∇u+∇P])⇒𝔸(Action)⇒Work; ℙ(𝔸)∝|∇u|, where 𝔸⃗‖argmax(-∇u)

Also remember that every system seeks equilibrium.

Also remember that equilibrium is definitionally a quiescent state.

Also remember that the universe is inherently lazy... it seeks equilibrium (quiescence) via the path of least resistance.

In physics, finding the most stable, natural state of an out-of-equilibrium system means finding where its action is optimized. Bianconi applies the Principle of Variation (the mathematical tool used to find maximums or minimums). When you differentiate (vary) the entropic action with respect to the fields, you are mathematically forcing the universe to minimize relative entropy—aligning the true geometry with the matter and energy fields.

Because the matter and energy fields are strictly constrained, the math introduces a Lagrangian Multiplier to enforce the global rules. In standard calculus, a Lagrangian Multiplier is just a mathematical placeholder used during optimization. However, in this physical system, that multiplier manifests as a real, auxiliary field: the G-field.

When you solve this entropy optimization problem, the resulting equations of motion yield:
G̃^{^-1} = Ĩ + αM̃g^{^-1} - βR̃g^{^-1}
where:
Ĩ is the identity matrix
M̃ represents the matter and energy fields
R̃ represents the Ricci / Riemann tensor curvature
α and β are coupling constants scaled to the Planck Length (ℓₚ)

In environments with small curvature (like our Solar System), the constants α and β shrink. The equations output the same as the standard Einstein Field Equations. On massive, cosmic scales and at higher energies, the mathematical terms from this optimization generate an emergent dark energy and dark matter.

This also explains what happens inside a black hole. Standard physics purports that matter (which is merely a form of information) compresses into a singularity, a single point of infinite density... except, if that were true, then the black hole wouldn't grow as it ingested more matter (and energy)... it would just pack that matter and energy into that infinite density.

What really happens is that as the curvature of spacetime increases, G̃-->0. Spacetime saturates, it cannot compress any more, thus black hole size increases as it ingests more matter (and energy).

[Billy_Bob]

I am still trying to wrap my head around this paper. It's been a while since college.

Thanks Morpheus for the quick version ..

[AOF-AID-NGOs]

This thread started bugging me back a week or so ago and I have been setting aside some time each day to do some digging and I came up with one odd question I don't see any professor type or science type or novice has asked: What if there is no such thing as a "vacuum"? What if there is something in all that space they define as a vacuum, but we haven't discovered it, yet?

By extension, I don't think a true vacuum is even possible. For example, here on Earth, in the lab, they state they can build some super strong container and then suck everything out of it and create a vacuum. Balony, I say. If it were a true vacuum, no material could be strong enough to not collapse.

Point? I don't think humans really know what a vacuum is.

By the way, I ran into the noun "wavicle" during one pdf I read. But that might be about as weird as my thoughts about a true vacuum.

Oh yes, and all the guessing going on by all those super science types sort of reminds me of a high stakes poker game and everybody keeps right on betting and the pot is huge.

[Billy_Bob]

This thread started bugging me back a week or so ago and I have been setting aside some time each day to do some digging and I came up with one odd question I don't see any professor type or science type or novice has asked: What if there is no such thing as a "vacuum"? What if there is something in all that space they define as a vacuum, but we haven't discovered it, yet?

By extension, I don't think a true vacuum is even possible. For example, here on Earth, in the lab, they state they can build some super strong container and then suck everything out of it and create a vacuum. Balony, I say. If it were a true vacuum, no material could be strong enough to not collapse.

Point? I don't think humans really know what a vacuum is.

By the way, I ran into the noun "wavicle" during one pdf I read. But that might be about as weird as my thoughts about a true vacuum.

Oh yes, and all the guessing going on by all those super science types sort of reminds me of a high stakes poker game and everybody keeps right on betting and the pot is huge.

What you describe is what we call a black hole, where everything, including light is consumed. A true vacuum would seek out matter in every form.