Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thanks for the link (+1) but it's very far from being an explanation for the layman. > In the same way that temperature arises from the movement of microscopic particles, gravity emerges from the changes of fundamental bits of information, stored in the very structure of spacetime. It doesn't explain how gravity emerges from bits of information. I'd love to understand how those bits make apples move from trees to the…
Gravity might have a lot to do with the electro-magnetism force. I've written "electro" separately on purpose because gravity and electromagnetic force might fundamentally be the same forces caused by the same electrons. Remember both magnetic and gravity forces act vertically. The gravity might be just an EM force on the pull mode.
Emergent Gravity and the Dark Universe
51–60 of 85 posts
Re: Emergent Gravity and the Dark Universe
#52I'm currently reading The Confusion [0] and just got through Leibniz's explanation of monadology [1][2]. Summarized very very briefly, the idea is that every particle in the universe is a sort of computational device, and their actions/reactions are determined by their "perception" of all the other particles in the universe. Does this research suggest that he may have been semi-correct?? [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/…
Frankly, I'd be surprised if anything ever suggested that Leibniz's colorful metaphysics was correct, even or incorrect. Leibnizian monads are unextended and unable to act on one another (from §1 and §7 of the Monadology), which is to say that they're non-physical. On the other hand, as they're somehow supposed each to have a complete picture to the world (§56), they imply some form of non-locality. Which is to say t…
I think this was just Leibniz awkward attempt at explaining modal realism. The idea of many possible worlds is much more mainstream now in physics, so I wouldn't call it "completely nuts".
Re: Emergent Gravity and the Dark Universe
#53To what degree does this contradict Einstein's theory of gravity?
It does not contradict Einstein's theory of gravity, just as Einstein did not contradict Newton. All three are different models explaining progressively more thorough levels of observation. Don't think of a theory so much as "what is true" but rather as a set of propositions and equations which are designed to model the way physical processes are observed to occur. Theories exist within their own provenance of observ…
Re: Emergent Gravity and the Dark Universe
#54In the summary, it says that these theories are "best understood in Anti de Sitter space...". I thought current observations ran against a spacetime that had a negative curvature. Are they just saying the math is easier in that geometry, but that it still applies to flat (or ever-so-slightly-positively curved) spacetime? Or are they arguing in favor of a "saddle-shaped" universe?
Spacetime has a positive cosmological constant, so it's closer to de-Sitter than Anti de-Sitter. It doesn't really have to do with curvature exactly, which is given by the Riemann tensor (so it doesn't make sense to say it's positive/negative).
Re: Emergent Gravity and the Dark Universe
#55Re: Emergent Gravity and the Dark Universe
#56Re: Emergent Gravity and the Dark Universe
#57Also, a simple explanation for the layman: http://www.alphagalileo.org/ViewItem.aspx?ItemId=169788&Cult...
Thanks for the link (+1) but it's very far from being an explanation for the layman. > In the same way that temperature arises from the movement of microscopic particles, gravity emerges from the changes of fundamental bits of information, stored in the very structure of spacetime. It doesn't explain how gravity emerges from bits of information. I'd love to understand how those bits make apples move from trees to the…
The other thing to know is that for a wave, there are more motions of travel than upon a triune 3-dimensional axis. The common thought process of a pondering individual is to simply add singular 3-dimensional particles to a 4, 5 or more dimensional time-space environment and try to peer into the behaviors of a hyperspatial-capable environment.
This is ridiculous because in a hyperspatial environment, so-called objects have a tendency to be in more of a wave-like state and even more-so than the waves of an ocean. These waves would be more like a fine-cotton tuft which is being pulled by electrostatic strands in multiple directions at once and wherein the "identities" of each may out of behavior dynamics be considered as singular with multiple locations because of a tendency to collapse at the same time or leave one the strongest through a matrix interconnections consisting of concepts of "Tensegrity." Then you have photons which are thought to be low-mass or perhaps even zero or negative in mass. This seems to correlate nicely with their high-speed velocities.
In a Universe which has hyper-spatial dimensions not only overlaying reality but also underpinning it via multiple directions (like the gravity of multiple stars, planets, and moons affecting each planetary body), the hyper-spatial arenas would seem to be more elastic and able to slip and slide over and around the greater reality. Mystics and even scientists talk about these other dimensions as a deeper reality but it might be fair to take it with a grain of salt and see our current average reality as the "deeper reality."
So gravity is the "sums" of multiple affecting bodies. The datastreams coming in from the Sun, Moon, and other planets all affect life on Earth. The Moon mostly contributes to water while other elements likely have greater response to other planetary bodies, depending on their molecular and nuclear composition. (although this has not been published in the traditional manuscripts of current science)
Anyway, to answer the question in the way I think of it, gravity is related more closely to time than the way in which science usually connects time to gravity. Scientists usually act like a photon travels at the 299 792 458 m / s rate.
It would seem that whatever forces of information flow (entropy...and some would say proto-consciousness) are behind gravity - are also interrelated with time itself.
Here's the kicker. People assume everything falls to Earth. Why? Because most things do? What about balloons filled with Helium? What about light which reflects to the astronauts in space? What about the electrical currents flowing to the Sun and back in the chains of ions? How much mass is held in those ions?
And that's just talking "vertically" without reference towards the hyper-spatial dimensions which the common man has even less experience with - even though we are experiencing the interactions with these dimensions all the time.
Let me make an important note before I forget: Electromagnetic forces may very well be different enough from "gravity forces" to be differentiated but there may also certainly be some overlap at various scales or in high-voltage or highly-sophisticated quantum situations.
Whichever ways in which time is generated/observed/transmitted, both gravity and electromagnetic forces are bound to be related with the flow & effects. If information is practically as important as energy and gravity, how much information leaves Earth through light or ionic currents which flow to the Sun (or other stars?)
Also, to the person who also answered here and said electromagnetism can never be related with gravity, how do they imagine ions are moving through a wire or exchanged in an electrolyte solution of a battery or a hydrogen-production system? Again, to change the angle to "vertical" rather than horizontal is a weird way to classify an entirely different force.
Oh...as I was saying, :) it's all about the timing. In a coherent stream of information like a flow of photonic light or the flow of electrons in an electromagnetic current, the forces of motion are resistant to changes in the flow of time within their area of influence. Next move your attention to the heat we can "see" radiating from the smokestack of a semi tractor. This thermal emission is a form of energy which is slightly more disordered and "dispersed" than the kinds of "motion" we "see" elsewhere.
One would possible assume that if we get so close to Earth where we are essentially at "ground-level" and we allow the gravity well to exert its influence on an object, that the strong effect we see is because there is a very "unified" pull of forces. But this is just as false as if we get closer to a cable being weaved from dozens of smaller diameter threads. We begin 'seeing' the smaller threads are spread further apart as we change our perspective to a smaller and closer entity.
Why do we see water swirling different rotations into a drain on different places upon Earth? All to due with the nature of time, gravity, and space itself being shaped and molded by a force which is positional and situational and thus inherently "proto-conscious."
Link: Implicate Order: http://www.bizint.com/stoa_del_sol/plenum/plenum_3.html
Re: Emergent Gravity and the Dark Universe
#58Earlier quoted context omitted.
In a quantum field theory, a wave implies a force carrying particle, does it not?
Yes, but the particle can be virtual, not actual.
Re: Emergent Gravity and the Dark Universe
#59Earlier quoted context omitted.
Gravity might have a lot to do with the electro-magnetism force. I've written "electro" separately on purpose because gravity and electromagnetic force might fundamentally be the same forces caused by the same electrons. Remember both magnetic and gravity forces act vertically. The gravity might be just an EM force on the pull mode.
Not even remotely the case, although I'd be fascinated to see where you got this notion from.
It's also certainly not the mainstream view, as classical geons are extremely unstable.