Live data from Hacker News

Is gravity just entropy rising? Long-shot idea gets another look

quantamagazine.org

141–150 of 298 posts

Re: Is gravity just entropy rising? Long-shot idea gets another look

#141
post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I read the gravity explanation for the sun low entropy in the "Road to Reality" book from Roger Penrose. Asked Gemini to summarize the argument (scroll to end) https://g.co/gemini/share/bd9a55da02b6

It's also in his previous book "The Emperor's New Mind: Concerning Computers, Minds and The Laws of Physics", along with a lot more. Strongly recommended (even though after reading a lot of Greg Egan, my views on consciousness somewhat shifted towards "classical computation can do it, too".)

Yes, the main argument in the Emperor's New Mind seems to boil down to 'consciousness is weird, and quantum stuff is weird, so consciousness needs to be quantum'.

If you can look past that, there's some good other material inside.

Re: Is gravity just entropy rising? Long-shot idea gets another look

#142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Entropy isn't a force. It doesn't "favor" anything. Its a property of statistics, information, and distributions. Also why does this have that particular ChatGPT social media post rhythm to it? Please, Lord, tell me we haven't reached the point where people are writing HN comments w/ AI.

Because it has emdashes and ellipses that Chrome, Firefox, Mac, Linux, and Android text input controls do not natively produce. I don't know about iPhone. If you see these artifacts, it was authored in some other software (be it an editor or LLM) and pasted over.

Android does let you produce em dashes. I'm typing this with Google Keyboard right now.

If you hold the hyphen button, you get options for an underscore, an em dash (—) an en dash (–), and the dot symbol (·). The ellipsis (…) can be written by holding the period button.

But yeah, the commenter admitted it was authored by AI. But even if you converted all the em dashes to "--", it would still have a ChatGPT cadence.

> There’s a missing piece here — maybe coherence, resonance, or field attraction. But “just entropy”? That doesn’t explain formation. It explains dissolution.

Even ignoring the em dash, it just screams ChatGPT.

Re: Is gravity just entropy rising? Long-shot idea gets another look

#143
post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't know this, thanks for sharing. https://herebeanswers.com/things-weigh-heavier-or-lighter-wh...

I feel like you have somehow found the least authoritative source for the wonderful new information provided... why did you choose that one? serious question, because I'm trying to understand your process (and yes, maybe gently challenging it, but unsure if I should, bc you are clearly knowledgeable in specific ways about this)

Thanks, I appreciate it

Re: Is gravity just entropy rising? Long-shot idea gets another look

#145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mathematical notation is a human invention, but the structure that mathematics describes is objective. The choice of basis changes the absolute number of terms, but the relative magnitude of terms for a more or less disordered state is generally fixed outside of degenerate cases.

The structure that most words describe is objective, so you haven’t distinguished math as a language. (Nor is mathematics entirely “objective”, eg, axiom of choice.) And the number of terms in your chosen language with your chosen basis isn’t objective: that’s an intrinsic fact to your frame. The complexity of terms is not fixed — that’s simply wrong mathematically. They’re dependent on our chosen basis. Your definit…

This is getting tedious. The point about mathematics was simply that it carries and objectivity that natural language does not carry. But the point about natural language was always a red-herring; not sure why you introduced it.

>You can’t make the whole class simplified at once

Yes, this is literally my point. The further point is that the relative complexities of two systems will not switch orders regardless of basis, except perhaps in degenerate cases. There is no "absolute" complexity, so your other points aren't relevant.

Re: Is gravity just entropy rising? Long-shot idea gets another look

#146
post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with emergent theories like this is that they _derive_ Newtonian gravity and General Relativity so it’s not clear there’s anything to test. If they are able to predict MOND without the need for an additional MOND field then they become falsifiable only insofar as MOND is.

Please, how is the article related to MOND's theories?

They both have to do with very weak gravitational fields.

Re: Is gravity just entropy rising? Long-shot idea gets another look

#147

I don't get it. To me, entropy is not a physical thing, but a measure of our imperfect knowledge about a system. We can only measure the bulk properties of matter, so we've made up a number to quantify how imperfect the bulk properties describe the true microscopic state of the system. But if we had the ability to zoom into the microscopic level, entropy would make no sense. So I don't see how gravity or any other fu…

This comment thread is exhibit N-thousand that "nobody really understands entropy". My basic understanding goes like this:

In thermodynamics, you describe a system with a massive number of microstates/dynamical variable according to 2-3 measurable macrostate variables. (E.g. `N, V, E` for an ideal gas.)

If you work out the dynamics of those macrostate variables, you will find that (to first order, i.e. in the thermodynamic limit) they depend only on the form of the entropy function of the system `S(E, N, V)`, e.g. Maxwell relations.

If you measured a few more macrostate variables, e.g. the variance in energy `sigma^2(E)` and the center of mass `m`, or anything else, you would be able to write new dynamical relations that depend on a new "entropy" `S(E, N, V, sigma^2(E), m)`. You could add 1000 more variables, or a million—e.g every pixel of an image—basically up until the point where the thermodynamic limit assumptions cease to hold.

The `S` function you'd get will capture the contribution of every-variable-you're-marginalizing-over to the relationships between the remaining variables. This is the sense in which it represents "imperfect knowledge". Entropy dependence arises mathematically in the relationships between macrostate variables—they can only couple to each by way of this function which summarizes all the variables you don't know/aren't measuring/aren't specifying.

That this works is rather surprising! It depends on some assumptions which I cannot remember (on convexity and factorizeabiltiy and things like that), but which apply to most or maybe all equilibrium thermodynamic-scale systems.

For the ideal gas, say, the classical-mechanics, classical-probability, and quantum-mechanic descriptions of the system all reduce to the same `S(N, V, E)` function under this enormous marginalization—the most "zoomed-out" view of their underlying manifold structures turns out to be identical, which is why they all describe the same thing. (It is surprising that seemingly obvious things like the size of the particles would not matter. It turns out that the asymptotic dynamics depend only on the information theory of the available "slots" that energy can go into.)

All of this appears as an artifact of the limiting procedure in the thermodynamic limit, but it may be the case that it's more "real" than this—some hard-to-characterize quantum decoherence may lead to this being not only true in an extraordinarily sharp first-order limit, but actually physically true. I haven't kept up with the field.

No idea how to apply this to gravity though.

Re: Is gravity just entropy rising? Long-shot idea gets another look

#148
post #79
post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe you are correct. Entropy is not a physical quantity, it is a measure of how far a system is from equilibrium. Lots of people talk about order/disorder or macro and micro states, not realizing these are things we've invented and aren't physical in nature.

> Entropy is not a physical quantity, it is a measure of how far a system is from equilibrium. That’s funny because the original thermodynamic entropy is defined only for systems in equilibrium.

from who? Clausius?

It doesn't make a lot of sense to me because a system at equilibrium, cannot go undergo any further diffusion, so there's no potential "entropy increase"

Maybe the issue, is that, like an ideal gas, a perfect equilibrium just doesn't occur.

Re: Is gravity just entropy rising? Long-shot idea gets another look

#149
post #40

As an experimental physicist, I refuse to get excited about a new theory until the proponent gets to an observable phenomenon that can fix the question.

This is why I'm skeptical of theories like Wolfram's: It feels like an overfit based on this: It produces all sorts of known theories (special relativity, parts of QM, gravity etc), but doesn't make new testable predictions, or new fundamentals. When I see 10 predictions emerge from the theory, and they all happen to be ones we already known of... Overfit.

Re: Is gravity just entropy rising? Long-shot idea gets another look

#150
post #40

As an experimental physicist, I refuse to get excited about a new theory until the proponent gets to an observable phenomenon that can fix the question.

Sometimes I wonder, imagine if our physics never allowed for Blackholes to exist. How would we know to stress test our theories? Blackholes are like standard candles in cosmology which allows us to make theoretical progress.

And each new type of candle becomes a source of fine-tuning or revision, progressing us with new ways to find the next candles - cosmological or microscopic.

Which kinda points to the fact that we’re not smart enough to make these steps without “hints”. It’s quite possible that our way of working will lead to a theory of everything in the asymptote, when everything is observed.

Post reply on HN