Gravity may not be a fundamental Force - Another Cosmological Explanation

MolaKule

MolaKule

Staff member
Joined
Jun 5, 2002
Messages
25,745
Location
Iowegia - USA
A popular explanation from https://www.advancedsciencenews.com/new-theory-suggests-gravity-is-not-a-fundamental-force/

Abstract: "This is a review of new developments in entropic gravity in light of the Relativistic Transactional Interpretation (RTI). A transactional approach to spacetime events can give rise in a natural way to entropic gravity (in the way originally proposed by Erik Verlinde) while also overcoming extant objections to that research program. The theory also naturally gives rise to a Cosmological Constant and to Modified Newtonian Dynamics (MOND) and thus provides a physical explanation for the phenomena historically attributed to "dark energy" and "dark matter".

Early Paper: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2209.04025v2

Peer Reviewed paper:

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/2399-6528/acd6d7
 
Last edited:
Interesting conclusion from the above paper:

"In our work gravity reveals itself to be the result of entropic effects in connection with electromagnetically induced transactions. Gravitation is therefore a consequence of coming-into-being (at the empirical level) per se, and hence universal. The photons involved in transactions serve as naturally inbuilt clocks, which measure the rhythm of becoming, and Einstein's equations turn out to result from synchronizing these clocks, as they appear from specific perspectives, by the invariant speed of light. Effects, attributed to "dark matter", are also shown to stem from this synchronizing process, while "dark energy" expansion is a consequence of the exchange of photon-momentum in transactions. Since electromagnetism is the root of these transactions, it is clear that gravity can at most spread at the speed of light and that the “charge” of gravity is inertial mass. Hence there holds the equivalence of inertial and heavy mass. Our approach, together with a result in [24], also shows that the length of a timelike curve is a good representation for the time which elapses by succeeding transactions. Therefore relativistic proper-time indeed measures any experienced time-flow, biological, mechanical or other, since it measures the rhythm of coming-into-being of every individual physical system (more precisely, the sets of actualized events associated with such systems) in the universe. Our approach lends itself to the relational view regarding the nature of spacetime [17] and the derivation of gravity also indicates that, while being a consequence of quantum mechanics, it is itself not described by some quantum field and its interactions.30 While of course, elementary particles do have mass, the mathematics in 2.4. gives hints that at very small distances, e.g. below the Compton radius in Bekenstein’s approach, there are no transactions anymore, which would lead to no manifestation of gravity in our approach. In this context it should also be noted that due to conservation laws, transactions can only occur between bound states subject to internal energy levels, which do not attend elementary particles [1]. We state this fact as an observation, which has otherwise no significance to the results in this paper. We don't know, at present, whether transactions describe correctly what nature actually does, and there are consequently different approaches to explain gravity. The beauty of our approach lies in the fact that gravity, including dark energy and dark matter, can very elegantly be derived as a consequence of the existing formalism of quantum physics together with principles of thermodynamics. All that is needed is a different perspective as to what quantum physics tells us that nature really does, and a number of open questions surrounding gravity naturally find an answer. "
 
It is unbelievably fascinating to me that gravity governs so much of our universe, and while we have a remarkably good understanding of how it behaves, we still have no real idea of the underlying mechanism by which it works.

The same is true of time. I have read several books that do an incredible job describing how time behaves, yet no one seems to know with any certainty what time actually is, despite how completely it governs our lives.

This paper explores the possibility that gravity, spacetime, and perhaps even our experience of time emerge from something more fundamental. I have no idea whether this theory is right, but I find the question itself fascinating. We can understand something well enough to predict its behavior with extraordinary accuracy while still not really knowing what it is.
 
Also, my caveat, arXiv is not peer-reviewed - it's a preprint repository. This paper could be deemed fundamentally flawed by people who know this subject a whole lot better than I do. Although, U of Maryland has a pretty well-known. physics department so Id' be surprised unless someone went rogue. But, it's still interesting to think about for sure..
 
PWMDMD said:
Also, my caveat, arXiv is not peer-reviewed - it's a preprint repository. This paper could be deemed fundamentally flawed by people who know this subject a whole lot better than I do. Although, U of Maryland has a pretty well-known. physics department so Id' be surprised unless someone went rogue. But, it's still interesting to think about for sure..
Click to expand...
The peer-reviewed final paper can be found here in IOP as was referenced above:

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/2399-6528/acd6d7

I find arXiv to be an excellent source of papers from authors who tend to think from new perspectives using novel, creative thinking.
 
Last edited:
Cool stuff.
Ever since I was very young I thought about gravity and what the heck it actually was and more interestingly.....a way to negate it.

It seems to be one of those "cracks in reality" where there is no scientific explanation we can come up with like the big bang or whether the universe is infinite in size.

My best guess is reality is not what we think. It's either some kind of simulation / Matrix thing or something we're just not equipped to comprehend, like an ant - driving a car. A human would need an IQ of about 1000 to begin to comprehend.
 
MaximumMini said:
Cool stuff.
Ever since I was very young I thought about gravity and what the heck it actually was and more interestingly.....a way to negate it.

It seems to be one of those "cracks in reality" where there is no scientific explanation we can come up with like the big bang or whether the universe is infinite in size.

My best guess is reality is not what we think. It's either some kind of simulation / Matrix thing or something we're just not equipped to comprehend, like an ant - driving a car. A human would need an IQ of about 1000 to begin to comprehend.
Click to expand...
Well my IQ is 99, so I'm out by about one order of magnitude.

Gravity and inertia are identical for my simple purposes. And I do think the famous physicist came to the same conclusion. A consequence of mass warping the geometric fabric of spacetime. As I understand it, gravity is not a force. Yet physicists still talk about (non existent) gravitons just for the sake of discussion.

Possibly of interest, during the Apollo Moon missions, the astronauts felt 1G of acceleration around the 2.5 to 3 minute mark during the TLI burn (leaving Earth's orbit). I spoke with Charlie Duke (Apollo 16) at length about engines and he mentioned that 1G from a rocket engine is identical to 1G on Earth. Although the Apollo engine was not perfectly smooth.

This was in a PC12. Did this in older Gulfstream jets too. Plenty of float around time at 0G in the Gulfstream.

chris_weightless_resize.webp
 
Cujet said:
Well my IQ is 99, so I'm out by about one order of magnitude.
Click to expand...

Congratulations. Considering what the country has become, you'd be in the top 1% intellectually. Genius status!
You know a real Apollo astronaut? How cool is that!?

As for gravity.....
I'm thinking China may figure it out.
Last time I flew in a Gulfstream was in one of CocaColas (RW, RomeoWhisky) bound for LaGuardia.
I got to sit in the jump seat. That was the moment that secured my desire to be a pilot. I was 7 at the time.
 
Tempest1 said:
Best theory of gravity that I have heard is that it is the force generated by the Δ of time dilation, across the width of an object.
Click to expand...
My understanding is that in general relativity, and by my understanding I meaning I have no issues understanding the Lorenze factor and it's affect on time dilation and length contraction but I have no desire to dive into the mathematics of tensors, is the gradient in time dilation is closely related to what we experience as gravitational acceleration.

But I still wonder whether that explains what gravity is, or just describes its behavior incredibly well. The other fundamental forces have known force-carrying particles, while gravity’s hypothetical carrier, the graviton, has never been observed. What actually causes mass and energy to alter spacetime, or creates that gradient in time in the first place? Why does it break down in quantum mechanics? Why is gravity so much weaker than the other three fundamental forces?

Understanding that deeper mechanism is what humans are looking for.
 
MolaKule said:
Another interesting website that has out-of-the-box thinkers is:

https://rxiverse.org/
Click to expand...

If you go to rxiverse, under Physics, 3rd one down click on Relativity and Cosmology, then scroll down to paper 151 there is an interesting paper about a plausible explanation of the causation of Gravity. Also, if you scroll further down to papers 146 and 122 there are 2 additional papers by the same author.

Interesting reads if I do say so myself. But I might be biased in my opinion.
 
Does this new theory negate Newton's gravitational attraction formula: F=G (M1xM2)/r2 ?
Or does the new theory support/explain Newton's formula?
 
69GTX said:
Does this new theory negate Newton's gravitational attraction formula: F=G (M1xM2)/r2 ?
Or does the new theory support/explain Newton's formula?
Click to expand...
It actually supports it. One of the interesting things about the paper is that the authors derive Newton's gravitational relationship from their proposed underlying mechanism. Newton's formula isn't going away. It accurately describes how masses gravitationally interact within its domain of applicability. Any successful deeper theory of gravity has to reproduce Newton's result under those same conditions. The new theory is attempting to explain why that behavior emerges in the first place.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom