Very interesting physics theory I am trying to wrap my head around….

[Calm]

Anyone paying attention to this?   Seems very significant.

https://www.advancedsciencenews.com/new-theory-suggests-gravity-is-not-a-fundamental-force/

Quote

“In sum, our theory is a quantum theory of gravity with appropriate corrections to Einstein’s theory, although gravity is not a quantum field in this model, but a natural structural property of the emergent spacetime,” said Kastner.

Would this get us significantly closer to a Theory of Everything?

Edited April 28, 2025 by Calm

[Stargazer]

30 minutes ago, Calm said:

Anyone paying attention to this?   Seems very significant.

https://www.advancedsciencenews.com/new-theory-suggests-gravity-is-not-a-fundamental-force/

Would this get us significantly closer to a Theory of Everything?

Haven't yet checked out the article, but I was pretty sure it had already been long sorted out that gravity was not a force... but a function of space-time. 

[ZealouslyStriving]

😵‍💫 I saw words.

Can someone break this down into laymen's terms for plebes like myself?

[ZealouslyStriving]

😵‍💫duplicate

Edited April 28, 2025 by ZealouslyStriving

[Stargazer]

53 minutes ago, Calm said:

Anyone paying attention to this?   Seems very significant.

https://www.advancedsciencenews.com/new-theory-suggests-gravity-is-not-a-fundamental-force/

Would this get us significantly closer to a Theory of Everything?

The article says: "...the researchers apply the principles of thermodynamics, particularly the concept of entropy, to explain why matter attracts other matter."

There's already been talk of gravity as a entropic phenomenon. See PBS Spacetime video: What If Gravity is NOT A Fundamental Force? | Entropic Gravity

I really like the idea of gravity being a phenomenon of entropy. It allows us to stop looking for dark matter and energy -- which may not exist at all!

[Stargazer]

28 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

😵‍💫 I saw words.

Can someone break this down into laymen's terms for plebes like myself?

As someone or other once said, if you can't explain it in layman's terms, you don't understand it. And there I am, as well.  

[Calm]

1 hour ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

😵‍💫 I saw words.

Can someone break this down into laymen's terms for plebes like myself?

The 20 year old me probably could have done a semi decent translation if the article, but life has dropped my Physics IQ way too far down.  If I have to come up with something, I would just say it is simplifying/reducing the number of pieces of the puzzle.

Edited April 28, 2025 by Calm

[ZealouslyStriving]

2 hours ago, Stargazer said:

The article says: "...the researchers apply the principles of thermodynamics, particularly the concept of entropy, to explain why matter attracts other matter."

There's already been talk of gravity as a entropic phenomenon. See PBS Spacetime video: What If Gravity is NOT A Fundamental Force? | Entropic Gravity

I really like the idea of gravity being a phenomenon of entropy. It allows us to stop looking for dark matter and energy -- which may not exist at all!

So the theory is gravity is a result of the breakdown of order?

[Tacenda]

I think I'm wearing off on y'all.

[Stargazer]

11 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

So the theory is gravity is a result of the breakdown of order?

Apparently! 

 

[ZealouslyStriving]

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

Apparently! 

 

Does that mean Earth is more disordered than other planets/moons in our solar system, as we have pretty hefty gravitational pull?

[Stargazer]

43 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Does that mean Earth is more disordered than other planets/moons in our solar system, as we have pretty hefty gravitational pull?

From a certain point of view, I suppose.

Consider the entropy of Betelguese. Its mass is up to about 19 times the mass of our sun, its gravitation is extremely strong, and it's about to blow up. In about 100,000 years or so. That will be VERY disordered.

[ZealouslyStriving]

10 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

From a certain point of view, I suppose.

Consider the entropy of Betelguese. Its mass is up to about 19 times the mass of our sun, its gravitation is extremely strong, and it's about to blow up. In about 100,000 years or so. That will be VERY disordered.

So gravity could be see as the chaos monster that stands in opposition to creation?

[Stargazer]

8 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

So gravity could be see as the chaos monster that stands in opposition to creation?

So it appears.

Creation, at the moment of the Big Bang, "[i]n the most common models the universe was filled homogeneously and isotropically with a very high energy density and huge temperatures and pressures, and was very rapidly expanding and cooling. The period up to 10E−43 seconds into the expansion, the Planck epoch, was a phase in which the four fundamental forces—the electromagnetic force, the strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force, and the gravitational force, were unified as one." And at that point there weren't even any particles, let alone atoms. It wasn't until about 10E−43 seconds that gravitation separated from the other forces. It wasn't until about 10E−6 seconds after the BB that quarks and gluons combined to form baryons such as protons and neutrons.

So, it appears that the universe was at its minimum in terms of entropy at the moment of the BB, and began to increase in entropy beginning at about 10E-43 seconds later, when gravitation separated from the unified force. And the universe has been increasing in entropy ever since. 

[JVW]

My favorite "universal" theory is the Electric Universe theory. No idea if it addresses gravity, I only watch a video or read an article every couple of months because I'm not smart enough for physics. My favorite thing I've learned from the channel is that outer space smells like burnt steak. https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2011/08/18/10609/

[ZealouslyStriving]

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

So it appears.

Creation, at the moment of the Big Bang, "[i]n the most common models the universe was filled homogeneously and isotropically with a very high energy density and huge temperatures and pressures, and was very rapidly expanding and cooling. The period up to 10E−43 seconds into the expansion, the Planck epoch, was a phase in which the four fundamental forces—the electromagnetic force, the strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force, and the gravitational force, were unified as one." And at that point there weren't even any particles, let alone atoms. It wasn't until about 10E−43 seconds that gravitation separated from the other forces. It wasn't until about 10E−6 seconds after the BB that quarks and gluons combined to form baryons such as protons and neutrons.

So, it appears that the universe was at its minimum in terms of entropy at the moment of the BB, and began to increase in entropy beginning at about 10E-43 seconds later, when gravitation separated from the unified force. And the universe has been increasing in entropy ever since. 

So it's hypothetically conceivable that the actual fall was the Blake Ostler OG God doing something that caused the BB in order that the universe could be and become a place where the rest of the intelligences could learn to be like him through mortality?

[Stargazer]

11 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

So it's hypothetically conceivable that the actual fall was the Blake Ostler OG God doing something that caused the BB in order that the universe could be and become a place where the rest of the intelligences could learn to be like him through mortality?

That's the natural best explanation, of course.

🤣

[longview]

18 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Haven't yet checked out the article, but I was pretty sure it had already been long sorted out that gravity was not a force... but a function of space-time. 

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

It wasn't until about 10E−43 seconds that gravitation separated from the other forces.

Are there contradictions here? How could gravitation NOT be a force? If it "separated from the other forces" thus implying it IS a force among others?

Why would not gravitation be a force if it can cause two objects (masses) to be "drawn" to each other? Thus converting potential energy into kinetic energy with the acceleration of the masses? If the trajectory is right, there will be a violent collision which translates kinetic energy into intense heat.

Within that interval of 10E-43 seconds, we have space and time. Would not gravitation already exist at some time between the moment of the Big Bang and 10E-43 seconds? If there was space-time, then gravity should already be present as "a function of space-time" BEFORE the time came for the separation of OTHER forces?

I believe there are still more layers and dimensions to delve into before we can have a complete cosmological model. It might turn out that there will NOT be complete entropy (heat death of the universe). That we will discover that the observations and conjectures are incorrect and conclude the Big Bang did NOT occur. I believe the universe to be infinite.

Quote

ELOHIM: Jehovah, Michael, see--yonder is matter unorganized. Go ye down and organize it into a world like unto the worlds that we have heretofore formed. Call your labors the first day, and bring me word.

JEHOVAH: It shall be done, Elohim. Come, Michael, let us go down.

MICHAEL: We will go down, Jehovah.

JEHOVAH: Michael, see--here is matter unorganized. We will organize it into a world like unto the worlds that we have heretofore formed. We will call our labors the first day, and return and report.

Was "matter unorganized" the end stage of entropy of only a part of the universe? The power of God is able to reuse/revitalize dissipated matter/energy?

[Stargazer]

58 minutes ago, longview said:

Was "matter unorganized" the end stage of entropy of only a part of the universe? The power of God is able to reuse/revitalize dissipated matter/energy?

That described the creation of the solar system. Every solar system, in fact. In Moses 1 we learn that we are not living upon the only earth that God had created. Our Adam and Eve were not the only Adams and Eves that were created on the many worlds that God has created and will create. But details are only given to us about our earth:

Moses 1:34-38 -- 34 And the first man of all men have I called Adam, which is many. 35 But only an account of this earth, and the inhabitants thereof, give I unto you. For behold, there are many worlds that have passed away by the word of my power. And there are many that now stand, and innumerable are they unto man; but all things are numbered unto me, for they are mine and I know them. 37 And the Lord God spake unto Moses, saying: The heavens, they are many, and they cannot be numbered unto man; but they are numbered unto me, for they are mine. 38 And as one earth shall pass away, and the heavens thereof even so shall another come; and there is no end to my works, neither to my words.

[webbles]

17 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

So the theory is gravity is a result of the breakdown of order?

No.

It is based on the "entropic gravity" idea.  A simplish way to explain it would be: imagine you have a long molecule.  Each atom in the molecule is attached to two others so it forms a string like structure.  You then put this molecule in a box and attach on end of the molecule to a side.  After waiting some time, you look in the box and check the position of the molecule.  If you do this millions of times, you'll find that it is more likely to be bunched up against the side that it is attached to.  So, you could say that the side had a gravitational force on the molecule.  The entropy of the situation causes the molecule to be near that one side.

The main entropic gravity idea is based on holographic principles but this new paper says that they can explain entropic gravity using their own theory, called "relativistic transactional interpretation".  That theory suggests that everything is just the outcome of stuff emitting photons to other stuff (there is a lot more to that).  They can replace the holographic ideas of entropic gravity with this transactional idea and get the same outcome.  Which is nice since we haven't yet been able to show that we live in a holographic universe.  So removing the holographic ideas from entropic gravity makes it a little more viable.

[Stargazer]

1 hour ago, longview said:

Are there contradictions here? How could gravitation NOT be a force? If it "separated from the other forces" thus implying it IS a force among others?

Gravitation is not universally understood to be a force, but they still treat it as if it were in many cases. I was quoting from an article that used the word force in a way that seemed (to me) to contradictive, since if it were a force then all of them should have separated from each other simultaneously.

1 hour ago, longview said:

Why would not gravitation be a force if it can cause two objects (masses) to be "drawn" to each other? Thus converting potential energy into kinetic energy with the acceleration of the masses? If the trajectory is right, there will be a violent collision which translates kinetic energy into intense heat.

For those who reject gravitation as a force, it is understood to be a result of the distortion of space-time caused by mass. It can be visualized as a pair of masses lying upon a sheet which, depending upon the size of the mass, depress the sheet in accordance with the mass's bulk. This causes movement towards each other that is interpreted as "attraction." This visualization is useful as an aid to understanding, but at the same time it is deceptive. 

It may all be a huge pile of misinformation and baloney, however. As much as they like to claim that with the discovery of the Higgs Boson and its concomitant "explanation" for mass we understand what is going on, it could be nothing more than a bunch of mathematics that actually signifies nothing.

1 hour ago, longview said:

Within that interval of 10E-43 seconds, we have space and time. Would not gravitation already exist at some time between the moment of the Big Bang and 10E-43 seconds? If there was space-time, then gravity should already be present as "a function of space-time" BEFORE the time came for the separation of OTHER forces?

That's what it said, but my question is this: if only gravitation separated out at 10E-43, leaving the others unseparated at that time, doesn't that mean that gravitation is not actually a force? It seems to me that they should all have separated out simultaneously, if they were all forces. 

1 hour ago, longview said:

I believe there are still more layers and dimensions to delve into before we can have a complete cosmological model. It might turn out that there will NOT be complete entropy (heat death of the universe). That we will discover that the observations and conjectures are incorrect and conclude the Big Bang did NOT occur. I believe the universe to be infinite.

Why do you think the universe is infinite? There's no evidence for it. I'm not sure there's any evidence for the contrary, either.

On this board a long time ago a poster who didn't last long because his pet anti-religious and anti-Mormon arguments weren't being taken seriously posted the stupid question: Can God count to infinity instantaneously? 

Of course the answer to the question is "No, God cannot count to infinity instantaneously or in any time." This is because not even God can count to infinity, because infinity cannot be reached. That is the definition of infinity. So not even the universe can be infinite.

You might be interested to hear that famous astronomer Fred Hoyle (1915-2001) rejected the Big Bang because he felt it pandered to religious arguments. He said "The reason why scientists like the 'Big Bang' is because they are overshadowed by the Book of Genesis. It is deep within the psyche of most scientists to believe in the first page of Genesis". Interestingly, the term "Big Bang" was coined by Hoyle! It was said that he intended it as a mocking term, but he said that it was merely intended as a contrasting term. Hoyle himself preferred his own "Steady State Theory," which explained the expansion of the universe by proposing that new matter was constantly coming into being all over the universe, and the "pressure" of that genesis is what was causing the expansion.

It is somewhat ironic that the Big Bang theory was first formulated by Belgian physicist and Catholic priest Georges Lemaître, but its opposing theory was proposed by the British atheist Hoyle. And you seem to prefer the atheist's theory over the theist's! 

Fortunately, salvation is not dependent upon which theory of creation one prefers. 

As an aside, Hoyle later deviated from pure atheism into a kind of scientific creationism, writing:

"Would you not say to yourself, 'Some super-calculating intellect must have designed the properties of the carbon atom, otherwise the chance of my finding such an atom through the blind forces of nature would be utterly minuscule. A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.'"

 

[Calm]

4 hours ago, JVW said:

My favorite "universal" theory is the Electric Universe theory. No idea if it addresses gravity, I only watch a video or read an article every couple of months because I'm not smart enough for physics. My favorite thing I've learned from the channel is that outer space smells like burnt steak. https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2011/08/18/10609/

If you want to actually learn about physics, your time is likely better invested in a different source.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Electric_Universe

[Stargazer]

4 hours ago, JVW said:

My favorite "universal" theory is the Electric Universe theory. No idea if it addresses gravity, I only watch a video or read an article every couple of months because I'm not smart enough for physics. My favorite thing I've learned from the channel is that outer space smells like burnt steak. https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2011/08/18/10609/

LOL, outer space doesn't smell. Period. Vacuum has no smell. The smell that is referenced is the smell of materials that have been baked in sunlight and the odor is their outgassing. 

[Calm]

30 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

LOL, outer space doesn't smell. Period. Vacuum has no smell. The smell that is referenced is the smell of materials that have been baked in sunlight and the odor is their outgassing. 

It sounds like if a tree falls in a forest, does it make a sound (the vibrations that get translated by eardrums and microphones exist, but sound is sensation of those vibrations in my view).

There may be molecules floating around in the vacuum of deep space, but since nothing is taking a deep breath and inhaling through its nose, can it truly be said to smell?

[webbles]

3 hours ago, longview said:

Are there contradictions here? How could gravitation NOT be a force? If it "separated from the other forces" thus implying it IS a force among others?

Why would not gravitation be a force if it can cause two objects (masses) to be "drawn" to each other? Thus converting potential energy into kinetic energy with the acceleration of the masses? If the trajectory is right, there will be a violent collision which translates kinetic energy into intense heat.

For "entropic gravity", gravity is not a force but a result of the desire of things wanting to go to a lower entropy state.

For example, if you release gas into a room, it will quickly expand to fill the whole room.  The atoms of the gas are not being pushed to fill the entire room.  The 3 quantum forces (strong, weak, electromagnetic) barely act at those distances.  Instead it it is caused by the atoms randomly going around and avoiding each other.  So no force forces them to expand, just their desire to be at a lower entropy state.

Another example is rubber bands.  When you stretch a rubber band, the force pulling it back is caused by the entropy of the atoms.  They don't want to be stretched as it increases their entropy.

With "entropic gravity", the idea is that things with mass actually want to be near each other.  That is their lower state.  So, there isn't a force pushing them together, it is just where they want to end up and they don't want to leave.