4 ms·

Also, a simple explanation for the layman: http://www.alphagalileo.org/ViewItem.aspx?ItemId=169788&CultureCode=en http://www.alphagalileo.org/ViewItem.aspx?Item

Also, a simple explanation for the layman: http://www.alphagalileo.org/ViewItem.aspx?ItemId=169788&CultureCode=en http://www.alphagalileo.org/ViewItem.aspx?ItemId=169788&Cult...

freelancezombie 10y ago
Wow, contrast on that text... Fail.
nealabq 10y ago
Same text: http://phys.org/news/2016-11-theory-gravity-dark.html http://phys.org/news/2016-11-theory-gravity-dark.html
geo101101 10y ago
Thanks for the layman link... I started reading and encountered a concept I didn't understand so I googled it. Then, I encountered another concept I didn't understand and google that, again and again, until I was several pages deep and only on the second sentence of the paper's description. TIL I don't know as much as I thought.
pmontra 10y ago
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 ground, the equivalence between gravity and acceleration and the weightless free fall experience. That should be one paragraph for the general principle and one for each example. Then it's for the layman, and me too :-)
- aurora72 10y ago
  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.
  - M_Grey 10y ago
    Not even remotely the case, although I'd be fascinated to see where you got this notion from.
    - SomeStupidPoint 10y ago
      I mean, one could argue that perhaps EM is really a special kind of gravitational ripple (eg, geons might work out in quantum gravity to model electrons and photons, and then the question arises that if all EM is gravity induced and modeled, is EM not part of gravity?), but I don't know that I've heard it the other way. It's also certainly not the mainstream view, as classical geons are extremely unstable.
      - M_Grey 10y ago
        I'm not sure how EM and Gravity could be unified as a single force, especially since the best theory of gravity that's out there describes gravity as curvature in spacetime, not a force.
        wallace_f 10y ago
        If this is true, the literature I've read--as a layman myself reading from sources written for the layman on the subject--is wildly misleading. i.e. from the Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_interaction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_interaction >Other theorists seek to quantize the gravitational field by the modelling behaviour of its hypothetical force carrier, the graviton and achieve quantum gravity (QG).
- ajcarpy2005 10y ago
  It's funny how scientists always reference time in relation to gravity and yet separate out gravity from other forces of motion when the implicate order would be to have gravity always playing a role in motion whatever the axis or motion of travel. 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." <wiki it. 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 http://www.bizint.com/stoa_del_sol/plenum/plenum_3.html
- justifier 10y ago
  i think at the scale of a tree and an apple such insight would be a clear revolution stead essentially a whitepaper but from the perspective of the paper i think this answers your initial question: > It doesn't explain how gravity emerges from bits of information. resides on large scales, infored bu flattening of rotational curves, and entanglement entropy(o) there is a known relation, inequality, between entanglement entropy, a subsequent of quantum information, and large scale gravitational considerations should one interpret the relation as 'emergent' or 'coincidence' it would seem a viable avenue of investigation from the paper: > 1.3 Hints from observations: the missing mass problem > ...The observed flattening of rotation curves, as well as many other observations of dark matter phenomena, indicate that they are controlled by the Hubble acceleration scale a0, as first pointed out by Milgrom... > ...Consider a spherical region with boundary area A(r) = 4πr2 that contains matter with total mass M near its center... > ...The appearance of the cosmological acceleration scale a0 in galactic dynamics is striking and gives a strong hint towards an explanation in terms of emergent gravity, as envisaged in [38]. > To make this point more clear let us rewrite the above inequality as SM = 2πM/ha0 < A(r)/4Gh (1.4) > The quantity on the left hand side represents the change in the de Sitter entropy caused by adding the mass M, while the right hand side is the entropy of a black hole that would fit inside the region bounded by the area A. > Our goal is to give a theoretical explanation for why the emergent laws of gravity differ from those of general relativity precisely when the inequality (1.4) is obeyed. > We will find that this criterion is directly related to the presence of the volume law contribution to the entanglement entropy. > At scales much smaller than the Hubble radius gravity is in most situations well described by general relativity, because the entanglement entropy is still dominated by the area law of the vacuum. that last quote seems to reference the apple (o) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_of_entanglement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_of_entanglement

Also, a simple explanation for the layman: http://www.alphagalileo.org/ViewItem.aspx?ItemId=169788&CultureCode=en http://www.alphagalileo.org/ViewItem.aspx?ItemId=169788&Cult...

freelancezombie 10y ago

Wow, contrast on that text... Fail.

nealabq 10y ago

Same text: http://phys.org/news/2016-11-theory-gravity-dark.html http://phys.org/news/2016-11-theory-gravity-dark.html

geo101101 10y ago

Thanks for the layman link... I started reading and encountered a concept I didn't understand so I googled it. Then, I encountered another concept I didn't understand and google that, again and again, until I was several pages deep and only on the second sentence of the paper's description. TIL I don't know as much as I thought.

pmontra 10y ago

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 ground, the equivalence between gravity and acceleration and the weightless free fall experience. That should be one paragraph for the general principle and one for each example. Then it's for the layman, and me too :-)

aurora72 10y ago
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.
- M_Grey 10y ago
  Not even remotely the case, although I'd be fascinated to see where you got this notion from.
  - SomeStupidPoint 10y ago
    I mean, one could argue that perhaps EM is really a special kind of gravitational ripple (eg, geons might work out in quantum gravity to model electrons and photons, and then the question arises that if all EM is gravity induced and modeled, is EM not part of gravity?), but I don't know that I've heard it the other way. It's also certainly not the mainstream view, as classical geons are extremely unstable.
    - M_Grey 10y ago
      I'm not sure how EM and Gravity could be unified as a single force, especially since the best theory of gravity that's out there describes gravity as curvature in spacetime, not a force.
      - wallace_f 10y ago
        If this is true, the literature I've read--as a layman myself reading from sources written for the layman on the subject--is wildly misleading. i.e. from the Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_interaction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_interaction >Other theorists seek to quantize the gravitational field by the modelling behaviour of its hypothetical force carrier, the graviton and achieve quantum gravity (QG).
ajcarpy2005 10y ago
It's funny how scientists always reference time in relation to gravity and yet separate out gravity from other forces of motion when the implicate order would be to have gravity always playing a role in motion whatever the axis or motion of travel. 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." <wiki it. 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 http://www.bizint.com/stoa_del_sol/plenum/plenum_3.html
justifier 10y ago
i think at the scale of a tree and an apple such insight would be a clear revolution stead essentially a whitepaper but from the perspective of the paper i think this answers your initial question: > It doesn't explain how gravity emerges from bits of information. resides on large scales, infored bu flattening of rotational curves, and entanglement entropy(o) there is a known relation, inequality, between entanglement entropy, a subsequent of quantum information, and large scale gravitational considerations should one interpret the relation as 'emergent' or 'coincidence' it would seem a viable avenue of investigation from the paper: > 1.3 Hints from observations: the missing mass problem > ...The observed flattening of rotation curves, as well as many other observations of dark matter phenomena, indicate that they are controlled by the Hubble acceleration scale a0, as first pointed out by Milgrom... > ...Consider a spherical region with boundary area A(r) = 4πr2 that contains matter with total mass M near its center... > ...The appearance of the cosmological acceleration scale a0 in galactic dynamics is striking and gives a strong hint towards an explanation in terms of emergent gravity, as envisaged in [38]. > To make this point more clear let us rewrite the above inequality as SM = 2πM/ha0 < A(r)/4Gh (1.4) > The quantity on the left hand side represents the change in the de Sitter entropy caused by adding the mass M, while the right hand side is the entropy of a black hole that would fit inside the region bounded by the area A. > Our goal is to give a theoretical explanation for why the emergent laws of gravity differ from those of general relativity precisely when the inequality (1.4) is obeyed. > We will find that this criterion is directly related to the presence of the volume law contribution to the entanglement entropy. > At scales much smaller than the Hubble radius gravity is in most situations well described by general relativity, because the entanglement entropy is still dominated by the area law of the vacuum. that last quote seems to reference the apple (o) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_of_entanglement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_of_entanglement