Gravity Mysteries – We May Have Had Fundamental Nature of the Universe Wrong This Whole Time

Gravity Mysteries Chalkboard

Silly questions lead to surprising answers about the fundamental nature of the universe. We might have been getting it wrong this whole time. Credit: Kavli IPMU

Symmetry has been one of the guiding principles in physicists’ search for fundamental laws of nature. What does it mean that laws of nature have symmetry? It means that laws look the same before and after an operation, similar to a mirror reflection, the same but right is now left in the reflection.

Physicists have been looking for laws that explain both the microscopic world of elementary particles and the macroscopic world of the universe and the Big Bang at its beginning, expecting that such fundamental laws should have symmetry in all circumstances. However, last year, two physicists found a theoretical proof that, at the most fundamental level, nature does not respect symmetry.

How did they do it? Gravity and hologram.

There are four fundamental forces in the physical world: electromagnetism, strong force, weak force, and gravity. Gravity is the only force still unexplainable at the quantum level. Its effects on big objects, such as planets or stars, are relatively easy to see, but things get complicated when one tries to understand gravity in the small world of elementary particles.

Symmetry Diagram

The researchers showed that symmetry only affects the shaded regions in the diagram, not around the spot in the middle, thus there cannot be global symmetry. Credit: Kavli IPMU

To try to understand gravity on the quantum level, Hirosi Ooguri, the director of the Kavli Institute for the Physics and Mathematics of the Universe in Tokyo, and Daniel Harlow, an assistant professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, started with the holographic principle. This principle explains three-dimensional phenomena influenced by gravity on a two-dimensional flat space that is not influenced by gravity. This is not a real representation of our universe, but it is close enough to help researchers study its basic aspects.

The pair then showed how quantum error correcting codes, which explain how three-dimensional gravitational phenomena pop out from two dimensions, like holograms, are not compatible with any symmetry; meaning such symmetry cannot be possible in quantum gravity.

They published their conclusion in 2019, garnering high praise from journal editors and significant media attention. But how did such an idea come to be?

There are four fundamental forces in the physical world: electromagnetism, strong force, weak force, and gravity. Gravity is the only force still unexplainable at the quantum level.

It started well over four years ago, when Ooguri came across a paper about holography and its relation to quantum error correcting codes by Harlow, who was then a post doc at Harvard University. Soon after, the two met at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton when Ooguri was there on sabbatical and Harlow came to give a seminar.

“I went to his seminar prepared with questions,” Ooguri says. “We discussed a lot afterwards, and then we started thinking maybe this idea he had can be used to explain one of the fundamental properties of quantum gravity, about the lack of symmetry.”

New research collaborations and ideas are often born from such conversations, says Ooguri, who is also a professor at the California Institute of Technology in the U.S. Ooguri travels at least once a fortnight to give lectures, attend conferences, workshops, and other events. While some might wonder if all that travel detracts from concentrating on research, Ooguri believes quite the opposite.

“Scientific progress is serendipitous,” he says. “It often happens in a way that you don’t expect. That kind of development is still very hard to achieve by remote exchange.

“Yes, nowadays it’s easier with e-mails and video conferences,” he continues, “but when you write an e-mail you have to have something to write about. When someone is in the same building, I can walk across the hallway and ask silly questions.”

These silly questions are key to progress in fundamental sciences. Unlike other fields, such as applied science where researchers work towards a specific goal, the first question or idea a theoretical physicist comes up with is usually not the right one, Ooguri says. But, through discussion, other researchers ask questions derived from their curiosity, taking the research in a new direction, landing on a very interesting question, which has an even more interesting answer.

Reference: “Constraints on Symmetries from Holography” by Daniel Harlow and Hirosi Ooguri, 17 May 2019, Physical Review Letters.
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.122.191601

51 Comments on "Gravity Mysteries – We May Have Had Fundamental Nature of the Universe Wrong This Whole Time"

  1. Science will never find the answer to the physical world by studying the physical world. First, you have to admit there are some things you will never understand; second, you already have all the information you need. Wisdom from the EAST, apparently missed by some researchers, ‘all wisdom comes from within’.

    • Torbjörn Larsson | February 7, 2020 at 3:39 pm | Reply

      But science is.

      And your superstition is not – no peer reviewed published fact results.

    • That’s just silly.

    • Science *does* admit there are things we might never understand, your understanding of science is very poor. Science is just the usage of the scientific method, and that method makes no assumption about what can and can not be understood. We just try to understand as much as possible, that’s it. I guess it’s not surprising you don’t understand why we know the earth isn’t flat, if you don’t understand how science works …

      “All wisdom comes from within” sounds nice, but I really doubt you can show how that concept is in any way useful in determining the shape of the earth. You can prove me wrong pretty easily if you have good reasons for your position though …

    • “All wisdom comes from within?” Where else would it come from. But still gotta test your ideas against reality. Get rid of the wrong ones. Build on ones that work. Or you’re gonna walk down the path of delusion.

    • Nonsense.

  2. Emily Windsor-Cragg | February 7, 2020 at 9:12 am | Reply

    I’m not trying to be rude. Presuming gravity exists isn’t going to work anymore, in light of facts of perspetive and the law of CURVATURE. If scientistic practitioners are still clinging to the spinning ball theory, no wonder you’re still confused. Our horizons are all flat, although our world’s depth of crust is very geeat in terms of volcanic cavities, water cavities and empty cavities. You guys still have a long way to go, to explain where we are–standing on what.

    • I’m confused are you a flat Earther that doesn’t believe in gravity? If so that certainly is a new one for me

    • There is no such thing as the “law of curvature”. You can’t just make-up science, that’s not how any of this works.
      The horizons we have ( which you might describe as flat with some mental gymnastics ) are in fact compatible with a globe earth. And to believe the earth is flat, you have to ignore sattelites and sattelite imagery, which means going into crazy conspiracy theories that do not have any leg to stand on.

  3. That illustration fits all of my definitions of symmetry so I don’t see what they’re saying. If you say “symmetry” over and over it loses all meaning. I see a huge amount of symmetry in that illustration, no matter how you slice it, it passes their own mirror test! I don’t buy the no-symmetry idea on the face of it.

  4. OK, of the three comments so far, two seem from Full Canvas Jacket territory, and the third commentator doesn’t seem to have read the caption of the photo in question…

  5. Martin Peter Golabek | February 7, 2020 at 11:27 am | Reply

    I know this sounds like “We faked the moon landing” and I know you guys have a whole bunch if time and grant money tied up in this whole gravity thing but hear me out.

    Matter only interacts with matter via electro-magnetism.

    Matter does not interact with other matter via gravity. Mass is not attracted to mass.

    Matter interacts with space via gravity. To space matter looks like a space vacuum. Space is compressing matter and creating the currents and eddies of our universe. We can’t measure anything in space via electro-magnetism but we could with gravity.

    I call this my glass of beer theory of the universe. When looking at a glass of beer you see bubbles forming and rising to the top of the glass and occasionally colliding into each other. If we were the little bubbles of CO2 then we would see the beer as a vast nothingness. Then we would say that CO2 bubbles are attracted to each other and that pull of the air above generally controls the movement of us bubbles. It reality it is the beer that is controlling the bubbles and pushing them towards the top of the glass. If you compress the beer enough the bubbles will actually disappear back into the beer.

    So the earth creates a space vacuum that space wants to push the moon towards because the earth is eliminating some space from one side of the moon.

    I believe this is a very week force but there is a really large number of space so it adds up. I have no idea how to start calculating the repulsive force of a cubic millimeter of space so good luck there.

    I think this would help
    The math on the early universe were expansion was slower then sped up
    The existing acceleration of the expanding
    Why gravity isn’t a factor in quantum physics
    Dark Matter
    How far from the center of the universe we are
    It might help with
    Explaining the Speed of light
    Black holes
    Hey you got this far down! Thanks for listening!

    • Torbjörn Larsson | February 7, 2020 at 3:46 pm | Reply

      I did you the service to read past the first sentence, but stopped at the second since we know it is dead wrong. So thanks for the warning about spamming nonsense.

    • If you want us to hear you out, don’t make it so long and erroneous.

    • You’re comparing apples to oranges especially when space is already a vacuum and buoyancy is a significant force in your analogy. Have you heard of the General Theory of Relativity? That’s a good place to start.

  6. There is a saying that goes back to Euclid that goes “from a falsehood, anything follows”. We do not live in an AdS universe, and it is an assumption requiring proof that gravity must be quantized. In fact, the results of this paper (which I have read, not just the news article) can be taken as proof that gravity cannot be quantized. My personal opinion, since I studied physics at MIT back in 1964, is that General Relativity is exact and correct in the same way that Statistical Mechanics is correct, mathematically.

    • Torbjörn Larsson | February 7, 2020 at 4:24 pm | Reply

      Thanks, finally an interesting comment! (But by now I looks like I have spammed practically the whole thread. :-/)

      As you can see from my comment on the article we agree on AdS (and probably on holography).

      That gravity needs to be quantized is an interesting question. The usual take is that quantum field physics is effective since field theories eventually break down, latest at Planck scale. And similarly that general relativity is effective for the same reason. It is also claimed that general relativity is classical, while nature is quantum physical.

      So if you want to combine them – and perhaps derive the test you are asking for – it is now doable.

      First, we can see that quantum field physics is linearized but obey special relativity and has no preference on space curvature – semiclassical physics combine quantum fields and curvature. What this does to classical fields is that the fields that more or less successfully replaced instant “action-at-a-distance” with the concept of field lines are converted to a quantum vacuum with non-resonant fluctuations (“virtual particles”) where particles are created and destroyed as resonant, localized ripples and entanglement maximally take back light cone localization and causality from special relativity. The field lines are gone, replaced by an amorphous set of interaction mechanisms (particle collision perturbations modeled by Feynman diagrams and what not).

      Second, if we take a gravity Lagrangian we can make a linearized quantum field theory that breaks down precisely at Planck scale (since gravity is the weakest force). It will fulfill the Lorentz conditions and emulate weak curvature [ http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Quantum_gravity_as_a_low_energy_effective_field_theory ]. Now if we analogously to how we replaced the the useful, apparent classical calculation device of field lines replace the useful classical calculation device of geodesic lines by taking it as apparent, we have gravity on a flat background closing the physics – fulfilling the Lorentz conditions – so we have laws at all.

      Is taking curvature out to be a device of a classical model in the same way that we took field lines out, too much to ask? Maybe not.

      Here is a possible test of an “all-in-quantum-field” physics:

      “It is interesting that the bending angle depends on the type of massless particles. The particles no longer simply follow geodesics. This violates some ways that we talk about the equivalence principle. However it is not a violation in a fundamental sense. It is a manifestation of the fact that in quantum loops, massless particles propagate long distances. The long-distance propagation of massless photons and gravitons is not localized, and consequently can be interpreted as a tidal correction in that the massless particle is no longer describable as a point source. There is then no requirement from the equivalence principle that such non-local effects be independent of the spin of the massless particle. However, it is interesting that quantum effects predict such a difference, without any free parameter, modifying one of the key features of classical general relativity.” [ibid]

      • Torbjörn Larsson | February 7, 2020 at 4:34 pm | Reply

        To be even more complete (aka wordy), general relativity breaks down at Planck scales if such energies are approached inside black holes – black holes are taken as the sign that general relativity is effective.

        And I should not say that quantum physics take back causality as much as correlation while still obeying causality. It is in fact relativity which mess with order of events in order to preserve laws [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_of_simultaneity ]. But it is maximal “take backsies”, since you can cram as much entanglement you want into a point since Hilbert space is practically infinite. For me that knife edge balance under constraint is another point for the case that relativity and quantum physics “are made for each other”. But your personal mileage may vary.

  7. “This is not a real representation of our universe, but it is close enough to help researchers study its basic aspects.”

    No, other scientists consider the Holographic Principle a very real representation of our universe, that’s why it’s a “Principle”. It was convenient to immediately identify the author’s worldview, though, since this structure to the universe is absurdly improbable in a universe without a God. Therefore, even though it’s clearly hard science, it must be dismissed immediately.

    • Torbjörn Larsson | February 7, 2020 at 3:54 pm | Reply

      ? Are you claiming a falsehood? God magic doesn’t work, since a flat universe is both all there is (by general relativity) and thermodynamically closed (by zero energy density), we have known this since Planck 2018 cosmology data summary.

      • If I can manipulate quantum phenomena (which would be the ideal “back door” for a God to “install” as part of the design of the universe), I can do absolutely anything. Any miracle whatsoever, as soon as it isn’t the (as would be brilliant “universe hacking” cover) random distribution it appears to be. It was claimed that quantum behavior could affect things at a macro scale, but the worldwide constant effects of quantum computing will prove that quite false.

        • “couldn’t affect”, rather.

          • Ah, and the co-incidentally Norwegian girlfriend of this American (not “coincidentally”, but co-incidentally) suggests I mention…

            “Det er mer mellom himmel og jord enn de fleste andre steder.”

            Apparently you’ll somewhat understand that. Somewhat.

        • Torbjörn Larsson | February 7, 2020 at 5:04 pm | Reply

          Yeah, so you are arguing that 3 or 4 thousand years absence of “miracles” isn’t sufficient test on its lonesome? Please lay of such incredulous Bronze Age myth.

          I am referencing modern physics. Religion has been as much shown to be falsehood in this century as astrology was shown in test the last century. (“Horoscope magic” did not work in blind tests 1980ish, “star sign magic” was rejected by astronomy 1930ish.)

          – 2018 Planck cosmology: no “god magic” (see above).
          – 2011-217 LHC standard model – the very “miracle” you asked to test – no “soul magic”, no “afterlife magic” possible since the remnant exotic physics is too weak. And it is water proof since quantum field physics perturbations can always be modeled as particle collisions, and we need to know enough to complete the standard model – which we have. What you ask for has been tested as impossible many times over by now! Brian Cox, Sean Carroll and other physicists has made that point since then.
          – 2006 Pew population statistic summary – no “prayer magic”. “Intercessory prayer” did not work in test.

          So you may think others don’t see religion falsehood as on the level of astrology falsehood. But more and more do, for obvious reasons: it is the way nature is, and it so far we have made it based on observation, we know this now.

          • There’s been no absence of miracles. Just absence from your life. But do expand on your psychic capabilities to know all the experiences of everyone -else’s- entire life, to review them and verify the absence of miracles.

            “Religion has been as much shown to be falsehood in this century as astrology was shown in test the last century.”

            Not in the least. You’re simply lying. That’s why, we have 2.2 billion religious people, which would not be the case if it was in fact “shown to be falsehood”.

            “2018 Planck cosmology: no “god magic””

            You can’t eliminate what is wider than observables in the case of religion any more than you can refute Everett Multiverse by reference to the fact you don’t see them in your observations of this one. Nor can you refute things outside of our observable universe by reference to the claim you don’t see them in this one.

            Godel’s Incompleteness Theorem shows that this never works, even theoretically.

            “What you ask for has been tested as impossible many times over by now!”

            Ah, no, I’m unconvinced by this claim. You don’t know what manipulations are possible to a being that has the equivalent of infinite technology, and that we haven’t observed it doesn’t alter that.

            ““Intercessory prayer” did not work in test.”

            And as a “scientist” you miss the essential nature of a Control Group. It is impossible to define a group of participants that “aren’t being prayed for”. No Control Group, no science.

            “So you may think others don’t see religion falsehood as on the level of astrology falsehood. But more and more do, for obvious reasons: it is the way nature is, and it so far we have made it based on observation, we know this now.”

            I think it because it’s true, per 2.2 billion data points. You know what nature is, perhaps, though that is constantly changing. You -don’t- know what is outside of nature, and you -don’t- know there isn’t anything outside of it.

  8. Other than the fact that this came out last year, I imagine Sabine Hossenfelder (Lost In Math) popping a few champagne bottles.

    Congratulations to Prof. H & the theoreticians above. Very big news. Read her book if you haven’t.

    Somebody interview Lee Smolin & Carlo Rovelli, please.

    • Torbjörn Larsson | February 7, 2020 at 3:51 pm | Reply

      I would not read that. All those three are fringe (and mostly known to be wrong, say Smolin’s white hole physics and Rovelli’s loop physics which has no dynamics).

      Read peer reviewed consensus physics instead, much more factual.

      • Michael Pollock | February 8, 2020 at 3:58 am | Reply

        Peer reviewed papers have gotten us nowhere for decades. They all mistakenly base everything about gravity on the lambda CDM model. In order to finally understand gravity, we must do what I’ve heard hundreds of scientists suggest for many years which is find a completely new model to explain the origin of our universe. That’s what Edwin Hubble tried to do but was ignored. I explain below.

        • I immediately doubt what you are saying based on your argument from authority. I seriously doubt Hubble would have discovered what he did by listening to people who espoused the “every scientist I ever met” test.
          I smell disinformation.

  9. Torbjörn Larsson | February 7, 2020 at 3:38 pm | Reply

    This reads as a public relations effort from the Kavli Institute, based on referencing a year old result.

    That result [ https://arxiv.org…5337.pdf ] seems in itself of ambiguous value, even if it is part of illuminating results on symmetries in physics.

    For one, it is a hypothesis that holography is realized, apart from its usefulness in deriving physics.

    For another, all field theories are known to be effective in some sense or other – they all break down latest at Planck energy scales – so if their internal symmetries (laws of gauge theories) are just approximate “in the [holographic] bulk” the implications seem weak to non-existent.

  10. Laszlo G Meszaros | February 7, 2020 at 7:03 pm | Reply

    Let me suggest that we first try to understand how a mirror works.

  11. Post GR science diverted from its real fundamental world. If you think Non GR science behind gravity then there is a answer.
    Gravity is macroscopic and not miscoscopic phenomenon. This should be the first realization.

  12. I know this will be dismissed, but if you start from the premise that this is a created universe, and the laws of physics follow from the assumption that it functions as follows from pursue of a goal, you will find that it couldn’t have been done any other, more optimal way. BTW, I am not a Spiritualist, nor a Metaphysic, just a Functionalist. We live in a cyclic universe, and the Great Expansion will be followed by the Great Contraction, repeating an endless cycle.

  13. Michael Pollock | February 8, 2020 at 3:37 am | Reply

    The reason we can’t understand gravity is the big bang theory. It says gravity is inherent to matter. It says gravity is free because the initial universe, after 380,000 years, was absolute zero hydrogen atoms. There was nothing else but gravity. So then it was up to scientists to figure out how the heavier elements were formed with just gravity. That isn’t the way it happened.
    Plasma was here first. The big bang was simply two objects colliding at an astronomical speed in an already existing universe. The galaxies are shrapnel. Each one was born with it’s own size, shape, rotational rate and trajectory. They have cooled from the second the big bang happened. That’s why scientists are perplexed about the new, giant, dead galaxy they are studying. Gravity is made from heat energy.
    The dark matter of space is what causes gravity, not the mass itself. Dark matter is created by a mass by breaking down electrons and ejecting them out as electron neutrinos. These particles are energized and do not react with normal matter. Space, or dark matter, is unenergized electron neutrinos. Space has a specific pressure. The energized dark matter runs into its unenergized self in space. This pressure causes gravitational lensing. The unenergized electron neutrinos of space use their pressure to push through the outgoing matter. Unenergized dark matter does react with normal matter. The momentum is transferred to the normal matter and creates gravity.
    The only reason we have not figured it out is because the big bang theory has negated 95% of the mass of our universe.

  14. You censored my comment while posting many illiterate comments.. I have a PhD in physics from the University of California.
    Shame on you. 🙁

    • Bizarre, they allowed my complaint. Here is the post they censored
      This article is misleading on two counts. The actual paper says

      “ABSTRACT

      In this Letter we show that a set of old conjectures about symmetries in quantum gravity hold within the anti–de Sitter/conformal field theory correspondence. These conjectures are that no global symmetries are possible, that internal gauge symmetries must come with dynamical objects that transform in all irreducible representations, and that internal gauge groups must be compact. These conjectures are not obviously true from a bulk perspective, they are nontrivial consequences of the nonperturbative consistency of the correspondence. More details of and background for these arguments are presented in an accompanying paper.”

      Therefore, what are excluded are GLOBAL not LOCAL gauge symmetries. This is hardly surprising since it is the case in classical GR. Second, high energy theorists do not properly understand classical GR because they keep calling gravity a “force” rather than a “pseudo force” due to proper acceleration of the detector. To call gravity a “force” in same sense as EM, weak, strong violates Einstein’s Equivalence Principle. Classical gravity is the pattern of real-force free timelike geodesics (also light cones). EM, weak, strong charges with invariant rest mass interacting with their relevant fields are pushed off timelike geodesics. Finally, I first formulated a primitive version of ER = EPR in the book “Space-Time and Beyond” E.P. Dutton 1975 see David Kaiser’s “How the Hippies Saved Physics. “However, my ER wormholes were traversable with EPR messaging. Lenny Susskind and I knew each other at Cornell in 1963 and collaborated on his first paper on time and phase quantum operators along with Johnny Glogower.

      When I tried to correct them, they censored my post above, while allowing completely off the wall crackpot posts by physics illiterates. The editors clearly have bad judgment.

      From: Gary S Bekkum
      Date: Friday, February 7, 2020 at 6:33 AM
      To: JACK SARFATTI
      Subject: KAVLI Institute: Gravity Mysteries – We May Have Had Fundamental Nature of the Universe Wrong This Whole Time

      https://scitechdaily.com/gravity-mysteries-we-may-have-had-fundamental-nature-of-the-universe-wrong-this-whole-time/

      Sent from my iPhone

    • OK, I withdraw my complaint. Apparently, it was some kind of snafu not intentional.

  15. Rowland Stevens | February 8, 2020 at 9:42 am | Reply

    I’m sorry. I have been through the entire educational process, from public schools to very “perceived elite ones” …. to what I consider the ultimate degree a JD. And 40 years dealing in the law and 82 years of experience with life as it is ….. not what someone says it is. Which is all about A. finding the consistent Reality elements of a problem that are 100% consistent. B. An awareness of what does and does not establish a fact. C. How to increase one’s awareness of what happen, right wrong or indifferent …. but what as a fact did OR DID NOT OR HOW THE HELL COULD ANYONE KNOW SOMETHING ASSERTED, particularly when it starts “changing things like gravity and suspending its obvious characteristics and almost always by someone with a PhD that lives off grants for “research”, which have to show SOMETHING ANYTHING WILL DO JUST SOMETHING, WHEN RENEWAL TIME COMES. And universities grant thousands of PhD’s, which are supposed to certify they know “PROCESSES” that assure when they assert something as “knowledge” which by definition, is only worth something if it never changes. If it does, then also by definition, you have wasted everyone’s time and money including not justifying the research grant that paid your survival living and worse yet then wasted the same thing of the many people that did research trying to further deal with the ramifications of your unworkable false assertion of truth.

    And if fact, knowing how embarrassing it is when you have to admit, or your peers admit that your “truth” turned out to be …. no such thing.

    Usually, now most published (presumably with peer “PhD approval” but often not, but rather by any of a zillion publishers that have “printed” your intellectual ideas A. Start with the reason others are mentioning it is by …. so and so, in a “published paper” and B. Repeat the words you used in preparing your original document: IT MAY BE (or might be) That …… which by use of these “qualify words”, by definition of their use by you means you are acknowledging you could be wrong in what you assert.

    Picture if you will, I as a prosecutor in a criminal case, (which I was both as the city prosecutor and Deputy County Attorney said to the Judge or jury (AND ALL I EVER SAID WAS) “WHAT I HAVE PRESENTED TO YOU …. “MAY” MEAN THAT THE DEFENDANT IS GUILTY! Is there any doubt, that on a motion to dismiss the case, it would be peremptorily granted immediately and my case discarded as meaningless and of no help to the judicial system at all?

    And I suggest to you that three among many “intellectual fields” that are notorious for doing so are “Astronomy about things 100 of light years away that when visually enlarged by lenses remain nothing but a small dot. But computer programs then fill in the the further enlarge squares on a monitor, by whatever program produced by humans (not the physics of filling them with an infinite number of light sensitive molecules on traditional photographic plates that WERE THERE AND WERE REAL DATA on the original plates, but on the smaller produced image were so close together our eyes couldn’t resolve them; BUT ON A LARGER SURFACE OF MOLECULES COULD BE)

    B. Things that occurred billions of years ago as determined again not by direct evidence in a true sense of the word but by some “second hand evidence” that someone has “published” as maybe indicating a time frame of billions of years ago.

    C. “Particle physics which is the reverse so small that they can not be observed directly but the presence of some also “second hand data” also has hand some one “publish” that its presence means that a specific smaller particle exist and they assert that “maybe it has so and so characteristics which would produce the observed data. That is, among other things, without any awareness of the source of something whether it is lost by the length of time, space or lack of space ….. characteristics of source are asserted to exist and yet having no idea nor means of having an idea that it is even one source that is producing the second hand effect, upon which assertion of knowledge of the source and giving it characteristics.

    And while I could say much more, I will close with the following premise that I had to deal with constantly. One of the critical issues of any conclusion humans make …. to be dependable and not send others around in meaningless circles that can even cause death …. is do you have the capability of determining what, based on your present circumstances, you can not and there do not have the capability to “know”.

  16. Volodymyr Krasnoholovets | February 8, 2020 at 11:54 am | Reply

    The author(s) wrote: Gravity is the only force still unexplainable at the quantum level. It is not true, gravity was explained in detail in a book: Structure of Space and the Submicroscopic Deterministic Concept of Physics, 2017.

  17. Flat or not flat depends on your perspective and is not determinable until the object is observed and from what angle.

  18. Rowland Stevens | February 8, 2020 at 6:05 pm | Reply

    I can’t let one reply go unanswered:

    “Religion has been as much shown to be falsehood in this century as astrology was shown in test the last century.”

    to which someone replied:

    Not in the least. You’re simply lying. That’s why, we have 2.2 billion religious people, which would not be the case if it was in fact “shown to be falsehood”.

    Who is lying????

    In fact you prove the problem with religions.

    You say if 2.2 billion believe that is proof or why else would so many agreed. To make sense of what you write, one must realize that you are assuming that all believe in the same religion.

    Each as it is noted hereafter, in the process of having their (granted general phrase religion), that is different than previous ones and those that follow means only one can be right and all the rest of the 2.2 billion are false. so you’re “big size is therefore not relevant to anything.

    And one religion, assuming one were true and the numbers believing in it are relevant, which in fact, in each case is but a fraction of 2.2 billion and not one of them even comes close to even being a “majority” of the 2.2 billion.

    So what seems to be proved is that the smallness of the biggest compared to the rest of the 2.2 billion all share one thing in common they all assert that the biggest of them all, which is just a small fraction of 2.2 billion is not true. And that is the vast majority of the 2.2 Billion. So if anything is proven it is that all of them are highly likely to be false. And with regard to Chirst, I will point out that it is a fact that more than a few humans have been considered dead that were not, including many caskets with scratches in them, of the type made by coming conscious and trying disparately to get out of the casket. And it was petitioned of Pilate the governor that had him put on the cross to allow his believers to take him off the cross far earlier than is normally done, dead or not. And the soldier that put the spear into Christ, didn’t put in into a vital organ, but in his lower abdominal cavity. I do not assert that either means anything other than they don’t absolutely preclude what we know happens, more than a few are considered dead, even today, but then are found not to be so …. sometimes.

  19. What a waist of time and money. Hopefully scientists find e.t soon. Scientists will soon realize also that evolution is a hoax.

    • It’s never a “waste” of time and money to attempt to understand our universe better, especially since preconceived notions like yours will forever oppose the scientific method. Also, finding “E.T.” would not necessarily prove that evolution is a hoax (all this being extrapolation of course). Ignorance is bliss, however.

  20. This is a history lesson and does not provide a useful summary of the theory re quantum mechanics and gravity as the title implies.

  21. Couldnt it be that subatomic particles have too little mass to be effected by a weak gravitational force?

  22. Physics cannot do without postulates. Let us temporarily assume that The Holographic Principle is a working theory and postulate that energy and mass can be represented by bits of information, and one bit of information by a phase of the oscillation. Fluctuations of what?
    Suppose this is the phase of oscillations of one one-dimensional cosmic string – some object – the foundation of our Universe. Then, in order to determine the phase of the oscillations, we need to have another oscillation relative to which we can determine the phase of the first oscillation. Moreover, to determine the phase of oscillations of the first string, we must have a constant phase difference of the oscillations of two strings. Then it’s easier to imagine one string closed on itself. On this, the postulation ends and mathematics and reasoning logic (deductive method) work. It is known that oscillations with a constant phase difference have the property of coherence. And coherence and interference is a property of holograms.
    So, we correctly admitted that the Holographic Principle can be a working theory. Thus, we postulated the need to have a pair of one-dimensional cosmic strings, and their phases are bits of information. In order for our Universe to have a spherical surface with the information that the Holographic Principle insists on, it is enough to assume that a pair of cosmic coherently oscillating strings are, firstly, spirally twisted, and secondly, they must intersect at an angle to each other. At first, it can be any angle, but since the maximum volume is limited by a spherical surface, then the angle of the closure of a pair of strings is 90 degrees. We got a growing sphere surface with bits of information on it.
    We check the idea on a computer simulator and with surprise find that the maximum number of oscillation options for pairs of cosmic strings is 64. And the dynamics of the projections of each string demonstrate the numerous properties of elementary particles of the Standard Model! In the center of the projections, we get a beautiful geometric group E8’s. Not a single bit of information on the sphere we have received is lost. Sphere – а bubble without thickness grows with each winding of cosmic strings. Information on-screen is stored without loss and the area of ​​our sphere is growing, in addition, we have exactly two halves of one sphere with slightly different information (since the angle at the beginning we did not 90 degrees). These are known initial conditions in the Universe. Two cosmic strings move strictly along their own of two halves with different information, which means that a force arises in the center of the projections of the strings inside the sphere.
    G. ‘t Hooft: «The Standard Model of the sub-atomic particles was established partly by doing experiments with elementary particles and also by imagining “How should these particles behave?” It makes sense to use as an assumption: every particle behaves in a completely deterministic way…» We can postulate give up probability density and probability in general as a positive function of the amplitudes two projections one of particle. On the ontological basis, they stay the same all the time then we can idealized demonstration two projections one of the particle by the single equation of coherent oscillations and get two halves the spherical holographic screen. Geometrical representation of the projections of particles for the QM Universe constructed by combinations of (all 64 variants) from one parametric equation presents of the qubit:

    {θx=Cosθ
    {θy=Sinθ
    {θz=-Sinθ,

    where θx, θy, θz- sequential angular displacement of projection on the holographic screen. Parameters: θ = πt and -1 ≤ t ≤ 1; where θ is the geometric angle defined by an arbitrary direction in a clockwise and/or counterclockwise direction, starting with the corresponding semiaxis. The equation is applicable for any radius of the spherical screen. When t → tp — is the Planck time.

    The entire screen uses the same time coordinate. Helicity this property of two strings as a third common bit – of information, the reason we perceive the world as three-dimensional. For us observers (as bits are spreading across the screen), this information changes as a result of the accelerated expansion of the screen – these are the relative coordinates of each point in the emerging three-dimensional space-time. The information recorded without loss on the screen with a single current coordinate of the time (t = 0) and with which a pair of projections interact is an illusion of the past time. Thus, the processing of microscopic data on the screen can be naturally performed using signals that pass without a time delay. At the center of the projections, as a result of their movement, at any point inside the sphere, due to different interactions with different information, which from the point of view of thermodynamics can be compared with the temperature gradient on each of the halves one screen, an entropic force arises. We see that the principle of Mach naturally came into play in our Universe.
    This super force can be both the mass of particles and energy and the three known forces and the fourth – the gravitational force depending on the scale of consideration of their interaction on the holographic screen when moving each string. In other words, it all depends on how we register these forces – on each of the halves of the screen or on its individual sections (in two, three dimensions or in a multitude). As we see, in the Universe we received and in which, not a single bit of information is lost, there is no place for random processes. There are no measurements, only fixing the results of the movement of information by observers. Superdeterminism is the foundation of our Universe.
    So, the most important assumption is that the information associated with a certain area of ​​three-dimensional space obeys the conservation law it – the basis of the Holographic Principle. Information about the location of particles is stored in discrete bits on two halves of the spherical screen – one bit in the Planck-l² areas, but already two Planck areas contain three bits of information as additional information about the coordinates of each of the bits on the screen and are generated automatically. In other words, two bits contain exactly one bit of mutual information.
    These types of information bits can accordingly be divided into the image kinetic and potential energy. Whatever information they contain, they contain it together. All information on the two halves of the spherical screen — the closed surface of region A we can be divided into numbers associated with the coordinates of the screen by number N and information represented by the temperature of the screen T. Suppose the system has full energy E. Suppose that this energy is evenly distributed between two halves of one spherical screen with a number of bits N (½kBT as the average energy per bit, where kB is a constant Boltzmann). Then we can determine the temperature T and the number of bits on the screen:

    E=N ½kBT

    N= A/l², where l² is Planck area = hG/c³
    Where G is a universal gravitational constant, c is the speed of light, and h is the given Planck’s constant. Then:

    N=Ac³/Gh

    Taking a holographic screen as the sphere of radius r, the surface area will be equal to:

    A=4пr²

    The effective temperature resulting from the equivalent acceleration in the vacuum field according to Unruh effect is:

    Т=ha/2пckB

    Where a this is the acceleration, which for mass m rotor will be assigned to force F – under Newton’s second law:

    F=ma

    Newton’s world gravity law:

    F=GMm/r²

    From the algebraic replacement of forces and the above-mentioned ratios, we will get a known Einstein equation:

    E=N½kBT=
    =N½kBha/2пckB=haN/4пc=a4пr²c³/Gпс=ac²r²/G=Mc²

    Thus, for our holographic Universe where every bit carries energy (according to the Landauer Principle):

    E=NkBT=2Mc².

    The appearance of an additional factor is consistent with the hypothesis of dark energy introduced into the mathematical model of the Universe to explain its observed expansion with acceleration. In 2014, data from the BOSS (Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey) project showed that, with a high degree of accuracy, the value of dark energy is constant in time and space. In addition, these data are consistent with the model of a flat Universe. Flat in the sense that throughout its entire length space can be described using the usual Euclidean geometry. This is the same consistent with the idea of ​​the Holographic Principle with its projections of phenomena in three-dimensional space without loss of information on a flat surface – the holographic screen.

  23. Holy cow. Just make shit up. Why not?

  24. Holy guacamole you guys are done smart cookies. Your capacities to understand the minutia of what science suspects to be reality is incredible and far beyond my simple mind. I fall into the God made everything category primarily for two reasons; first, I’m too stupid to understandvthecafirenentiobed minutia, second nothing cones from nothing, put another way there is no plausible explanation for how the universe, or anything, can exist. The ‘first cause’ is logically impossible without something/someone of such infinite capacity who of course must be infinite. Does it make sense, not really, but it makes more sense than any other explanation.

Leave a comment

Email address is optional. If provided, your email will not be published or shared.