Gravity is not fundamental; or is it? by Jonathan J. Dickau

Dear Jonathan,

Your question about the fundamentality of gravity is important, but there is a related question - what is gravity?

In my own essay, "Fundamental Waves and the Reunification of Physics", I argue that gravity is not, as we have been taught, the curvature of spacetime. On the contrary, on the microscopic level, everything is comprised of oscillating waves. Gravity is simply the (very weak) modulation of the wave frequency by every other fundamental wave in the universe. Furthermore, there is no abstract spacetime. Instead, time and space are defined locally by the frequency and wavelength of fundamental quantum waves. This simple, unified picture states that the speed of light is NOT constant, but decreases in the vicinity of a star. This gives the accurate trajectory of a light beam bending near a star. This is simply refraction, not bent spacetime.

I further suggest that black holes and event horizons are not real, but are rather mathematical artifacts. There are certainly compact gravitational objects in galactic centers, but we know very little about their true nature.

This picture has no quantum entanglement, which has important technological implications. In the past few years, quantum computing has become a fashionable field for R&D by governments and corporations. But the predicted power of quantum computing comes directly from entanglement. I predict that the entire quantum computing enterprise will fail within about 5 years. Only then will people start to question the foundations of quantum mechanics.

Alan Kadin

Gravity is not fundamental; or is it?

Jonathan,

'Fundamental' is a descriptive term, an adjective. As to whether the term applies to a specific subject or is intended to reference a universally applicable element depends upon the context in which the term is used.

In 1916 Einstein amended his Special Theory of Relativity in the interest of drawing gravity into the scope of a more comprehensive or general theory. His means were to declare gravity a misconception, an effect rather than a cause, brought about by the uneven distribution of mass in the universe.

Thus we are led to the inevitable question: What is the cause of gravity? Vacuum is the dominant medium in the cosmos and so-called gravity is simply its means of filling voids. A kind of push-me-pull-you game that we interpret from the earth as a 'pull' but which seen from outer space would be recognizable as a 'push'.

So there you have it, and there you don't! The pull of what we call 'gravity' is 'fundamental' when considering earth-bound subjects, but not 'fundamental' where it is considered in the context of the greater force of vacuum.

"Reality" is place and time dependent. Thus dinner time in Timbukto on Thursday is breakfast time in Fiji on Friday; just as surely as 'up' in Timbukto points in the same direction as 'down' in Fiji.

Jonathan, with each essay contest you improve your ideas and they become increasingly interesting. The Mandlebrot set is a great example of how universality works when there are scaling laws, and how symmetry emerges. As you have explained in your own words the Mandlebrot set exhibits a self-similarity symmetry at Misiurewicz points which is approximate at large scales, but it gets more exact as you zoom in. Similar things happen in physics in different contexts. The renormalisation group in quantum field theory and in thermodynamics is an example of a similar phenomena except that the self similarity improves as you zoom out to larger distance scales rather than zooming in. Another difference is that the renomalisation group gives a continuous self-similarity symmetry whereas the Mandelbrot set is self-similar in discrete iterative steps.

One of the most interesting parts of your essay is the description of how octonions arise at some points. I was not aware of this. Emergence of symmetry in systems of universality with scaling is fundamental to my ideas on the emergence of the laws of physics from complex systems of mathematical possibilities. My claim is that the process of quantisation is the iterative step from which symmetry emerges.

In your proposal there is a twist. if I have understood correctly You say that the Mandelbrot set is not merely an example of emergence but is in fact the perfect description of it. You also say that the asymmetry is fundamental. This can happen. If you zoom in on a thermodynamic system the emergent behavior eventually breaks down and you see the interactions between molecules from which thermodynamics emerges. In quantum field theory you may also find that a theory such as QCD is not exact at high energies, then the SU(3) gauge symmetry may be approximate or not. The same goes for the diffeomorphism symmetry of gravity. My long held belief has been that diffeomorphism symmetry is replaced with permutation symmetry over spacetime events at small scales. This fits perfectly with entropic theories of gravity.

Your idea that the Mandelbrot set is somewhere down there at the bottom is not as daft as it sounds. It is the defining characteristic of universal behavior that it turns up in many different circumstances and that is the case for the Mandelbrot set too. Whether Mandelbrot is the whole, or some part of something larger that encompasses all forms of universality is another question.

There is an ongoing debate about whether gauge symmetry becomes an approximation at higher energies, or alternatively that it is revealed as the residual symmetry of a larger one. It may depend on whether you think the limit of the iterative process is taken or alternatively that there is a cutoff scale at which it stops. In particle physics it looks like it stops, but my view is that at the deepest level the limit must be taken so that a huge exact symmetry emerges. This is necessary to hide the irrelevant details of axiomisation and also to protect us from Godel's undecidability. If it turns out that there is a cutoff and the universal symmetry is only approximate then the universe could be a much stranger place. That is certainly something to think about.

Dear Jonathan

Intriguing Essay. Congrats!

Here are some comments:

1) Einstein's elegant vision of gravity is the reason for which I decided to become a researcher. Thus, it is very difficult for me thinking that gravity is not fundamental.

2) On the other hand, I agree with you that all forces could be the consequence of just one unified field of interactions and sub-ranges thereof. In that case, not only gravity but also the other forces should be "entropic and emergent". This could, in principle, lead to a global geometric interpretation of physics where asymmetry and/or symmetry should be even more fundamental.

3) Like you, I am not sure of whether gravity actually is a fundamental force of physics or not, despite I am inclined to the positive answer. Paraphrasing Einstein, in any case it is a very interesting problem.

Congrats again and good luck in the Contest. Maybe you could be interested in my Essay, where I discuss physics unification from another point of view with... Albert Einstein!

Cheers, Ch.

Sorry, here is the correct link to my Essay:

https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3077.

The link help page seems to do not work.

Jonathan Dickau,

You begin to address the makeup of the universe mostly in your abstract. You ask if gravity is fundamental. In the process you summarize a mistaken analysis of gravity. Can you convert?

The 'weak' definition of gravity in the current metaphysics of the standard model is just wrong. The reality is hidden by the definitions of gravity. It is an attraction via Newton or bent space via relativity. Neither of those forces surround masses as do the comparative forces. Attraction is the net result of gravity upon a point on the mass surface. Attraction is thought of as a non-physical linear pull toward the center of (earth) for example. There is a problem here. The physical solution is that gravity must be a push. The gravity source is a push, the resulting impression is attraction. With the source as a push, it pressures matter from all sides. The sum of all 3 dimensional pushes is not weak! As such it creates the spherical shapes of spatial bodies and holds them and us together. Gravity is the source of the other forces reversing your mention of gravity being the consequence of other forces.

It takes time to adjust your perspective. The hard issue is explaining unbalanced pushes that result in 'attraction'. Gravity is EM radiation traveling in all directions throughout space at speed C. The radiation penetrates matter and is diminished within. The 'net' result on the other side results in unbalanced gravity. The push downward there exceeds the push up from the surface by the exiting radiation.

One revelation is how gravity becomes unbalanced allowing the 'net' force to push orbitals forward in their orbits while simultaneously pushing them downward. The idea of eternal motion goes away. There is much more to learn for those that are interested.

Paul Schroeder

Jonathan,

Good to see you in another contest. I took a scan of your essay and will take a closer look soon. I do like your emphasis on asymmetry.

I went after gravity as an aspect of space-time that is closely (asymmetrically) related to the photon.

It is possible we are approaching a fundamental via different angles.

All the best.

Don Limuti

It is interesting to note that the four known forces emerged at the start with a Big bang of creation. It is quite feasable to imagine that the strengths of these forces were about the same to start with. But all these strengths decayed with differnt rates with the passage of time.It may well be due to the dominance of vacuum over sparsely spread out masses of steller objects. I wish we succeed in doing a cosmology experiment where one measures the speed of light or gravitational strength way back a few billion years. It may well result in the Inconstancy of the Physical Constants over the cosmic scale. Our science has started only in the past 500 years or so. Hence measurements on Earth will not show such a scenario.

Hi, Jonathan.

Einstein thought much of what inertia might be. Gravitation is also a polarization, one might ask - of what? I have my own thoughts of that, and some day I will share them.

Asymmetry is important, yes. I have learned that also Einstein thought of this non-commuting system, giving asymmetric outputs also. The problem for Einstein and so many other is the symmetric approach is like a brain meme, the basic assumption...

Look at my essay, where you see asymmetry as the ruling force. https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3093 What is Life? A theory of 'More than everything' :)

I value your comments (and rates too). Nice to see you here again, hope we some day can collaborate more.

Ulla Mattfolk

You have a nice take on the asymmerty related to gravitation. Have you thought of the polarization as a force between symmetry and asymmetry? Can you then link asymmetry to imaginary side of our 'reality' and gravity then as mostly imaginary force, related to all on that side, also dark matter? Have you thought of why we experience our 'reality' as non-imaginary?

Also, your take on the ER=EPR debate?

Mandelbrot is chaotic, expressing some emergence. The same as an harmonic oscillator, and Lie-Groups. They are guiding rules maybe most of all? Does it makes gravity to the most important of our forces?

Yes, I have not changed, too many questions...

Hi Jonathan,

I scored your essay a week or two ago. It makes a bold proposition about how fractal geometry, and Julia/Mandelbrot sets enter into physics. I will in the ensuing year or so be introducing concepts along these lines. This does play a role in renormalization group flow, and in one sense time is a form of RG flow.

Cheers LC

Hi Jonathan,

The Mandelbrot Set a source of gravity....I don't think so.

But I do agree that a form of asymmetry is at gravity's source. We may be converging on some interesting insights on gravity. Thanks for your thought provoking essay.

Don Limuti

Dear Jonathan J. Dickau

Wonderful discussion "we should instead see gravity as a consequence of the remaining forces - rather than a fundamental force - and this view gives unique insights into possible quantum gravity theories and the nature of gravity itself." You gave a nice introduction to quantum Gravity!

............. very nice idea.... I highly appreciate your essay and hope you may please spend some of the valuable time on Dynamic Universe Model also and give your some of the valuable & esteemed guidance on this N body problem solution....

Some of the Main foundational points of Dynamic Universe Model :

-No Isotropy

-No Homogeneity

-No Space-time continuum

-Non-uniform density of matter, universe is lumpy

-No singularities

-No collisions between bodies

-No blackholes

-No warm holes

-No Bigbang

-No repulsion between distant Galaxies

-Non-empty Universe

-No imaginary or negative time axis

-No imaginary X, Y, Z axes

-No differential and Integral Equations mathematically

-No General Relativity and Model does not reduce to GR on any condition

-No Creation of matter like Bigbang or steady-state models

-No many mini Bigbangs

-No Missing Mass / Dark matter

-No Dark energy

-No Bigbang generated CMB detected

-No Multi-verses

Here:

-Accelerating Expanding universe with 33% Blue shifted Galaxies

-Newton's Gravitation law works everywhere in the same way

-All bodies dynamically moving

-All bodies move in dynamic Equilibrium

-Closed universe model no light or bodies will go away from universe

-Single Universe no baby universes

-Time is linear as observed on earth, moving forward only

-Independent x,y,z coordinate axes and Time axis no interdependencies between axes..

-UGF (Universal Gravitational Force) calculated on every point-mass

-Tensors (Linear) used for giving UNIQUE solutions for each time step

-Uses everyday physics as achievable by engineering

-21000 linear equations are used in an Excel sheet

-Computerized calculations uses 16 decimal digit accuracy

-Data mining and data warehousing techniques are used for data extraction from large amounts of data.

- Many predictions of Dynamic Universe Model came true....Have a look at

http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/p/blog-page_15.html

I request you to please have a look at my essay also, and give some of your esteemed criticism for your information........

Dynamic Universe Model says that the energy in the form of electromagnetic radiation passing grazingly near any gravitating mass changes its in frequency and finally will convert into neutrinos (mass). We all know that there is no experiment or quest in this direction. Energy conversion happens from mass to energy with the famous E=mC2, the other side of this conversion was not thought off. This is a new fundamental prediction by Dynamic Universe Model, a foundational quest in the area of Astrophysics and Cosmology.

In accordance with Dynamic Universe Model frequency shift happens on both the sides of spectrum when any electromagnetic radiation passes grazingly near gravitating mass. With this new verification, we will open a new frontier that will unlock a way for formation of the basis for continual Nucleosynthesis (continuous formation of elements) in our Universe. Amount of frequency shift will depend on relative velocity difference. All the papers of author can be downloaded from "http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/ "

I request you to please post your reply in my essay also, so that I can get an intimation that you replied

Best

=snp