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

Dear Jonathan

What an intriguing, thought-provoking essay! I really liked it. Asymmetry ought to be an important factor and should be investigated thoroughly, especially since nonlinear systems can generate it rather easily. I also appreciate your use of the Mandelbrot Set as an alternate to standard group theory. I have posted a more extensive reply after your comments on my own essay, so I won't repeat those ideas here.

Keep up the good work.

Best wishes,

Bill

If a Misiurewicz point refers to the Mandelbrot set and this refers to topological isomorphism which on its part refers to point-set-topology (PST) then I am not sure whether it is fundamentally anchored in the logic Archimedes infinity or just in the pragmatic mathematical Bernoulli/Leibniz infinities.

As to say it blunt: A child with scissors is able to perform a symmetrical cut while PST struggles with a Dedekind point.

Exact self-similarity in the sense of mirror symmetry is rarely, if at all, found in the fundamental frog's perspective.

Eckard Blumschein

Jonathan,

Do you have a particular working conception of how the Mandelbrot set relates to the distinction between *average* and *constant* ? I can arrive at an average value across a region of changing values, but anywhere in a region of constant values will also be the average value. This goes to energy density and how fields can conduct valued quantity exchanges between domains, and the problem I (at Least) always have in contemplating how wave dynamics alone can create definite "domains that remain". Thanks for your thoughts. jrc

Jonathan,

As time grows short, I recheck those that I have commented on to see if I've rated them. I find that I have not rated yours and am correcting that now.

Hope you can get a chance to look at mine.

Jim Hoover

Hi Jonathan, beautiful essay, Mandelbrot is in you and the octonions and its not commutativity also, Klee and garreth and cristic d like your essay :) best regards

Hello Jonathan Dickau,

You are correct that all forces are the consequence of one unified field of interactions. Its called GRAVITY!

My opinion of physical reality is as straight forward as possible and gravity is the specific topic which current theory must address first. There are others here at RQXi that focus on gravity but they complicate it. My system inverts much current theory and is complete as is so I don't investigate things like you do and I cant relate to your idea of push related to Mandelbrot condensation.

Otherwise I find your paper to be very well done, impressive in detail actually. But obviously I disagree with some of the topics. Entropic and emergent gravity is typical metaphysics. Motion and infinity are requisites. Deep theory, extensive data, and wordiness blurs simple logic and leads to what physics has become. Applying the idea of symmetry in physics is also misleading. Building an overall perspective of the universe cant include concepts like entropy that override disorder.

I appreciate you providing references with ideas. But my model is extensive and unique. It doesn't connect with relativity, as does My Choisuren, nor does Mr Singh's quantum background push gravity idea logically fit.

Ultimately people who recognize gravity's role are key readers whom I seek for support and for selling others on the value of my system perspective. When you read my essay did you see the two follow up pages? Forty plus components of my system are listed there. I hope you go back and review those points, and subsequently respond again. My total system in 3 papers is available for review. My unique perspective seeks further support.

What better praise could I ask than your enjoyment of my essay? Thank you, Johnathan. I enjoy much folk music including Pere Seeger.

Best regards,

Paul Schroeder

Hi Jonathan:

Thanks for remembering the prior acquaintance and interactions at the CCC-2. It all comes to cherishing the sweet memories of the past.

I read your essay and enjoyed it fully agreeing with most of your conclusions. I also gave the highest rating it deserves. I fully agree with your assertion that forces including gravity are not fundamental and - "...if all forces are the consequence of just one unified field of interactions - and sub-ranges thereof."

As I described in my paper- "What is Fundamental - Is C the Speed of Light", this unified field is nothing but the absolute Zero Point State (ZPS) that is invariant in space-time i.e. fully dilated with zero space-time. Since, a finite mass has a finite non-zero space-time, mass should also be zero in the ZPS. Such a fundamental state or reality would be immeasurable since it is absolute and not relative. A theory that predicts and bridges this absolute ZPS state with the relative (non-zero mass-energy-space-time) states of the comprehensible universe should be defined as the "Fundamental" theory. Remember, "Fundamental" refers to the predicted end state and not to the theory itself. Quantum theories (QFT, EFT) predict arbitrarily large vacuum energy and hence are not fundamental.

The ZPS is synonymous with Anti-gravity (Dark energy) as the fundamental state from which all complimentary forces and relativistic states of manifested mass-energy-space-time arise. In this fundamental state all forces are ZERO. In my paper- "What is Fundamental - Is C the Speed of Light", I propose the missing physics of anti-gravity as the spontaneous mass-energy conversion (as observed in wave-particle behavior) that bridges the observed relative mass-energy-space-time states to the ZPS while resolving the paradox of the missing dark energy that is revealed as the relativistic kinetic energy, the paradox of the collapse of the wave function that is explained via transition to the classical space-time from the fully dilated space-time when a measurement is made, the black hole singularity of GR eliminated via mass dilation at small R, and solution to other current inconsistencies as well as weirdness of mainstream theories as described in my book.

With regard to the stability and life-time of any mass or particles, the mainstream position is biased by the classical mentality of fixed space-time wherein time is absolute. While the majority of the universe is inhabited by photons of light moving close to the speed of light and in their relativistic frames of references the billions of years of stable lifetime is nothing but almost an instant decay of the so-called stable particles. Time and stability are only illusions of the eye and mindset of the earthly observes. All masses in the universe decay and that is consistent with the spontaneous (without delay) equivalence of mass and energy. Spontaneous instant wave-particle behavior is also an objective evidence of spontaneous mass decay to energy without half-life or decay duration.

Jonathan, I would appreciate your time and feedback on my paper (rating if possible) at your convenience. Let us keep in touch sharing wisdom full dialogue and discussions. You can directly contact me at avsingh@alum.mit.edu.

Best Regards

Avtar

Dear Jonathan,

as a quantum information scientist by training, many of your ideas play right into my own prejudices. You mention quantum thermodynamics, and the way entanglement 'spreads out' information of a physical system across everything it interacts with; there is actually an interesting way in which that plays into emergent gravity that you didn't mention (but maybe are aware of).

The basic observation is that many-body quantum states often obey an area law: if one traces out a certain part of the state, the entropy of that missing part scales with the area of the boundary between it and the rest. This is very reminiscent of the physics of black holes: there, too, you sort of 'forget about' the part of the spacetime beyond the horizon and, as a result, obtain the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy scaling with the horizon area.

It's this scaling that was instrumental in Jacobson's recovery of the Einstein equation as a thermodynamic 'equation of state' for spacetime. That it seems to fall out of quantum entanglement suggests an interesting connection between that and spacetime, and indeed, subsequent work has uncovered extremely interesting connections, leading to what is sometimes called the 'entanglement as glue'-paradigm. Perhaps most strikingly, Mark van Raamsdonk et al could show that, under the AdS/CFT correspondence, if one 'disentangles' states of the conformal field theory, the associated regions of spacetime in the AdS-bulk 'pinch off', with the amount of entanglement being given by the area of the cross section of the connection between both spacetime regions.

There are many other deep connections that you only gesture at and that need to be formulated more carefully, I think---but dinner is ready, so I'm out of time for the moment. I'll return if I can think of something else I think might be useful, though!

Dear Jonathon,

Your writing of questioning and exploring modern theoretical physics constructs was indeed amusing. I suppose that a 'map' such as what I wrote about would be helpful...

You wrote "It is fairly well-known in the Physics community that the Standard Model can be encoded in the symmetry group formula SU(3)xSU(2)xU(1), but it is not understood how to derive this formula from a deeper underlying structure. There are objects in Mathematics possessing deep and great symmetry, which are already known to be relevant to Physics and are obvious candidates for the seed of a unifying theory."

It turns out that the geometry of a quark, such as the green down quark illustrated in my essay, has a quantum state algebra that is one-to-one with a subgroup of a cross product of two wreath products. This also allows for causality, which is missing in the Std Model.

"I'm still unsure of whether gravity actually is a fundamental force of Physics or not, so I leave determining that up to you." well, good. It _is_ one of several fundamental properties of particles as well as in cosmology.

The central issue of consistency is imposed by observing that the universe is merely the sum of its particles. So the form of each equation must be the same, at least the mass terms must add up to yield macroscopic gravity. A foundational formula is presented for FQXi group review toward the end of my short descriptive essay.

best wishes,

Wayne Lundberg

https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3092

Jonathan,

Now I at least know what the Mandelbrot Set is and know a tiny bit about fractals and self-similarity.

So, has anyone ever argued either for or against the idea that physical laws should be scale independent? I know the empirical evidence is that the strong and weak forces are short range only whereas gravity and electro-magnetism are long-range.

Best Regards and Good Luck,

Gary Simpson

Dear Jonathan,

Here we are again all together.

I highly appreciate your beautifully written essay.

«all forces are the consequence of just one unified field of interactions - and sub-ranges thereof». Great!

I hope that my modest achievements can be information for reflection for you.

Vladimir Fedorov

https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3080

Dear Jonathan

If you are looking for another essay to read and rate in the final days of the contest, will you consider mine please? I read all essays from those who comment on my page, and if I cant rate an essay highly, then I don't rate them at all. Infact I haven't issued a rating lower that ten. So you have nothing to lose by having me read your essay, and everything to gain.

Beyond my essay's introduction, I place a microscope on the subjects of universal complexity and natural forces. I do so within context that clock operation is driven by Quantum Mechanical forces (atomic and photonic), while clocks also serve measure of General Relativity's effects (spacetime, time dilation). In this respect clocks can be said to possess a split personality, giving them the distinction that they are simultaneously a study in QM, while GR is a study of clocks. The situation stands whereby we have two fundamental theories of the world, but just one world. And we have a singular device which serves study of both those fundamental theories. Two fundamental theories, but one device? Please join me and my essay in questioning this circumstance?

My essay goes on to identify natural forces in their universal roles, how they motivate the building of and maintaining complex universal structures and processes. When we look at how star fusion processes sit within a "narrow range of sensitivity" that stars are neither led to explode nor collapse under gravity. We think how lucky we are that the universe is just so. We can also count our lucky stars that the fusion process that marks the birth of a star, also leads to an eruption of photons from its surface. And again, how lucky we are! for if they didn't then gas accumulation wouldn't be halted and the star would again be led to collapse.

Could a natural organisation principle have been responsible for fine tuning universal systems? Faced with how lucky we appear to have been, shouldn't we consider this possibility?

For our luck surely didnt run out there, for these photons stream down on earth, liquifying oceans which drive geochemical processes that we "life" are reliant upon. The Earth is made up of elements that possess the chemical potentials that life is entirely dependent upon. Those chemical potentials are not expressed in the absence of water solvency. So again, how amazingly fortunate we are that these chemical potentials exist in the first instance, and additionally within an environment of abundant water solvency such as Earth, able to express these potentials.

My essay is attempt of something audacious. It questions the fundamental nature of the interaction between space and matter Guv = Tuv, and hypothesizes the equality between space curvature and atomic forces is due to common process. Space gives up a potential in exchange for atomic forces in a conversion process, which drives atomic activity. And furthermore, that Baryons only exist because this energy potential of space exists and is available for exploitation. Baryon characteristics and behaviours, complexity of structure and process might then be explained in terms of being evolved and optimised for this purpose and existence. Removing need for so many layers of extraordinary luck to eventuate our own existence. It attempts an interpretation of the above mentioned stellar processes within these terms, but also extends much further. It shines a light on molecular structure that binds matter together, as potentially being an evolved agency that enhances rigidity and therefor persistence of universal system. We then turn a questioning mind towards Earths unlikely geochemical processes, (for which we living things owe so much) and look at its central theme and propensity for molecular rock forming processes. The existence of chemical potentials and their diverse range of molecular bond formation activities? The abundance of water solvent on Earth, for which many geochemical rock forming processes could not be expressed without? The question of a watery Earth? is then implicated as being part of an evolved system that arose for purpose and reason, alongside the same reason and purpose that molecular bonds and chemistry processes arose.

By identifying atomic forces as having their origin in space, we have identified how they perpetually act, and deliver work products. Forces drive clocks and clock activity is shown by GR to dilate. My essay details the principle of force dilation and applies it to a universal mystery. My essay raises the possibility, that nature in possession of a natural energy potential, will spontaneously generate a circumstance of Darwinian emergence. It did so on Earth, and perhaps it did so within a wider scope. We learnt how biology generates intricate structure and complexity, and now we learn how it might explain for intricate structure and complexity within universal physical systems.

To steal a phrase from my essay "A world product of evolved optimization".

Best of luck for the conclusion of the contest

Kind regards

Steven Andresen

Darwinian Universal Fundamental Origin

Dear Jonathan,

I enjoyed reading your essay. You beautifully discuss the nature of gravitational force and its impact on biological evolution. Your argument that the gravitational force may simply be a mathematically consistent basis or simply an exercise of imagination has a value. Thus, I will add that the complete comprehension of fundamentalness will entail a deeper journey into the worlds of biological and physical evolutions. I believe they intricately co-exist, co-evolve and are co-dependent to define what we term "absoluteness".

Best regards,

Anil

Dear Jonathan,

Thank you for your comments, and for reminding me to comment and rate your essay. I see you got bombed, I was too, especially in the last 24 hours I went from 1 to 11, now I see it's a bit better. Please tell the organizers about the bombs you received, it is against the rules (and also dishonest without comments explaining that it indeed deserved to receive an 1). It is important to read and rate accordingly as many essays as possible, to make the one bombs less relevant, so if you forgot to rate my essay when you commented please do it now according to your evaluation. Nice thoughts about entropic gravity and the fractal properties, about which I replied to you more when you commented on my thread. Good luck in the contest!

Best regards,

Cristi

Dear Jonathan,

Thank you for interesting discussion of possible nature of gravity, which I hav enjoyed. It deserves sufficiently high estimation

With the best regards

Maxim Khlopov