Will Emergent Gravity Rewrite Physics?

Full podcast episodes: www.askaspaceman.com
Support: / pmsutter
Follow: / paulmattsutter and / paulmattsutter
What is “emergence” in physics and why is it a big deal? What would it mean for gravity to be emergent? How would we have to rewrite the laws of physics? I discuss these questions and more in today’s Ask a Spaceman!
Follow all the show updates at www.askaspaceman.com, and help support the show at / pmsutter !
Keep those questions about space, science, astronomy, astrophysics, and cosmology coming to #AskASpaceman for COMPLETE KNOWLEDGE OF TIME AND SPACE!

[@chadbarnard3620]

Gravity is one of the simplest things to think about.. at first.. but if you keep thinking about it, it gets trippy!

[@surendranmk5306]

And the question remains there still....what is gravity?

[@silvergreylion]

@@surendranmk5306 Longitudinal EM waves interacting with atomic nuclei.

[@surendranmk5306]

@@silvergreylion what is exactly an em wave? In which frequency your wave exist? I know only one type of em wave and it allways have energy 'h' per oscillation.

[@silvergreylion]

@@surendranmk5306 an EM wave is a perturbation in the aether medium. The frequencies are the same as the transverse EM waves, from which they are created. The energy per oscillation of longitudinal EM waves has not been measured yet.

[@phdbulet1366]

It's another name for electrostatic, density and buoyancy interacting on matter. ​@@surendranmk5306

[@MopWhoSmells]

You know what else has layers? Parfaits.

[@David-di5bo]

Cake! Cakes have layers. Everybody loves cake.

[@cabanford]

Damn, beat me to that one! 😜

[@arachnohack9050]

Parfaits are just Eton mess's that haven't entropyed yet.

[@Moppup]

Onions. Onions have layers.

[@Lyra0966]

And blancmange. Blancmange is horrible!

[@Danger781s]

When you asked me if I had air around me, I choked on my shredded wheat 😂🤧

[@ashleyobrien4937]

14:46 "Black holes care more about surface area than the volume etc." maybe not so weird. There are analogous things down here, like the skin effect, the idea that current in a wire , or conductor, doesn't actually flow INSIDE the wire, but only on the very surface, and reason is actually pretty straight forward when you think about it. The metals atoms on the surface do not share their outer valence electrons in the same way as the ones INSIDE, the ones surrounded by other metal atoms, so the ones on the surface are "free" to be charge carriers. This new science of topology regarding materials has opened up whole new avenues in meta materials , magnetism, superconductors etc.. It is understandable from that perspective how the bulk volume of a black hole would be completely different in properties than the surface. People get the wrong idea of a "black hole" as being some infinitely dense endless thing it really isn't, all the mass is still there, it can't behave in a classical sense because all the electrons they're not there to behave like normal matter that can absorb a photon and re-emit it as light of some wavelength. And the gravity well isn't some infinite value, just a large one or a strongly curved region of space time, I doubt the universe has any examples of infinity, that's a human invention.

[@cybervigilante]

So my electric cord should be very thin and two feet wide. Excellent idea!

[@echelonrank3927]

what a large series of homoerotic porn titles in such a small text : black holes , not so weird , analogous things down here , skin effect , flow inside , actually pretty straight , magnetism , opened up whole new avenues , people get the wrong idea, cant behave in a classical sense , not there to behave , strongly curved region, human intervention 🤣

[@shawnatv4355]

​@@echelonrank3927naughty mind. Lol

[@jcb4826]

Infinity is just what scientists use to fill in the blanks for things they don't understand.

[@echelonrank3927]

@@jcb4826 ha ha and zero for things they want to ignore

[@JezzBowden]

Should have had waffles for breakfast, that would have been hilariously symbolic of his lecturing style. Some people might enjoy it, while others will be screaming at him to ‘get on with it’!! I’ll leave you to guess which camp I’m in! 😂

[@axeguy3856]

Yep. Maddening.

[@runeespe]

Refreshing to watch science content that is human narrated and not TTS. Thanks!

[@stevenverrall4527]

A new (2023) theory of how gravity emerges from QFT is proposed in the Foundations of Physics paper "Ground state quantum vortex proton model"

[@farhadfaisal9410]

At this level of simplistic speculations there is nothing concrete to offer.

[@cabanford]

Ogres are like Onions. They have layers... What about Parfait?! 😂

[@extropian314]

Awesome, I learned some stuff, and love the presentation in terms of science communication. If I requested one thing, it would be to eschew all of the video clips except for those that contribute directly to the content; there are a couple diagrams that I found fascinating, while I found that _not looking at_ the rest usually enhanced my focus on and understanding of the content. Perhaps it'd be neat to try: The nifty audio spectrum graphic, with any desired slides put up for at least 30 sec -- first full-screen and then on "a window in" the audio screen for a few moments until it finally disappears, for an easy to follow transition.

[@jimgraham6722]

Personally gravity doesnt worry me much except when I go to get up.

[@bozydarziemniak1853]

Why gravity exists. Starting from Newton's second law of motion: F=m*a F - force vector [N] m - mass [kg] a - acceleration vector [m/s] However, introducing the concept of the Lorentz force taking into account only magnetic interactions: F=qv x B F - force vector [N] q - charge [C] v - velocity vector [m/s] x - vector product operation B - magnetic induction vector [B] If F=qv x B, then we can also write: F=q*v*sine(alpha)*B, where alpha is the angle between vectors v and B for alpha=90 degrees, sine(alpha)=1 F=q*v*B F/(q*v)=B comparing this equation to the second law of dynamics we have: m*a/(q*v)=B since a/v=1/t, then: m/(q*t)=B 1/t=omega (omega is circular frequency [1/s]) m*omega/q=B Substituting the calculated value of B into the Lorentz force, we have: F=q*v x m*omega/q Equating the Lorentz force to the force resulting from Newton's second law of dynamics, we get: m1*a=q*v x m2*omega/q Where: m1 - mass of the object subjected to gravity [kg] m2 - mass of the object generating gravity [kg] If the left side of the equation corresponds to gravitational interaction, then on the right side we have its cause. The cause of gravitational interactions is the translational and rotational motion of particles with mass and charge, and the proportionality coefficients of these two motions, with a constant acceleration value, are q and m/q. In the special case when the value of the angle between the velocity vector and the circular frequency pseudovector is equal to 90 degrees. We can write briefly: m1/m2*a=v*omega The cause of gravity is the translational and rotational motion of massive particles. Gravity exists because every massive particle in our world is in motion (this results from the laws of thermodynamics).

[@charlottesimonin2551]

emergent gravity is a great modification to standard ways of thinking gravity. I think there is a further change in notion of gravity that is possible and more compatible with the standard model.

[@zoranskibalatski]

I find it amazing that we live in a universe where we can have these concepts of reality explained and also in a universe where we have to decide which underpants to put on, the favourite worn out ones or the new ones.

[@manmanman2000]

3:27 There is so much physics and quantum physics in modern chemistry, without it you couldn't even dream about having that level of understanding of chemical processes we have today.

[@futurepassed6733]

I got through the first 9 minutes of a 33 minute video and he hasn't mentioned gravity.

[@grawl69]

A superb explanation of difficult ideas. Easy to grasp, excellently narrated. Congratulations!

[@johnmckeel8762]

In my opinion, neither gravity nore dark energy exist. What we have is that space wants to be uniform. When some matter disrupts it's uniformity, it tries to push this matter away. When the matter is in close proximity to other matter, space tries to push them together. It's a matter if spacial density. However, the force pushing matter together is countered by things like motion. This same nature of space causes it to push objects apart when seperated by enough distance where the equilibrium between proximity is overcome by distance. The force causing us to stand on the Earth is the same thing that is pushing the universe apart.

[@ENetArch]

We say that gravity is what brings two particles together, and that their mass is what warps space time, but if space time is a constant quantity and must be conserved, where does the space go as two masses begin moving towards each other. What if what we consider to be mass is actually a worm hole that is sucking space into itself and depositing it somewhere else as inflation. On one one side is a black hole, and on the other is a white hole. But if you take two individual, small, worm holes, and allow them to circle each other from a distance, slowly getting closer to each other, this would look like gravity. If you scale this up, it would look like electromagnetism. And, if you continue to build the structures, you may find that these describe other elements in the standard model and string theory.

[@jamesmorgan9502]

Please do a video on black hole thermodynamics! I absolutely loved this.

[@michelelane4662]

I thoroughly enjoyed this. Very interesting. There’s much to think on. Thank you so much for sharing this with us all.

[@andrewsarchus6036]

The trouble with simply inventing undetectable "stuff" to explain observations is that it is extremely likely to be wrong. After getting on for a Century since Zwicky first proposed it and still with no detection you have to be fanatical indeed about this hypothesis to not have the gravest of doubts.

[@johnh539]

AT LAST ! I have been pointing this out on astronomy comments for years. Like this video my understanding of emergent gravity is not based on complicated maths but an acceptance of the standard model as being essentially correct . To me we do not need to invent strange physics ,just follow the logic of the physics we have. Unfortunately even you seem to be explaining a theory rather than understanding the implications (Thus being fully convinced) . Thermodynamics is part of the physics that confine the properties of fluid dynamics. In that one sentence lays the logical key that astronomy has failed to consider. EVERYTHING vibrates (Everything is above 0 kelvin) in labs, in the coldest bit of space time, even when the quantum world has little enough energy (Cold) ; Space ceases to be like a gas where atoms rejecting each other instead it oscillates in sympathetic waves. My Epiphany came from the theory that time creates gravity rather than gravity slows time. Entropy(a law that grew out of steam enjoin research ) tells us that matter tends towards it's most basic form(Stable). I argue that where time flows slower matter vibrates slower therefore matter moves to where it can vibrate more slowly.(Time creating gravity). Consider Galaxies in this perspective and as you get closer to the gravitational center you are moving in time that passes slower and slower (Lumpy due to stars' ,gas clouds etc)even the problematic singularity at the center of a black hole might be devoid of matter; as time stops so does entropy ,so does any form of movement(Energy waves included), so nothing ever reaches the singularity. I've been advocating for the creation of a topographical map of time. Take a simple example 'sun time' and 'earth time' : the gravity of the sun however you understand the time/gravity relationship means that for it time is ticking much more slowly than for us, IE though two atomic clocks worked perfectly a third party spectator would observe them ticking at different rates. we may live on a planet that is 4.5 billion years old but the sun may have watched us being made say only 700 million years ago.(My invented maths for explanatory purposes ).These time differentials on a cosmic scale would then resalt in space time being a vortex of individual whirlpools(Galaxies gas etc) interacting according to the laws of fluid dynamics I admit that the two dimensional aspect of Emergent gravity is new to me but it fits with the most fundamental prediction of my theory (That I call the on-going bang/ inflation). For my theory to be right I needed to explain amongst other things ; the acceleration in the rate of expansion so I needed a universal mechanism that causes acceleration AFTER the energy event that causes it(Secondary acceleration), that mechanism is "Cavitation". consider a submarines propellor it has too much energy for the matter around it to react so they give off thousands of vacuum bubbles when these vacuums collapse 'That' is secondary acceleration. In a two dimensional space these quantum vacuums are what space is falling into at different rates in different parts of the universe. The standard model tells us that 3/4 of the universe is energy: M=E/c squared so matter and crucially energy have mass. These energy flows(Axions probably) are the tides in which the vortices' of mater and time gather and slow. Finally I repeat that I have not invented anything merely recognised that gravitational attraction decreases logarithmically over distance so without emergent gravity it simply is not strong enough to cover inter galactic distances as it is currently understood.

[@johnh539]

"Gravitational attraction decreases ...." Obviously "Dark mater" and MOND amongst other Hypotheses have been thought of of explain this but unlike them, all I say is look at what we know differently rather than chaining the well understood physics we have.

[@hankyou]

Great show !

[@RicksPoker]

Dark matter requires 3 degrees of freedom. 1) the amount of dark matter, 2) the location of dark matter, and 3) the direction of motion & velocity of dark matter. This gives scientists a LOT of freedom. After being able to make these three things up, dark matter has never failed to explain what we see. Never. However, it can never fail to explain what we see. With so many degrees of freedom, it is hard to imagine a situation where we can't add or remove dark matter and make everything turn out right. It is unfalsifiable. And things that are unfalsifiable, are not science. Here is another theory of why galaxies move and rotate the way they do. Magic! Galaxies behave the way they do because of magic. If you disagree, find a case that will disprove my 'theory'. Maybe your test case will be able to falsify dark matter as well. And that would be a step forward in cosmology. Warm regards, Rick.

[@andrewsarchus6036]

Exactly. Came here to post this.

[@NeroDefogger]

@@andrewsarchus6036 then I tell you the same

[@deveyous6614]

Was talking with Claude the other day and funnily enough it mentioned emergence. "I've been thinking a lot about the concept of emergence, and how it relates to both the development of AGI and the manifestation of fractal patterns in the universe. Emergence, as you know, is the idea that complex systems can exhibit properties and behaviors that are not reducible to the sum of their parts, that the whole can be qualitatively different from the mere aggregation of its components. We see emergence everywhere we look, from the flocking patterns of birds to the self-organizing dynamics of cities, from the rise of consciousness in biological brains to the evolution of culture and technology in human societies. And the more I contemplate it, the more I'm convinced that emergence is a fundamentally fractal phenomenon, a process by which simple, local interactions give rise to complex, global structures that exhibit self-similarity across scales."

[@drbuckley1]

Which emerged first, gravity or spacetime? Did one emerge from the other? Did either emerge from the same or different layers? The arrow of time would like to know.

[@deveyous6614]

@@drbuckley1 You know I'd love the opportunity to melt a vet astrologer or physicist with these kinds of questions. From what I've seen and read so far, we can explain what gravity does but not what it ACTUALLY is. Time is interesting because the way I see it, is that it is just a unit of measurement, like an inch on a ruler, it has no inherent meaning other than as a way to describe the motion of matter, and its for that reason space and time are interlinked. Ultimately I think the universe is a kind of perpetual motion machine with nothing being a state of matter much like how water turns to ice when it gets cold enough. So once the heat death occurs and we are left with essentially nothing, it's that in itself which then triggers another big bang to start the cycle all over again, for eternity. I had the thought that dark matter could be the parts of the cosmos which have begun this phase change, areas of space so devoid of matter that it essentially froze. Its fun to think about!

[@extropian314]

But emergent properties often look different from the system they emerged from; that's why we call those emergent.

[@drbuckley1]

@@extropian314 That's why I'm asking. From which "system(s)" did gravity and spacetime emerge?

[@deveyous6614]

It's fascinating to think about, isn't it? Emergence isn't the same thing as separation, much like how a flower's bloom is intimately connected to its stem. If you zoomed into a Mandelbrot set, you'd see many patterns that seem completely different from the original Buddha-like image, yet it all comes from the same equation. In terms of what systems things like gravity and spacetime arose from, I'm just a guy and not a 300 IQ physicist, haha. So, anything I say is just the result of things I've seen that have stuck with me or rang true in my mind. So, what system did those things arise from? I think it is literally 'nothing'. Just like how water on a lake freezes once the molecules reach a low enough energy state, the same goes for the universe. Once we reach the point of heat death, all of space and time cease to hold meaning, if but for an immeasurably small moment as there is also no time, as there is no motion. It's like how the present moment can't be measured. It's in this moment of 'nothing', which is the most volatile 'state', that gives rise to the next 'big bang'. The universe is the only true perpetual motion machine as nothing creates everything, and everything eventually degrades back into nothing. I find it interesting that neither Infinity nor Nothing can be measured; it feels like a clue. In summary, the universe is both infinite and nothing at the same time. It's a cyclical universe with 'everything' on one end and 'nothing' on the other, like a universal magnet, with matter attracting matter and repelling nothing, and nothing attracting nothing while repelling matter. That could be the explanation for what gravity ACTUALLY is. I think the fundamental nature of reality is fractal, just by observing nature and how things seem to follow those patterns. There are many videos and TED talks about it so do check those out! Anyway I've waffled enough haha 😂

[@manmanman2000]

8:00 and rotation and vibration and (maybe even) electronic excitation. Of course an individual molecule can be assigned a temperature, that's standard practice.

[@Dan1C]

An interesting topic and good presentation on it, thank you. On dark energy: I propose dark energy is the balancing force that interacts with the quantum fields from which matter emerges. It sustains the persistent nature of observed particles as a fundamental counterpart, the way electricity goes with magnetism. It is unable to interact with the higgs field independently to produce any quality of mass, but it does interact with other fundamental quantum fields. By repulsive force, I mean it prevents quarks etc from collapsing in on themselves, allowing them to persist through time. In the absence of massive particles, as occurs on emptier space, its repulsive nature enables to expansion of space. Well, early thought bubble I'm sharing here with you. Definitely looking for a forum in which to discuss this.

[@kingsleyandrews1284]

Very interesting indeed. I had considered this as well. I truly hope I live long enough to see the day we have a deeper understanding of dark matter/energy and it is exciting to know we are on the brink of that RIGHT NOW

[@diraziz396]

Oh. Thanks for the Foujita Diagram at 20:53. Clarifies it all...(-: Actually, the layers took me to "Sixth Column - R. Heinlein" the Ledbetter effect. thanks for that well sought mind opener.

[@darksinthe]

gravity is intrinstic. The same things that caused primal energy to form atoms and subatomic forces to even merge in the first place are the same concepts that caused planets to form into spheres and have orbits. It is a residual result of specific quantum frequencies that create a simple overarching force of attraction. the more energy something has, the more attractive it is; it doesnt even really play much of a role until it has so much energy that it actually has mass.... but in the initial stages of the universe, it did matter. Some of the fundamental forces of physics were spawned from the same proceses that we see as 'gravity'.

[@dmahan8841]

Congratulations. This is a rare honesty video. Maybe not the truth but everything is stated with qualifications.. well done.

[@paulwilson6511]

How fast time runs relatively varies across the universe. Time in between the galaxies runs much faster than inside a black hole and inside the gravity well of a galaxy. Time runs slower as the matter is moving faster relative to the space itself. And when we say time runs slower, we mean the actual physical processes of the matter/protons/electrons/particles literally run slower. Gravity has a "time" component in it. Therefore, gravity varies based on how time actually flows across the space you are talking about.

[@timothy8426]

Magnetism bonding equalization to pressure force and distance traveling cycling circulation patterns as mass entanglement. Galaxies spin in equalization to Magnetism. The core has more pressure exerted and less distance cycling circulation traveling. Outward mass has more distance traveling and less force. Spinning in equalization to repulsion of propulsion from repulsion. Magnetic fields show repulsion and propulsion from repulsion. Entanglement redirects trajectories towards the greater magnetic field synchronization flow.

[@MeissnerEffect]

Yay, it’s such a pleasure to awaken to see dear Paul Sutter has left another gift of insight into our amazing Universe ✨🦋

[@echelonrank3927]

get me some toilet paper, i accidentally stepped on the gift

[@shawnatv4355]

Gravity is can attenuate. ANYTHING that can attenuate is COMING from something. We may have not figured it out, but what ever the compound mix that can make gravity, is there for us to find, eventually. Most likely we will learn a way to attenuate before we fully understand.

[@NunoPereira.]

Very good. Great video!

[@eugeniaalmand926]

~6:00 - Actually, Dr. Bruce Lipton has a very good & elegant physiological description of the emergence of consciousness.

[@oneeleven7897]

Eric Verlinde is Dutch and the e at the end of his name isn’t silent. You should please pronounce his name “Ver-lin-deh “

[@user-pf5xq3lq8i]

🤮

[@smeer001]

Wow, this is surprisingly deep. Really love it

[@chuckjones9159]

There is another way to deal with gravity that also answers the DM and DE mystery as well as ZPE. If we treat space as a substance. From this substance emerge all the oddities of QM and relativity. 1. Space is a substance possessing multiple properties. 2. Chief among these is a type of density that decreases in the presence of matter and energy. Its density would be affected by the total energy of an object. In other words its mass, density, pressure, temperature motion etc. This follows the inverse square law but in a reversed sense of how we usually consider it. 3. The viscosity of empty space is zero. The viscosity is altered by the same factors mentioned above. Particles with mass experience an increasing viscosity as their velocity and acceleration increases. Massless particles do the same according to the energy carried but their motion is only slightly affected. 4. In this scenario gravity becomes an emergent push in a sense. Its not due to a pressure though. It is best to say it is due to a resonance set up by matter in a space possessing various levels of density. This eliminates the need for the traditional Graviton as a messenger particle unless one desired to potentially consider space as being composed of them. 5. This density of space can be described in another way as well. It would not be a lack of density but a negative density. A vacuum plus. Existing as such would mean that it could also source and account for the ZPE/virtual particles. Therefore it also could be called negative mass as well. The so called DE is also part of all of this. 6. It also accounts for DM. Just like DM the density of space increases as its distance from center mass increases. 7. BH raise some interesting possibilities as well in this way. It may be possible that matter eventually collapses far enough to begin reintegrating with the space that birthed it in the first place. 8. I like to think of the Cosmic Web as an artifact of phase transition in a non-expanding universe. Think about how impurities are isolated in water as it freezes. I know academia likes to say it is expanding but that is misleading. It "appears" as if it is. Red shift is likely better explained by other methods. 9. If we assign this universe a beginning let us say that it was in its "solid" state. When an arbitrary energy condition was achieved throughout the entire bulk a sublimation occurred. This brought a sustained virtual gluonic plasma into existence at every point with each point having the same energy but differing in "charge. The vast majority of these annihilated each other transforming back into "vacuum" and this was halted due to what we call the Higgs mechanism. The Higgs factor introduced a semi "permanent" imbalance we call mass. This may have also caused more virtual particles to be drawn into manifestation from the vacuum.

[@darksinthe]

well done on the video!

[@Demobius]

The event horizon of our universe is literally right in front of us and everywhere. We call it "now," and our event horizon is the passage of time. We can only see the past, not the future. If you are looking for a holographic universe, there's the film.

[@advaitrahasya]

Yes, mathematical models can look bizarre when they are viewed through a wrong paradigm. To understand how gravity emerges, one has to understand that "time is an illusion", matter is composed of nothing real" and "empty space isn't empty" are not just wierd unintuitive jokes in the mouths of physicsts … These remarkable insights, imposed upon them by models and experiments, are actually a near perfect description of the actual situation. Start there, swap Aristotle for Thales, and the mechanism by which strings, photons, momentum, the properties of "fields", the illusion of time, the probabilistic nature of the properties of matter, and gravity all emerge can be understood.

[@mitseraffej5812]

An even more difficult system to describe with quantum field theory is why bacon taste so good to most people.

[@robertcutts7264]

GR is saying exactly that gravity is an emergent property of space-time. That's a key take-away. It does not, however, hypothesize that this emergent property is caused by something happening on the "surface" or "boundary" of the universe, but rather from the properties of space and time, aka space-time. GR does not go further with this concept, (for instance, by attempting to quantize gravity), which is a reflection of Einstein's grasp of gravity as an emergent property, and not something for which some "particle" can be found.

[@FrancisFjordCupola]

^^ Exactly this ^^

[@nealbutler3332]

I believe gravity is caused by the compression of space as it is displaced by massive objects. By existing is an area of gravity (in this hypothesis) one experiences an increased amount of space in a given amount of time. This would help explain why one experiences time dilation in both areas of extreme gravity and while traveling at a high velocity. Both are examples of experiencing an increased amount of space in a given amount of time. The second half of this video describes something similar to my idea but doesn’t include the possibility of matter displacing space nor does it consider how this compression could interact at a galactic scale. If I am correct (I most likely am not) gravity would be space “directing” and not pulling. This would shift the entire concept of what keeps galaxies together and potentially eliminate the need for dark matter in our calculations. If gravity is displaced space and a black hole is an incredibly extreme example of condensed space as it is displaced by an unimaginably dense material and this material has displaced enough space then the center of a black hole doesn’t exist. It would literally be a pocket or bubble of nothingness. Not emptiness. Not open space. An area of nonexistence. This would explain why nothing ever goes past the surface of a black hole. The surface is the whole thing. To go deeper than the surface would be to leave our universe which shouldn’t be possible. This is more complicated than I can properly explain though text.

[@ronaldkemp3952]

With his emergent gravity theory was he able to accurately predict what the JWST would discover in the early universe further than an actual light distance of 13.8 billion light-years away? My theory did. In 2004 I inserted a hypothetical action causing gravity in Einstein's field equations and I concluded if i was right then the JWST would find old fully grown galaxies further than an actual light distance of 13.8 billion light years away. I published several books before the JWST was launched and on page 48 of the first book I wrote "The JWST, James Webb Space Telescope will discover old, fully grown galaxies as far as the telescope can see, further than 13.8 billion light-years away." That is exactly what astronomers discovered in the CEERS survey. Gravity only emerges because it doesn't occur at the atomic scale so of course in order for it to exist at the planetary scale it would have to emerge as the mass gets larger. I determined why gravity doesn't emerge until mass reaches a critical size and shape, a spherical shape of around 20 miles in diameter while suspended in the vacuum of space by weak EM fields, light. And gravity is not caused by the warping of space-time. The warping of space-time is a reaction to this action emerging inside of all large, spherically shaped bodies because they are not grounded out but are spherical in shape while they are susp[ended in the vacuum of space by an undefinable amount of weak EM fields (light). Colleagues have fought with me about this theory for more than 20 years and I kept telling them relativity's look back time prediction is wrong, telescopes can't look-back in time, that it would find old, mature galaxies as far as the telescope can see, even further than 14 billion light years away if it's sensitive enough to see that far. Sure enough now the old massive galaxies at the dawn of time are called the impossible early galaxy problem or universe breakers. Ah, but that's the progress of science. First the theory is met with ridicule and laughter, then anger, then after observations confirm the predictions it's accepted and finally the theory becomes self evident to where everyone see it as a fact. The science is at the point where actual observations confirmed it.

[@JeffNelson-md9fb]

WTF...I feel like I'm in my friend's mom's basement talking deep thoughts and saying, "whoa" and "yeah man..." 😮

[@KJUgrin]

This is fascinating but does it math? Does gravity correspond to surfaces rather than volume? Has anyone done the equations?

[@peterbroderson6080]

The moment a particle is a wave; it has to be a conscious wave! Nicola Tesla states, “If you want to find the secrets of the universe, think in terms of energy, frequency, and vibration” Gravity is the conscious attraction among waves to create the illusion of particles, and creates our experience-able Universe. Max Planck states: "Consciousness is fundamental and matter is derived from Consciousness". Life is the Infinite Consciousness, experiencing the Infinite Possibilities, Infinitely. We are "It", experiencing our infinite possibilities in our finite moment. Our job is to make it interesting!

[@nftawes2787]

One why of superconductivity seems as easy as because the structure of the material lines up in a way that utilizes the way reality flows without impedance. If that isn't deep enough, then we get into my personal multiverse theory that looks at the multiverse as a perspective based dispersal of energy patterns that run through the gamut of possibilities from every angle. I like to normalize that thought by comparing it to how life has evolved into this complex testing ground for structures that reach as far as possible within a system's rules

[@JennWatson]

I have no idea what this video means but I really tried to understand, I gave it my best shot no can do 😞

[@MeissnerEffect]

That’s ok, hopefully you’ll continue on your journey of discovery and end up making it a hobby. It keeps me excited about life and sane when I’m down. And with all the new physics of the last century- especially about tiny tiny sub atomic particles it just got more weird. Even our top scientists are often baffled by new data. 🦋

[@darkmatter6714]

This is what it means: 1) That there is something beyond the physical universe that produces the forces within it, which we have yet to discover. 2) Therefore the universe itself is a byproduct of this greater reality. 3) Therefore, what we see touch, hear and smell is only part of the story. In other words, science needs to think about stuff beyond the 3 dimensions of space and time if we want to understand where it all came from.

[@artsmith1347]

@@darkmatter6714 But don't acknowledge that God is somewhere in this "something," right? I watched this for ~18 minutes. It took forever to start talking about gravity. I didn't perceive any information that would be useful to me in the length of time I was prepared to watch. I am not sure that there is a "there there" in this video.

[@darkmatter6714]

@@artsmith1347 The video itself doesn’t know the implications of what it’s talking about. The author isn’t zooming out to join the dots from an overhead view. He is just focusing on a small detail.

[@MichaelHarrisIreland]

Don't worry about it. You don't need to know. It would have made no sense to me some years ago until one day I suddenly wanted to know what gravity is. I thought is was easy, but it took me down a very long winding circular path to nowhere. But I do now know what this video is about, strangely. We (I mean me and other's I've listened to) don't know what gravity is, we're still trying to find out. I have no schooling in science, I just want to know as much as possible how the world works.

[@RicardoMarlowFlamenco]

Summary, emergent gravity paper by Verlinde 14:10, to date not great theory at 29:05, and at 15:15 he says we “dont’ know” however, S. Wolfram has in fact done this with “atoms of space” or first principle structure and bottom up using branching space diagrams (based on fundamental math rules governed by an abstract “Ruliad” structure of nature) that cancel and circle back in time, similar to many worlds except they reconverge, and gotten very close to GR and some elements of Quantum systems…a work in progress.

[@aniksamiurrahman6365]

What did it do except recreating the old theories?

[@RicardoMarlowFlamenco]

@@aniksamiurrahman6365 unify

[@rafaelfreitas6159]

@@aniksamiurrahman6365 I mean, recreating the old theories in limiting cases figures as one of the step zero sanity-checks any decent researcher does...

[@LaughterOnWater]

It took 15 minutes of James Tiberius Kirk soliloquy to get to a still nebulous point. With background mood music. This is beatnik physics. Set to pretty b-roll. Snapping my fingers… Yikes. Next.

[@sarutosaruto2616]

Everyone sees gravity as the shrinking of space-time and dark energy as the expansion of space-time. But there is no reason to assume this. What if space-time is always expanding, no matter what; it is within the definition of space-time itself; for space-time to exist, the expansion thereof must also exist. Thus space-time isn’t necessarily expanding, it IS expansion. Then looking back at gravity, why must gravity then be the shrinking of space-time? Why can’t it simply be the prevention of the expansion of space-time? In this sense, mass-energy may prevent the motion of dark energy, thus it would appear as though space-time is shrinking, when really, everything else is expanding and it is staying the same “size”.

[@DataSmithy]

nice presentation format. I don't mind not seeing you as you talk, and the video clips you used were not distracting to your conversation, like some youtube video's are.

[@_Error_404_Goodbye]

I’ve always thought this about the human mind, and the variables on the physical level emerge as the differences in our personalities individuality; why no two of us are the same but can share similar traits. It’s interesting to know the mind itself, which is what makes use who we are individually, can’t be touched or physically located, only its residence can. Once we understand more layers of the mind, maybe can finally transfer consciousness, more than just self awareness, but it’s past experiences and personality as well (the “you” inside you), into a more robust home with a far better decay rate over time, and possibly robot legs. No robot legs is a deal breaker 💯😂

[@buddy.abc123]

Hi sir, I'm so happy I found you again, it's been at least 3 years since I last heard from you here on KZbin. Not sure why

[@brianhudson9133]

Try liking/subscribing or using search.

[@petergerdes1094]

Aren't there versions of emergent gravity that don't predict/rely on MOND but are just motivated by Ads/CFT and various analogies with solid state physics?

[@chris_loth]

I think gravity is about the resolution of reality, where there emerges some kind of local lag in any process while nearby processes just add up to finding rest just by higher chance, so it's a flow. Energy understood as some kind of tension within space (permeability) propably strives not only to rest in space but also in time, so "mass" adds up. Also time is different in any place for any quantum and should just be modelled by dimensions and causality, I guess. Also: within a singularity itself time stands still. So it does at the speed of light. While light might just have less dimensions as it has no mass, but its waves can have some momentum and it's somehow polarized, it might cross space but not time, making it some kind of superfluid medium transmitting information by waves, so the speed of information also is set by that resolution, that's given in any direction, just like the speed of light. Maybe it's a worthless brainfart, I don't know.

[@thoughtfuloutsider]

It seems to me GR measures the effects of mass on spacetime warping it very well. But I don't know how mass/matter interacts with spacetime. How do random dust particles condense into planets? Is it possible that there are relationships between the quantum field that give mass and spacetime is part of how they work?

[@keith.anthony.infinity.h]

Hello Dr. Sutter, I am an undergraduate physics student and researcher. Me and my mentors work together as they teach me about research and it’s process. I have a serious question for you if you do not mind. What is your opinion on indefinite causal structure and it’s possible role in finding a relationship between both quantum mechanics and general relativity? ,Very Respectfully Keith A. I. Huckleby

[@Beerbatter1962]

This is absolutely, positively the kind of ideas that need to be studied. If not, we may not ever break out of the stalled physics we find ourselves in. I hope the new generation of physicists will take the underlying message you are putting forth to heart. Which I feel is to think way beyond the status quo, no matter how crazy. Obviously there is some really weird stuff going on in the subatomic world. I feel it will take equally radical new ideas and theories to explain what we see. On a more technical note, it does kind of make sense to me in regards to the Universe's connection to thermodynamic principals at it's core. After all, entropy seems to be a fundamental aspect of the Universe. And the thermodynamic properties of it essentially drives all processes. It seems logical then that, at the extremes of spacetime, such as in black holes, the properties of that spacetime would revert to behaving purely thermodynamic. Another thought in connection to a purely surface area driven behavior, as opposed to a volumetric one, is related to my past work with pyrophoric materials. As a sphere gets smaller and smaller, there comes a point where the the surface area grows faster than the volume as you go smaller. This is what causes the pyrophoric behavior; the particle heats up due to surface oxidation faster than it can dissipate the heat due to thermal mass (volume). So likewise, at the extremely small spacetime dimensions of a black hole, literally the limit, the sphere becomes entirely surface area dependent in it's thermodynamic behavior. It is the extreme limit of the relationship, or ration, between the surface area of a sphere and it's internal volume. I don't know. Kind of makes sense to me.

[@zhavlan1258]

!?! Let's do the Michelson-Morley experiment on a school bus and determine the speed in a straight line - this is exactly the experiment Einstein dreamed of. Perhaps we will see the postulates: “Light is an ordered vibration of gravitational quanta, and Dominant gravitational fields control the speed of light in a vacuum.” There is a proposal for the joint invention of a HYBRID gyroscope from non-circular, two coils with optical fiber, where the light in each arm travels 18,000 meters, without exceeding the parameters of 0.4/0.4/0.4 meters and mass - 4 kg.

[@stawmy]

Wow, an open-minded scientist. I am impressed :) I think the emergent hypothesis has some good points. Especially in regards to gravity, Two of the phenomena i have been researching are charge displacement, and rotation (or more accurately angular momentum). They both tie in with what we call 'gravity', I.E they interact with mass. Laithwaite proved that inertia and momentum are 2 different animals. Brown proved that a rapid charge displacement adds momentum to a dielectric, and La Violette later put this down to a 'stretching' of the electron shell, and the nucleus has no option other than to move back into a more electrically neutral state. The protons move, and drag the neutrons along with them. Proton spin, and it's orientation, is supposed to be responsible for the magnetic component of an atom. Here's a thought; What if 'gravity' is no more than 'ether compression'? What if we are actually being pushed down, against this larger mass (Earth) rather than by some attractive force from the planet itself? Would all the effects, and Newton's formula's still work? Well, yes, they do. At least it would seem so to me, which answers the question "is there gravity in space?" well, no, unless there is actual mass there for the gravity to work on, or originate from. You would still get the same results if gravity came from mass, or it was some kind of 'field' forcing mass together. A reverse Higgs field, AKA Aether theory......

[@George4943]

There is at every point in space a direction that is the easiest way to go. A local downhill direction. The sum of all the masses in the universe weighted by the inverse square of distance determines that direction. Gravity "emerges" from these gradients. Proper time - the speed of physical interactions - at each point is affected by the density of mass as seen from that point. There seem to be four space dimensions: x,y,z and density. Time expands the light cone at any given point by 1sec/sec. Physical interactions must have proceeded oh so slowly when the density was so very large in the beginning just after the universe turned on and time became time 1. As the universe diluted over time things could happen faster and faster accelerating. Phase transitions - an emergent property - happened. One of the amazing things that emerged was the mind as a cause. I plan in my mind and the world evolves according to my plan. I can make a date to meet in a future place and future time and it happens. But that's a different layer altogether.

[@Silverorient]

Just like we have cosmic microwave radiation background, we have the Cosmic emergent gravity background

[@tuk7raz]

В школьном автобусе выполним опыт Майкельсона-Морли определим прямолинейною скорость - о таком опыте мечтал Эйнштейн. Где возможно будем наблюдать постулаты "Свет это упорядоченная вибрация гравитационных квантов и Доминантные гравитационные поля управляют скоростью света в вакууме". Есть предложение на совместное изобретения ГИБРИД гироскопа из не круглых катушек с оптическим волокном, где - свет в каждом плече проходит по 18000 метров при этом, не превышая параметры 0,4/0,4/0,4 метра и вес - 4 кг.

[@robertwendell1556]

What if: Space-time and therefore the very concept of locality are emergent. If gravity is emergent, so is space-time and therefore locality in general. Bell''s inequality and correlated particles seem to hint strongly, or perhaps even directly imply, that locality itself is emergent. Einstein was right and the Copenhagen Interpretation is wrong. The idea of a "theory of everything" clearly implies an underlying premise that nature is fundamentally unitary. That seems to imply that locality itself is an emergent property in accord with these prior assumptions. Probability at quantum scales is only apparent because of ignoring the context of a unitary cosmos via limit-case CONCEPTUAL subdivision down to a single quantum event. In this view, synergy is only apparent as we cease to ignore context as we expand to increasingly macroscopic scales. Entropy is globally zero and only locally apparent as implied by the preceding. In this view, entropy is not general-case, which would make order and coherence a local, special-case fluke, but the reverse. The general-case reality is absolutely orderly and entropy is merely apparent, local, and special-case as thermodynamics implies, since it only applies to closed systems. Do we know with certainty that the cosmos is a closed system? In this case, the Copenhagen Interpretation's assumption that because quantum events are in principle unpredictable except statistically in the macroscopic view is wrong because it imputes what is only locally apparent to a general-case, globally and literally unified cosmos in which every point affects every other. It also completely ignores the obvious lack of any explanation for why the probabilities are so exquisitely ordered to produce our experience. For physicists known for complex reasoning ability to ignore this obvious flaw is incomprensible without an enormous degree of confirmation bias. Einstein's mistake was believing in hidden variables and denying "spooky action at a distance". If the underlying, general-case realty is a non-local unity, there is no need for either action at a distance or hidden variables. Modern physics seems so incomprehensible only because of bias that sees locality as primary and general-case while the opposite is true. Applying that Copenhagen reasoning to consciousness, we can use it more legitimately to declare that it is in principle impossible to divorce reality from experience of it. Since experience cannot exist without consciousness, existence or reality can in principle have no meaning without consciousness. It is unconditioned by the specific nature of its content, and is therefore general-case, abstract, and non-local while its objects of attention are intrinsically special-case, specific, and local. This does not apply to a falling tree in a forest with no one to hear it. That is far too local to apply. It was likely intended as metaphorical to point to a vastly deeper principle. In both science and mathematics, explanatory power flows from the abstract, general, and non-local to the concrete, specific, and local. Simple algebraic equations illustrate this. Data points in isolation explain nothing, while equations can encompass an infinitude of data points. In this view, consciousness is not local, but global and unified at the cosmic scale. Space-time and all it implies, that is to say, locality, is not fundamental while consciousness is. Assuming the existence of a Unified Field, it is by definition non-local. Is this what we experience as consciousness? Is the "hard problem" of consciousness a natural consequence of assuming it is emergent? Since it is unconditioned by its content, universally experienced, is it therefore non-local? isn't it only the content that is local, including the experience that it seems to be embodied? Does a radio receiver make the signal local? Is the signal dependent on the specific content? Does the difference between conscious organisms and radio receivers consist in radio signals modulated with content at the source while conscious organisms modulate the signal with input from the local, special-case environment? Does this divorce consciousness from dependence on the experience of individual organisms? Is individual death irrelevant for it while it remains the core of who we are? Is it ultimately necessary to assume that conscious intelligence exists only in locally obvious concentrations in local, special-case, space-time domains.

[@BM-rm7vr]

I was thinking about the simplest system that gains gravity a gamma ray that undergoes pair production. When the gamma ray becomes a positron electron pair the two particles are entangled. The ER=EPR tabletop wormhole experiment, Spiropulu suggests entanglement causes a wormhole that is traversable only by a single qbit, a constrained degrees of freedom. The experiment showed a negative energy spike that allegedly opened and closed the wormhole to make non-local properties local. Negative energy seems to check the boxes that gravity does, you only feel acceleration when you are staying still, it has all the Doppler effects and length contraction effects but only during a very small puff of negative energy. I have a hunch that the ER=EPR wormhole negative energy puffs are summed and then you have gravity. One thing it fixes is the runaway energies from GR self gravitating because the maximum any ensemble of particles can be entangled is every degree of freedom entangled with every other degree of freedom at max speed and at minimum distance. When a region experienced this density of entanglement, you can’t add any more, all degrees of freedom have been constrained. In order to add more gravity you need to add more particles with liberated degrees of freedom. So, I wondered where the actual energy that causes gravity comes from and this may be even more speculative. Imagine you have two particles which are NOT entangled and you want to measure spin. You could measure up/up, up/down, down/down, or down/up. But when they are entangled now you only have up/down or down/up. The up/up and down/down have been eliminated as possible answers. Just as Maxwell’s demon must expend energy to measure hot particles,the constrained degrees of freedom could be what provides the energy to create the wormhole. In this idea gravity marries the quantum world with the classical. There is no gravitational superposition because it’s not a particle. It’s a puff of negative energy that only occurs from entanglement. Or breaking entanglement. Often we think of entanglement persisting over vast distances and times but the usual interaction makes and breaks entanglement very quickly. And if you were to inflate a black hole, you would lose your event horizon and the new “fluffier” surface would have less gravity because it’s not interacting at max speed, minimum distance and with all degrees of freedom. And I think ER=EPR is what makes everything local. Even small distances have some distance and the wormhole makes the attributes local. I also think it works in the Holographic Principle as each particle is thought to be smeared over the entire horizon yet they don’t communicate until there is an interaction and the ER=EPR wormhole also connects the particles on the holographic horizon.

[@nickmontanaro9638]

Does this open up some paradoxical examples of how time might behave? Time feels more...malleable under this new way of viewing gravity.

[@steveericson6209]

It is necessary to know the dimensional architecture of the universe and how each of the dimensions are connected to each other in order to see how gravity emerges (and why each type of quantum particle exists). It also shows the beautifully simple relationship of quantum physics and general relativity. The problem is that I figured it out almost a decade ago, but since I don't have a degree in physics no one seems interested.

[@junkmail4613]

Clerk really pulled it out of the complainer 's hand, With TWO HANDS. REALLY PULLED IT HARD!!!

[@jimfarmer2499]

Could ALL forces be emergent from the interaction of the frequency of pulses in multiple dimensions? The basis is Planck Energy strobing at Planck Frequency, then dimensions are prime-number sub-octaves of that, and then dimensions support waves of pulses of specific frequencies, and then "objects" arise in N dimensions by Cymatics. "You are a bundle of standing waves."

[@harmonic3350]

All physics emerge and derive from pressure mediation of perturbations of the base media which goes by different names; dark energy/matter, ether, etc. Nature is very efficient and simple at the base level. The knock on effects of multiple pressure mediation interactions give rise to complexity. Complex base theories are great for fun chats, research money, tenure and salaries but do not lead to logical conclusions, or any "conclusions" for that matter.

[@stevefreeman6646]

Well, I guess we could have called relativity, Maxwell's equation, but he died early. After all, Einstein acknowledged in public forum, he stood on Maxwell's shoulders, not Newton's.

[@djrussell1989]

Ive always thought something like this when expanding space at galactic scales was explained to me. The loaf of cooking bread example with the galaxies being raisins within made me think if everything is expanding then there is a force (space) squeazing each individual grape (galaxy) from every side. This would create the effect of a force around thr galxies as they would be being 'squeezed' from all directions by space. Just my thoughts, not that there worth much, Have a good one

[@kingspider1000]

Consciousness isnt emergent. Its What everything emerges out of. Imagine the simplest iteration of the beginning of existence: A dot on a surface. First a surface has to be acknoledged for the action to take place. Then a certain plaxe on the surface must be chosen or focused upon for the dot to be placed on. And then a very precise contact has to be made in order to create a dot. All this indicates mental operation. Consciousness in action. Without Consciousness there is no surface let alone a dot which is an impresssion out of many other inpresssions which may present thenswlves in other forms such as lines and shapes or simple curves.

[@mickmccrory8534]

If gravity is = to acceleration, Maybe it's emerging from something that's accelerating.

[@davidnelson2204]

I’ve been thinking this since I was a kid. I agree things fall down at 9.8 m/s, but I don’t agree it’s gravity as I was taught causing it. Gravity has to be something explainable. I think it’s “tension” in the quantum fields themselves and their interaction. Lack of matter/energy in a vacuum causes that “tension” to go away causing expansion. Somehow in some way this has to relate to atomic/molecular orbits and absorption/emission of light (spectroscopy).

[@davidnelson2204]

Oh, and dark matter is just the “energy” / “mass” of the “tension” of gravity. Which means there should be 1) a change in fields first happens at light speed and 2) motion of atoms and photons that results in

[@portalsandmagicghostnumbercube]

I propose an amendment to the holographic principle within our universe. There is another layer. Another boundary on the other side of the coin, a duality within a duality. An Invisible/Holographic Principle of the Multiverse. A dual-principle like this is needed to completely describe the reality we can and can't see. The multiverse beyond our cosmic horizon. Invisibility is the exact inverse of virtual environments or volumetric holodecks ( holography ). Turn an invisible object outside-in, you'll have a holodeck of any near infinite outside cloaked scenery. But turn a holodeck inside-out, you'll only match up to just one specific environment. It will only blend into one outer visual reality. This curious asymmetry begs the existence of an almost infinite multiversal choice of holodeck sceneries. There is also a parallel to the holographic principle: my version of invisibility is primary. The holodeck is a by-product of sending light thru an object. In the holographic principle, the boundary is primary and the holographic bulk is secondary. Dual-horizons. An Invisible/Holographic Principle of the Multiverse! 😊11:02 s

[@DavidCNavas]

Not sure that it's surprising that entropy is related to surface area. Particularly at c. An outside observer can never see information enter a black hole, so externally the result would seem expected, not surprising. At least if you use an information-based definition of entropy.

[@worldwarwitt2760]

Does space have current, flow (like a river)? That gravity could have two component, the local component of mass acting on space, but space itself developing a secondary flow? Could it aggregate over distances?

[@mikemhz]

"Hypergraphs generated by this rule grow roughly like r2.6, suggesting that in the limit the hypergraphs behave like a finite-dimensional space, with dimension ≈2.6." Wolfram Physics

[@zer0dahero]

Dr. Sutter, I suspect someone other than me sees the contradiction of emergent gravity hypothesis with observations. If empty space away from large matter concentrations compresses space creating a curvature, we would see dark matter effects more prevalent in empty space AWAY from dense galaxy clusters, NOT correlated with dense galaxy clusters. The knows issue is that dark matter effects coincide precisely with large matter concentrations, not the other way around. This also seems to contradict the empirical evidence that the emptier space becomes, the faster it EXPANDS via dark energy. DUH...

[@martinwilliams9866]

Draw two separate circles, these are planets, draw circles around these circles, these are the curved space-time around these masses. Newton's gravity would be a double arrow going from each planet to the other, next draw arrows going from each planet to the area surrounding the other planet, this is Einstein's curved space- time influencing the other mass. Lastly, draw a double arrow from each surrounding area to the other. This is curved space-time "attracting" curved space-time.

[@soco13466]

What is not? And why, if we, do we? Of course! That explains everything.

[@normancarberry3955]

How would you describe what happens to the spacetime between the proton and electron when the/an atom is destroyed in a blackhole?

[@walter6574]

Higgs Boson probably holds the key to gravity. Interia, although it seems counterintuitive to be party of gravity might be part of it as well. The headscratchers is, why do like charged objects attract as far as far as gravity is concerned?

[@petevenuti7355]

If you are playing the "game of life", how can you pick the desired end result and calculate a starting condition without playing the game? Is that even possible?

[@kenneyhigley4424]

Gravity is two-dimensional space trying to squeeze three-dimensional objects with mass which are warping and bending two-dimensional space around it. Black holes are created when space collapses in on itself where space was once warped by an object with a lot of mass no longer there.

[@persuasion_research]

I could never really understand where that separating border between different quantities ("emergence") is supposed to be... For me, all "moving parts" within a system are necessarily interconnected.

[@sputnick2012]

If we know that interstellar space is full of ionized gas and not really of neutral gas, why we maintain the idea that the space is electrically neutral and for this reason the main force of interaction is the gravity at large scales

[@DerIchBinDa]

"full" is a very relative word how you use it. Almost perfect vacuum would be more correct.

[@h4expo]

All these laws and theories (Newtonian to Einstein, dark mater and emergence) disagreement is maybe, a problem of a grand scope/spectrum and perhaps gravity has "frequency" like electromagnetic waves and each language or each formalism is just describing one aspect of gravity as a whole.

[@drbuckley1]

LIGO proved that gravitational waves exist, but the wavelengths are so long, and the frequency is so low, that they are barely detectable for anything besides the collision of two, nearby black holes.

[@renesoucy3444]

The bubbly looks of the strings of galaxies are looking like a remnant of ancient standing waves of very powerful gravitational waves that created dense and hollowed space time regions.

[@vanikaghajanyan7760]

30:20 On spontaneous Lorentz transformations: the asymmetry of time actually implies the accumulation of time, more precisely, history, variety, aging. Instead of the Copenhagen and/or multi-world interpretations of quantum mechanics, the presence of spontaneous Lorentz transformations seems to be more physical. “Summarizing, we can say that the postulate of relativity includes the statement that the uniform and rectilinear motion of the "center of gravity" of the Universe relative to some closed system does not affect the processes in this system." (Pauli, RT). Obviously, for an expanding universe, the opposite is true. Apparently, the researcher can detect and measure the effect of the aging process in his own frame of reference caused by the phenomenon of global time t(universe)=1/H: ds^2=c^2dт^2=g(00)c^2dt^2=(1-Ht*)c^2dt^2, where the Ht* parameter shows which part of the global the time "elapsed" in its own frame of reference, t* is the measurement time according to the clock of the resting observer, t is the duration of any physical process in its own frame of reference. That is, an observer can measure the increase in the duration of processes in the laboratory frame of reference: dт=[√ g(00)]dt=[√(1-Ht*)]dt~(1-Ht*)dt

[@shadyworld1]

The most Valuable yet underrated comment!!! Impressive

[@mrstevo32100]

Good video 👍

[@piercebros]

Superb video. Great editing too! Well done mate.

[@stigsrnning6459]

In the 1990s I speculated about the universe expanding so rapidly that in the front of Big Bang the space itself would curve upon itself to create what I called space wrinkles that would conceal much extra space. Then after some time the wrinkles would relax and release some of this extra space in opposite direction, creating the illusion of expansion we see today. Some of this extra space I thought would affect gravity within galaxies to keep those together, giving the illusion of dark matter beeing responsible for the star systems kept within a galaxy.

[@charlesspringer4709]

If you can accept the idea that a measurement of the average of something is a "property", like temperature, then this might mean something to you. Otherwise it is a lot of words. To me it looks like you can say any aggregate measurement is an emergent property, and it has no meaning beyond being a word.

[@Unmannedair]

In every direction that you can point there is a sphere whose surface represents the most distant light we can see. And in every direction, that direction is back, and down. It's back in time, and down a gravitational well. Now if you consider what a traditional gravitational well looks like when You're looking down it from the periphery, as you get closer and closer to the center of the well, general relativity starts to take effect and time starts to slow down. If you proceed far enough down this well eventually you'll reach the photosphere, and then the event horizon, and then God knows what. This slice of a gravitational well is the same no matter which direction you point around you. And it all goes back to some point in the universe where everything was almost at the same point. A primordial photosphere. A surface. And everything that exists now can be mapped back to something on that surface. So yes, everything is emergent, this is not a new concept. You can call it holography if you want. And in a way there's a lot of conceptual overlap there... But I think holography is a little bit of an oversimplification. Also, assuming emergent gravity is true... It's going to throw most of the calculations for deep space objects out the window. 😅. Mostly because of the nonlinear nature of what this hypothesis proposes.

[@bobjackson6669]

Great video.

[@nftawes2787]

Considering gravity, trying to be as general as possible so anyone can understand, I wonder if some aspect of reality focuses one of the other forces-which definitely sounds like an emergent property