'Mortal as I am, I know that I am born for a day. But when I follow at my pleasure the serried multitude of the stars in their circular course, my feet no longer touch the earth.'
HomeCalendarFAQSearchMemberlistRegisterLog in

Share | 

 New idea about gravity

View previous topic View next topic Go down 

Posts : 3521
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Will to Power

PostSubject: New idea about gravity    Mon Jan 02, 2017 11:57 am


Damn this is interesting.

If I understand this correctly, this guy is attempting to derive gravity from quantum-level distributions of information and how "volume" really just means, at the fundamental level, a kind of surface-area which can be most basically described qua area or "3D area (volume)" as the plank length ^2 (to get the most basic unit of area) * the total number of informational bits or qbits (quantum bit of info, a little stabilization or polarization). This would actually seem to break down 3D into 2D, or rather just unite them together, because the planck length ^2 is the smallest possible physical area, and would have no real dimensionality to speak of in so far as it can build up into larger conglomerate structures as either 2D or 3D geometries, but ultimately either a 2D or 3D geometry can always be reduced down to the exact same model of little planck lengths ^2 as total number of qbits.

Look at how he relates all these equations to each other, to finally reach a derivation of Newton's equation of gravity. Working backwards, force is related to mass * acceleration, and then this is related through temperature to average energy in the equipartition theorem, which is then related back to the total number of qbits with regard to surface area over planck length ^2, to arrive at the holographic principle whereby a 2D geometry produces what appears as or acts like a volumed 3D space, again because of how a 3D space can be broken down into "1D" qbits that combine to create 2D geometries. This makes me think of the classic logical problem of how do you ever actually move from 1D to 2D, and from 2D to 3D, when you can't even imagine 1D without also imagining a 2D reference frame or context (try thinking about a 1D (pure line) that doesnt exist in 2D, it isnt possible), likewise how do you take a 2D plane and think about it without 3D (if you try to do so, the "plane" shrinks out of existence as its third dimension is impossibilized). Likewise, a mathematical point (something with no dimensions) is equally logically impossible to clearly conceive.

So instead of that mathematical abstraction, which is really just a language of approximation, we have planck lengths ^2 that form the basic unit of "space", the smallest unit of area into which a single qbit of information falls. This qbit already includes two aspects, length and width, namely a planck length on either side, and therefore is binary or polarized (because these two dimensions cannot be reduced to each other any further; or rather, they are "reduced" to each other only in so far as they are integrated upwardly into a single unit or value which includes both of them at once): now we can think of space itself as basically just an infinite stretch of these little planck lengths ^2 each of which can contain one binary qbit of information, and then that information relates to information in other little qbit-areas. This means that information stacks upward into larger configurations, these new larger ones are derived from the smaller out of which they are assembled, and therefore implicitly indicate these smaller ones; eventually you have informational geometries that prescribe a kind of "boundary" around themselves, where the boundary or edge is distinct from what is inside that area, and this is what creates a "surface area"; the surface area, once created, is therefore what gives rise holographically to the notion of volume or 3D space.

This also reminds me of an idea of gravity at Parodites wrote about a couple of years ago, where gravity is the result of quantum pressure whereby larger aggregate objects are pressurized toward those other objects to which they are statistically more likely to collide, because when such objects are larger they have less degrees of freedom relative to smaller such objects and therefore smaller objects tend to escape the quantum cloud while larger objects tend to pressurize toward the center of that cloud (if I am understanding his idea). This is basically describing the same thing as this physicist is describing, I think: "volume" is created holographically when qbit-level geometries "stack" or integrate-combine in sufficient number and complexity to produce derivative quantum objects that are capable of prescribing a boundary around themselves, namely a "surface area", and therefore for other objects of their own scale and beyond are therefore encountered as if they were "volumed" or 3D; for all such objects, they are always interacting with each other stochastically and as a result and within a given cloud of such objects (a quantum geometrical space) larger objects will end up being pressurized toward the center due to the fact these objects have less degrees of freedom relative to the smaller objects within the cloud, therefore larger objects will tend to collide with ("be attracted to") each other more than smaller objects will tend to collide with each other (but note that if you varied the number of smaller and/or larger objects enough, you could potentially reverse this situation, at least in theory). This statistical emergent effect of larger objects pressurizing toward the center of informational-geometric clouds is what we experience as the gravitational attraction of massed objects, and it must also be what holds matter together at the sub-atomic level (at the level before electromagnetic forces take over to molecularly bind things).


"Since the old God has abdicated, I shall rule the world from now on." --Nietzsche

"Do you hold out hope, then?" ... "I hold out dignity." ... "She will need opiates before long, for the pain. She will cease being who she is." ... "Then I will love who she becomes."  --Penny Dreadful

Back to top Go down
View user profile

Posts : 1443
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida

PostSubject: Re: New idea about gravity    Mon Jan 02, 2017 6:30 pm

Gravity sucks.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
New idea about gravity
View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 1 of 1

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
Before The Light :: Tree :: Science-
Jump to: