What is gravity?
What is gravity?
_______
(Warning – extreme speculation ahead. )
When it comes to the question of what gravity is all about, is it possible that it has something to do with the superpositioning and entanglement of our quantum underpinning?
For instance, a planet’s gravitational status is based upon its overall mass which, logically (from the quantum perspective), is the sum-total of all of the waveforms of a planet’s contents and features - all blending together into one superpositioned wave.
And when a random asteroid, for example, crashes to a planet’s surface, the asteroid’s wavefunction...
(which up to that moment was basically autonomous in the vacuum of space)
...is now subject to becoming entangled (cohered?) with the planet’s greater wavefunction.
In other words, upon contact with a planet, the asteroid’s wavefunction seamlessly intertwines itself (becomes one) with the planet’s overall wavefunction, thus becoming superpositionally enmeshed with the planet’s phenomenal structures – as is loosely depicted in the right-hand side of my illustration of the laser hologram below...
In which case, the occurrence of what we refer to as being the asteroid’s newly acquired “weight” is something that is proportional to the degree of the entanglement of its own unique waveform constituents with those of the rest of the planet.
And the point is that because the asteroid has a greater array of quantum attributes than that of a feather, for example, it is thus “heavier” than the feather due to a greater complexity of its entanglement with the “whole.”
And all that means is that as we attempt to move or lift the asteroid (or a bowling ball, or a freight train), we are, in essence, “tugging” on a vastly greater web of superpositionally entangled waves than those that comprise the feather...
...hence we therefore encounter a greater resistance to our effort.
Furthermore (and with the help of a rocket), if we were to send the asteroid back into space, it would simply be a situation of detangling (decohering?) its wavefunction from the greater wavefunction of the planet...
(with the degree of detangling still having something to do with distance, as per Newton’s law)
...thus restoring the autonomy of its wavefunction (and its prior weightlessness) in the vacuum.
Now I realize that what I am proposing is highly speculative, however...
...is it possible that the greater the volume and complexity of the entangled morass of quantum waves that comprise a planet’s overall wavefunction is what determines the strength of that which we call a planet’s gravity?
_______
(Warning – extreme speculation ahead. )
When it comes to the question of what gravity is all about, is it possible that it has something to do with the superpositioning and entanglement of our quantum underpinning?
For instance, a planet’s gravitational status is based upon its overall mass which, logically (from the quantum perspective), is the sum-total of all of the waveforms of a planet’s contents and features - all blending together into one superpositioned wave.
And when a random asteroid, for example, crashes to a planet’s surface, the asteroid’s wavefunction...
(which up to that moment was basically autonomous in the vacuum of space)
...is now subject to becoming entangled (cohered?) with the planet’s greater wavefunction.
In other words, upon contact with a planet, the asteroid’s wavefunction seamlessly intertwines itself (becomes one) with the planet’s overall wavefunction, thus becoming superpositionally enmeshed with the planet’s phenomenal structures – as is loosely depicted in the right-hand side of my illustration of the laser hologram below...
In which case, the occurrence of what we refer to as being the asteroid’s newly acquired “weight” is something that is proportional to the degree of the entanglement of its own unique waveform constituents with those of the rest of the planet.
And the point is that because the asteroid has a greater array of quantum attributes than that of a feather, for example, it is thus “heavier” than the feather due to a greater complexity of its entanglement with the “whole.”
And all that means is that as we attempt to move or lift the asteroid (or a bowling ball, or a freight train), we are, in essence, “tugging” on a vastly greater web of superpositionally entangled waves than those that comprise the feather...
...hence we therefore encounter a greater resistance to our effort.
Furthermore (and with the help of a rocket), if we were to send the asteroid back into space, it would simply be a situation of detangling (decohering?) its wavefunction from the greater wavefunction of the planet...
(with the degree of detangling still having something to do with distance, as per Newton’s law)
...thus restoring the autonomy of its wavefunction (and its prior weightlessness) in the vacuum.
Now I realize that what I am proposing is highly speculative, however...
...is it possible that the greater the volume and complexity of the entangled morass of quantum waves that comprise a planet’s overall wavefunction is what determines the strength of that which we call a planet’s gravity?
_______
-
- Posts: 4386
- Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm
Re: What is gravity?
big mass=big gravity
-Imp
-Imp
Re: What is gravity?
Yep.
Re: What is gravity?
Yes. And isn’t that pretty much what I am saying when I suggest that the greater the mass of an object...
(i.e., the greater the array of quantum constituents of a bowling ball, for example, in contrast to those of a feather)
...then the greater is the complexity of its superpositional entanglement with the mass of a planet – hence the greater the resistance to movement as posited in the OP?
Furthermore, to throw around words such as “mass” does not answer the question of what’s taking place at the “non-local” (noumenal) level of reality when one lifts a bowling ball.
In other words, what are we literally tugging on when we encounter the resistance of gravity?**
And the OP’s speculative answer is that perhaps it is somehow related to quantum superposition and entanglement, which is the theoretical “cosmic glue” that binds the entire universe together into a seamless and interpenetrating state of “oneness” at the deepest level of reality.
**(Again I am just speculating here, but perhaps the greater the complexity of entanglement means that there are more quantum algorithms to cycle-through in the process of movement which, in turn, translates as resistance up at the “local” level of reality.)
_______
Re: What is gravity?
Dunno seeds. The defining feature of entanglement is that it's 'superlumimal' ie faster than light. By my reckoning, that would imply that gravity shouldn't disminish with distance; which it demonstrably does.
Re: What is gravity?
I have a theory that gravity derives from neutrons. It is their purpose.
Their pull is very weak. Might even be undetectable, but - it's there...
Their pull is very weak. Might even be undetectable, but - it's there...
Re: What is gravity?
Which is heavier, a ton of lead or a ton of feathers?seeds wrote: ↑Tue Apr 17, 2018 7:12 pm Yes. And isn’t that pretty much what I am saying when I suggest that the greater the mass of an object...
(i.e., the greater the array of quantum constituents of a bowling ball, for example, in contrast to those of a feather)
...then the greater is the complexity of its superpositional entanglement with the mass of a planet – hence the greater the resistance to movement as posited in the OP?
Furthermore, to throw around words such as “mass” does not answer the question of what’s taking place at the “non-local” (noumenal) level of reality when one lifts a bowling ball.
In other words, what are we literally tugging on when we encounter the resistance of gravity?**
And the OP’s speculative answer is that perhaps it is somehow related to quantum superposition and entanglement, which is the theoretical “cosmic glue” that binds the entire universe together into a seamless and interpenetrating state of “oneness” at the deepest level of reality.
**(Again I am just speculating here, but perhaps the greater the complexity of entanglement means that there are more quantum algorithms to cycle-through in the process of movement which, in turn, translates as resistance up at the “local” level of reality.)
_______
Re: What is gravity?
That's a very clever question!
However, the sun does not consist of hydrogen only. There's also 27% helium, 3% "other elements", plus the hydrogen isotope deuterium, wich all include neutrons.
Re: What is gravity?
If gravity is only between neutrons, what keeps the hydrogen in the sun? If a neutron attracts hydrogen by gravity, but hydrogen does not attract the neutrons, then you've found an exception to Newton's third law. You can be a billionaire because you've invented reactionless (and energy-free) thrust.
Re: What is gravity?
That is a very good point!Noax wrote: ↑Wed Apr 18, 2018 5:28 pm If gravity is only between neutrons, what keeps the hydrogen in the sun? If a neutron attracts hydrogen by gravity, but hydrogen does not attract the neutrons, then you've found an exception to Newton's third law. You can be a billionaire because you've invented reactionless (and energy-free) thrust.
I'll need to think very deeply about that...
Re: What is gravity?
Well, there's no reason to slander me. I had a theory that didn't pan out, like I thought it would. Maybe it will not pan out at all. But I'll need to brood some more, before I eventually discard it.
Re: What is gravity?
Hi QuantumT (and welcome to the forum ).
Don’t let any of the grumpy-pants people around here deter you from presenting your theories.
In my book, all “reasonable” ideas are welcome.
_______