Cancel
Comment on The Illusion of Gravity

BenRayfield Tue, Jul 20, 2010
I'm agreeing with at least these 2 parts:

Think of the universe as a box of scrabble letters. There is only one way to have the letters arranged to spell out the Gettysburg Address, but an astronomical number of ways to have them spell nonsense. Shake the box and it will tend toward nonsense, disorder will increase and information will be lost as the letters shuffle toward their most probable configurations. Could this be gravity?

The more formal paper On the Origin of Gravity and the Laws of Newton surprises me how much we think alike (in the few parts I understand), mostly about the emergent instead of hierarchy based theories.

Of course, Einstein’s geometric description of gravity is beautiful, and in a certain
way compelling. Geometry appeals to the visual part of our minds, and is amazingly
powerful in summarizing many aspects of a physical problem. Presumably this explains
why we, as a community, have been so reluctant to give up the geometric formulation
of gravity as being fundamental. But it is inevitable we do so. If gravity is emergent,
so is space time geometry. Einstein tied these two concepts together, and both have to
be given up if we want to understand one or the other at a more fundamental level.
The results of this paper suggest gravity arises as an entropic force, once space and
time themselves have emerged.


I've written about something a little similar (the last paragraph below), and like the quoted mad-scientist, I also have mostly words to say about it and not enough equations yet. I called objects of large mass (like black-holes) a multiverse pivot-point in the context of the most extreme form of multiverse theory which I rewrite in less words as "The Kolmogorov-Complexity of the universe is 0." It means that there are an infinite number of overlapping verses (some people call them parallel universes, but I call them verses) overlapping in an infinite number of ways, all possible combinations balanced in all possible ways so it simplifies to "everything" and the universe equals all of math/abstractions/etc which is much easier to calculate because I know math but not enough physics. If the most extreme form of multiverse theory is true then math books and physics books are about the same subject and are interchangible. Of those infinite number of overlapping verses, gravity could be statistical clustering of the random-looking ways that things move (heat, entropy, thermodynamics) which tend to fall into black-holes and other things associated with gravity (which are parts of the statistically clustered verses that influence the clustering more than things with less mass). I think of NOTHING and EVERYTHING as equal, like the Kolmogorov-Complexity of "all the integers except 37 and 50" equals the Kolmogorov-Complexity of "only the integers 37 and 50" because it takes the same amount of information to say them (ignoring our bias toward "only" instead of "except" in normal communications), and the universe is just abstract information. I wrote a 42-line poem here at SpaceCollective to explain that, called The Hitchhikers Guide To Less Than Nothing, and the "Less Than Nothing" part means what I wrote here: "nothing minus x" equals "everything minus x" because it wraps around in Kolmogorov-Complexity in a physics way, if these theories are true. We see black-holes as big and powerful, but in the context of "nothing minus x" amount of information (their huge mass being similar to "everything" but the information needed to represent them being similar to "x"), they are simple and possibly can be cancelled-out a little if you added "x", whatever "x" information is missing from them, but that would require you know what "x" is which is part of their information paradox. Those "astronomical number of ways to have them spell nonsense" (as the other mad-scientist calls black-holes and mass in general), if we "think of the universe as a box of scrabble letters", should reduce their mass much more than we expect if we add the right "scrabble letters" to reduce the Kolmogorov-Complexity of such black-hole, whatever "x" (or call it "scrabble letters") could be added to simplify the total information of the black-hole, like adding a few bytes to a file to get a zip software to compress the file smaller (which can be done but is hard to figure out). In summary, I'm agreeing with the other mad-scientist (quoted above) and expanding on that theory to include my theory of how to use it to control black-holes (or other mass) a little using the same strategy you would use to add bytes to a file to get it to zip to a smaller zip file. Its all information. Physics books and math books are interchangible, and math books include computer programming books. Black holes are just another piece of random data to play with, in theory, a "box of scrabble letters" touching other similar verses in a statistical clustering way. THEREFORE I predict that, except for astronomically unlikely types of black-holes (which things fell in to form them), that there will be many possible physical objects (with very specific patterns of mass and energy, accurate like a software needs to be accurate to hack into a computer) that you could drop into a black-hole to generate extremely more Hawking Radiation as a result of reducing the Kolmogorov-Complexity of the black-hole. This is my theory of how to use a black-hole as a power source (if you can figure out which "scrabble letters"/patterns to drop in) and how to add mass to it to reduce its total mass, causing the extra mass/information to leave the black-hole as unexpectedly large amounts of Hawking Radiation. Its like hacking into a software, in theory, but its also like the Butterfly Effect (the intelligent use of Chaos Theory to get big effects from a small effort), where "butterfly" would be replaced by "scrabble letters" and "hurricane" would be replaced by Hawking Radiation in this analogy. Theres many ways to describe it, but it is most accurately described as "The Kolmogorov-Complexity of the universe is 0."

I'll quote the part of my post on kurzweilai.net thats relevant to gravity being viewed as a continuous field of multiverse pivot points:

This may be a bad idea for the following reasons:

(1) As more energy is sent from the moon to Earth, the moon moves farther away from the earth as a result of light propulsion, and that may cause divergent patterns in the environment, like hurricanes or tidal waves.

(2) If level-4 (ultimate ensemble) manyworlds multiverse theory is true (and I think it is), then moving the moon a little distance away from the Earth in this "verse" ("parallel universe" some people call it) would probably cause the moon to move closer to the earth in other verses, which could cause (1) in those parallel verses which could cause the opposite of (1) here, and the opposite of (1) is still (1) because it does not matter which direction a hurricane spins. Moving the moon could destabilize this part of the multiverse, possibly (and this is my addition to the theory) because large objects (planets, moons, stars, black holes, etc) act as multiverse pivot-points, and by moving the moon just a little, the pivot point is detached, theoretically. I'd suggest you ask Max Tegmark about this one. Its his multiverse theory, and I'm not an expert in physics. I'm more of a mad-scientist that puts information together from many sources in unusual ways. Ask Max Tegmark.


UPDATE: I was looking at 1 of my fluorescent lights flashing in chaotic patterns today, and I was thinking about how a partially lightning-damaged stereo amplifier had become a radio transmitter (instead of receiver) of some consistent patterns (but mostly random) which were displayed on the TV beside it when the TV was on a channel that normally showed that black/white chaos (did not get that channel) which caused the tv picture to change in consistent ways when I adjusted the bass/treble/volume on the damaged stereo (which I had connected the headphone and inputs together on to do this test), and I think it may have had some effect on normal mass (unless the electricity or light waves fooled my brain, but it did not feel that way) because I had a very bad toothache and when I adjusted the stereo/tv/speakers/etc in just the right ways, my teeth stopped hurting for a few minutes, and then they would start hurting and I'd have to go back and do it again, and each time I felt vibration just before my teeth stopped hurting. Of course I went to a dentist, but the important thing is to know why a stereo can stop my teeth from hurting for a few minutes (sometimes when the speakers were not connected, just electric fields doing it)? Based on all that, I thought of a new use for fluorescent lights and electric equipment thats relevant to this thread (based on the theory that gravity is large Kolmogorov-Complexity). The photoelectric effect, at least in theory, lets you use a 3d grid of fluorescent lights as a 3d camera for many kinds of waves, in a very indirect and inaccurate way, but still you should see some patterns in the lights flashing if you do it right. The most important reason to use fluorescent lights is their chaotic flashing (if powered the right way, by electricity or by photoelectric effect) is the smoothest path I know of between the infinite number of parallel verses (which you can do calculus derivatives between based on the patterns in the "chaotic flashing", and then use differential equations). I don't know the right way to connect them, but based on my intuition, the following devices (in some combination) should be able to generate a small gravity field (stronger than the mass of the equipment would normally generate, which is simply the average of randomness because we do not normally try to control gravity). Devices: fluorescent light bulbs, many kinds of electric-guitar distortion equipment (try them in many combinations, as musicians normally do, but with light bulbs instead of guitars), artificial intelligence (may help, but probably not necessary if you adjust it manually), or try it in combination with any other device that uses waves of electricity or light. I predict it is very hard to find the right combinations and locations of these devices, but I also predict there are some ways to make it work, to generate a small gravity field for just a few hundred dollars (after you figure out which combinations and devices). This would work better in space because it has less radio wave interfering, but you might be able to generate a gravity field with parts from your local electronics store today, if you experiment enough. I'm sure it can be done (based on the Kolmogorov-Complexity of the universe being 0) but that does not tell me how exact the equipment has to be. Who wants to bend space? We have some experiments to do. As a mad-scientist, I have more experiments planned than I have time to do, but this is one of the more interesting kinds.

These experiments with a grid of fluorescent light-bulbs connected by many combinations of electric-guitar distortion equipment (and maybe other devices later)... Think of it like Nikola Tesla's "earthquake machine" but for shaking the near parts of the infinite multiverse instead of shaking buildings:

Quote about one of the best mad-scientists ever, who invented most of our electrical infrastructure we still use today: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikola_Tesla
Tesla established his Houston Street laboratory in New York at 46 E. Houston Street. There, at one point while conducting mechanical resonance experiments with electro-mechanical oscillators, he generated a resonance in several surrounding buildings but, because of the frequencies involved, not his own building, causing complaints to the police. As the speed grew, he hit the resonant frequency of his own building and, belatedly realizing the danger, was forced to apply a sledgehammer to terminate the experiment, just as the police arrived.