# Blog post answer – the mechanism underlying gravity is entanglement

Dear Prof. Strassler –

Like so many of your readers, I say many many thanks for this initiative. You certainly nailed me with this posting! I hope we all don’t wear you out with our tortured inquiries.

I’m a computer scientist, and look at “processes” from the point of view of an operating system: it does not, it *cannot*, matter what the various processes are doing – that’s their business. From the os point of view they all look the same. Just anonymous abstract discrete processes, doing what processes do: Wait and Signal to the outside, maintain stable (often concurrent) state inside.

These being *discrete* processes, one can imagine doing some combinatorics both along and across various event sequences, and hopefully find some structure. And that’s what we did, starting with processes with one bit of state, and building up from there. We report the results at TauQuernions.org.

This is where your post about the Higgs and gravity comes in. One would expect that a purely combinatorial approach like ours would produce results unbiased by any other criteria – prior knowledge, theoretical constructions, biases, what-have-you. One pattern that pops out is

H = (ab-cd) + (ac+bd) + (ad-bc) = Tx + Ty + Tz

which is nilpotent. In fact, the three pairs are isomorphic to the quaternions except that they are irreversible, and as well, each is an entanglement operator. Quaternions being the very definition of 3d space, we MAYBE made the mistake you describe, of confounding the Higgs, mass creation, and gravity.

But I don’t *think* so, because we stop at the point where we dot Tx+Ty+Tz with whatever X is to manifest in 3+1d tauquernion space. Ie. we simply punt, not knowing the necessary physics to take it any further. I agree that if this projection disagrees with well-established theory, then we’ve likely figured wrong. But it’s not obvious to me this will be so. Eg. our measure of heft is bits, which translate to energy, not to mass.

In addition, we found a number of patterns that I don’t really find echoed in the expert discussions. One wonders. Finally, we suggest that it follows that the mechanism underlying gravity is entanglement, and this seems to collide with your argument. Yet our approach, being purely combinatorial, is supposedly theory-neutral.

So, if our approach *is* truly flawed, I’d sure like to know just where it goes off the rails.

Michael Manthey

Posted

in

by

Tags:

### One response to “Blog post answer – the mechanism underlying gravity is entanglement”

1. What I feel is, we have been deserted in a thick jungle of unnecessarily created theories and paradoxes paying for the penalty of being too conservative to follow centuries old vague analytical foot prints of late scientists. We have marched a far distance away from the Reality and something could be comprehended by human beings must be the Reality. Aren’t we struggling to solve all manmade paradoxes?
Sir Isaac Newton was the greatest among practical scientists but he explained only the physical parameters of the phenomenon called Gravity. The phenomenon is not completely explained whereas the ‘Mechanism behind Gravity’, “how Gravity attracts things”, is not clearly explained. The scientists of the mediator period after Newton, have made it more complicated making a paradox out of gravity by their philosophic definitions which could never be proven practically or mathematically.
I firmly believe Scientists of the 21st century can solve this paradox unless they really want to conserve it as a paradox leaving for the future generations to solve.

A Physical Science Students of logical thinking and open mind should ask only two questions;
1. Why Gravity does only attract things and why it doesn’t repel, just like in electro magnetism?
2. Why do Gravity attract only ‘Atomic mass’ and why not other masses such as light , heat, photon, electron & solar wind etc?

Before answering above questions we have to clarify what are the ‘Three Fundamental Space Matter in this world?’ Solids, Liquids and Gasses must be the sure answer from a student of junior secondary level. But we know that they are only the three phases of the same ‘Atomic Matter’. Then what are electron’s, light, heat and solar wind etc? Do not they possess a Mass?
Perhaps they are tougher and stronger than ‘Atomic Mass’. How about a lightning stroke which can break even a rock boulder in to pieces? A dynamic potential flow of electrons don’t respond at all for the so mighty force of Gravity. That is how this special category of Matter behaves and it has to be recognized as ‘Energy Matter’ in the world. ‘Solar wind’ too belongs to that category because it is made up of weakly charged energy particles emitted from Sun and if it responds for gravity, it could have accumulated around Sun without travelling so far towards us in the solar system.
Then what is the third category of Matter? It is the ‘Space Medium Matter’. The space is densely filled with this invisible static matter and that has a Density and a Pressure too which can be derived mathematically. (pl ref ‘Space Dynamics-V1/2009-for mathematical derivations). Let’s then summarize the three fundamental space matter such as;
1. Atomic Matter-(everybody knows it as internal rotary organizations where electron clouds are vigorously orbiting the nucleus)
2. Energy Matter-(line projection of energy particles- But we cannot identify them when speed is lost. Have you ever seen an electron at a stop?)
3. Medium Matter-(densely packed particles of speed lost static Energy Matter).

Now only the Mechanism of Gravity can be analyzed because the different behavior of ‘Energy Waves’ and ‘Energy Rays’ could never be distinguished until the Space Medium is well defined. Energy rays such as light, heat X-ray etc. don’t need a medium to travel because they are line projection of energy particles like photons.
But waves such as, natural sounds, electromagnetic sound Radio (FM or AM), TV, Radar etc need a medium to travel. Natural sounds simply need atmospheric medium to transmit but other electromagnetic waves essentially need the free ‘Space Medium’ to transmit the signal. ‘Pressure’ is the most influential parameter of any medium for efficiency in transmitting energy waves.

Gravity too is born due to a FM wave of high frequency and of the same speed of light. (pl ref ‘Space Dynamics-V2/2009-for frequency and speed analysis of the gravitational wave)

Put a fly in to calm water and you would observe tiny waves generating round and round. That is how atomic masses produce gravitational waves in the space medium due to vibration. A single atom can be considered as a massive rotary organization in which electrons are orbiting vigorously round the nucleus. Students know any rotary machine in the world make a vibration. You would be astonished if you could hear the sound and vibration of the atoms in your own body. It has to be comprehended as a vigorously dynamic steel factory.

So an atom vibrates and a bigger collection of atoms makes a bigger vibration to transmit a stronger wave through the space medium. That is how gravitational waves are born but how on earth it can attract another mass isn’t that a magic?

When the waves strike upon any secondary atom in the field, the rotating electron cloud is a bit shifted closer to the nucleus from the direction at where the waves strike from. Thence the balance of Coulomb’s electromagnetic force between negatively charged electron cloud and the positively charged nucleus is gone. The force from the side of wave strike becomes bigger because the distance to nucleus in that direction is decreased. The resultant unbalance force makes the atom move gradually towards the gravity source and Sir Isaac Newton (1643-1727) has explain rest of the phenomenon explicitly.

The other most important thing that scientists of the modern era have got to pay attention is the deviation of gravitational fields when the source is in motion. Dynamic behavior of gravitational fields has vaguely addressed by some theories but not acceptably explained yet up to the 21st century. Only the static gravitation was addressed in the Newtonian Mechanics. But just imagine, Sun is rotating and its gravitational field is not static at all.

Gravitational field is deviated when the gravity source is rotating and the ‘Theory of Gravity Deviation /2009’ explains how a lateral force component, recognized as ‘Orbital Motive Force’, is induced upon planets in the solar system to make them orbit in the same direction of Sun’s rotation. Precession of planets and all the other related paradoxes can be explained if the Scientists of the century are prepared to accept ‘Gravity Deviation’.(pl ref ‘Precession in Orbital Motion of Planets’/2013).

However ultimately the credit of ‘Gravity’ has to be shared between Newton and Coulomb as well because the Mechanism of a so mysterious magical force could never be explained by any of us unless the marvelous finding, ‘Electromagnetism’ was introduced to the world by Coulomb (1785).

Besides that “Mass of Matter” could never be explained by any of us unless the ‘Theory of Energy Conservation’ is produced by the great scientist Albert Einstein (1879-1955). It is my personal opinion that, such a brilliant concept ‘curvature of space dimension with time’ which describes the ‘Space Dynamics along the 4th Dimension’ should not have been used to explain Gravity.