Do you have any further thoughts on my idea that entanglement and
gravity are linked together? I really believe that this is the
solution to the EPR paradox and the black hole information paradox,
but I haven't heard any qualified opinion on the subject yet.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Felix Hoenikker <fhoenikk...@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 3:03 AM
Subject: The final TOE?
To: Everything List <email@example.com>
Consider the following fully general way of saying this is the
following: quantum mechanics and general relativity are symmetrically
"the exact same theory", modulo the additional "bit" of information
that quantum entanglement reduces net gravitational energy. This is
the EXACT answer to the EPR paradox, and all paradoxes about
singularities, and consistent with our picture of reality in every
respect, as it "necessarily must be" since it follows exactly from the
asssumption of 3+1 spacetime embedded within some higher dimensional
structure of "any" form (i.e. including string theory).
Since no "true" gravitational singularities exist, then "every point
in space is an apparent black hole" because "no point in space is an
apparent black hole". Thus, at every point in space, a "bit" of
information (or a "photon") can escape from the "observable" universe
on our scale, "go into the past", and come out "in the future" in a
symmetric manner for all observers, without considering your frame of
reference in 3+1 space time. This qualitatively predicts all features
of GR without QCD or QFT. However, since photons travelling through
locally closed loops can look like "point" particles with some net
entanglement coming out, then they can look like bundles that, for all
intents and purposes, appear to randomly add information in some way,
and in some spherically symmetric fashion, which predicts the
divergence and appearance of other "fundamental forces" early in the
It is often said that QM and GR differ from each other exactly by the
contemplation of the "singularity", and that our inability to discover
the "true" laws of the universe has been limited by our lack of
knowledge about the twin singularities: the inflationary bubble and
the black hole. It follows that this fact was "exactly true" all
along, and the laws of physics are a completely dimensionless
consequences of our "local" geometry of space, and our civilization
has, in fact, rather than been trying to "discover" the next laws of
physics, has in fact been struggling to "unlearn" the concept of
"Indeterminacy" and "quantum mechanics", since QM follows from GR, the
postulate of 3+1 spacetime and E = mc^2 (a nice, dimensionless
equation). Einstein, in fact, was right all along, and successfully
completed the "fully" deterministic general laws of physics.
Consider then, the reason why indeterministic QM was ever suggested:
the apparently subjective indeterminacy of the universe from each
"observer" point of view (i.e. the uncertainty principle). Or
actually, consider the fact that, if the universe is completely
deterministic, and "you" for any defined "you" is getting non-random
information from any source, then that information must, in fact, be
added to you by the "rest of the universe" in some systematic fashion,
down to the tiniest quantum of "universe". This implies that there
"is" actually, some "quanta" of the universe, a "photon", and each
"photon" is having information added to "it" from the "rest of the
universe", in a systematic fashion, and recursively so for every
"observer". This is actually a fully generic model for the universe,
and the absolute generalization of QM and SR.
Next, consider the fact that you are "conscious" and possibly
"indeterminstic" (i.e. have subjective free will). I think I do.
Therefore, I am not a "quanta" of information, or a "bit", but it was
"added to me" from "somewhere". No, consider the mathematical closure
of this observation. What does this imply about and anthropic
principle and "fine tuning"? Does that make sense anymore. Also, does
this not mean that our "observable universe", for "some definition of
observable", from "any subjective observer's point of view", is
constantly being added non-random information from "outside".
I truly beg you all to consider this argument fully.
Please let me know what you think,
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 7:16 PM, Felix Hoenikker <fhoenikk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Every "apparent" event horizon is really a separation of two
> universes, where the outside universe is entangled geometrically with
> the inside universe. The Hubble volume is sitting inside of an
> expanding supermassive black hole, of another universe. However, by
> the uncertainty principle, this means the "outside universe" is
> "really" simultaneously in a superposition of a large but countably
> finite many possible universes (i.e. bitstates), with the net
> information between the "inside" and "outside" views cancelling out to
> zero. Equivalently, every "classical" black hole is really in a
> microscopic superposition of countably finite many bitstates, again
> with the net information "inside" and "outside" cancelling zero.
> However, it cannot converge to a singularity, because it cannot encode
> "bitstates" forever in the same volume, therefore it must leak
> information in the form of "photons" (i.e. Hawking radiation).
> Equivalently, the Hubble volume receives information one photon at a
> time from the "outside" in the form of cosmic background radiation,
> that information being about the prior state of the otherwise casually
> disconnected universe. (i.e. CMB == Hawking radiation). The
> equivalence principle implies length contraction and time dilation.
> Gravity mediated by photons is the single fundamental force of the
> universe. All other sources of apparent information and causal
> connectivity (i.e. all other forces) are the result of the initial
> state of the universe at the Big Bang, the only true singularity. The
> laws of the universe are extremely simple.
> This is the digital unification of GR and QM. What do you think?
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at