On 6/11/2011 1:20 AM, Felix Hoenikker wrote:
Hi Russell,

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.

Thank you!

I'm afraid I don't understand how your idea "qualitatively predicts all features of GR without QCD or QFT." or what it means for (Feynmann diagram?) loops to have "net entanglement coming out". I think you need to be more explicit and precise (e.g. mathematical). The idea that GR can be explained in terms of QFT and entropic fluctuations has been around a long time (c.f. Sakarov). Here's a recent post of from a friend on the question:

Cosmological Constant in Induced Gravity

The recent work of Velinde, Padmanabhan and others have provided significant support for the proposal by Sakharov that gravity, rather than being a fundamental force in nature is the result of the quantum fuzziness of all the other forces in nature. That is gravity naturally results from the uncertainty principle when applied to the zero point energy of the quantum fields.

In QFT this zero point energy is predicted to be many orders of magnitudes greater than is actually observed, this is the famous cosmological constant problem. Recently, it has been proposed that the calculation of the zero point energy of quantum fields can be corrected by including a "ghost” sector where there are particles which give an opposite action to gravity. Based on this idea, the vacuum state is balanced between the action density of the normal and ghost sector, canceling out the predicted vacuum energy. In several models proposed Dark energy results from a small imbalance between the normal and ghost sectors as a function of the future horizon in the Hubble volume, analogous to negative vacuum energy density that is expected around the event horizon of a black hole. We can write the equation for this as;

rho_vac= chi^a*integral Dw L(+) + chi_a*Integral Dw L(-)

Therefore, it might be useful to turn Einstein's General Relativity on its head , and express the curvature of space time as a function of a local and global cosmological constant, that is a shift in the vacuum energy density of the vacuum.

Given the fundamental set of equations from General Relativity

R_mu,nu -(1/2)*R*g_mu,nu = kappa*T_mu,nu =G_mu,nu

We can write

G_mu,nu= kappa*{ T_mu,nu ( matter) - T_mu,nu(vacuum)}

G_mu,nu={ Lambda( local) + Lambda(global)} *g_mu,nu

Here we can say that the energy of the gravitational field, as is Dark Energy, is stored in the vacuum. In any region of space we can say there is a density of energy proportional to minus the square of the gravity field.

Rho_vac(local) =- - k*g^2

Where k is a constant of proportion. Using Einstein's equation for the CC we can easily define k.

g= Lambda*c^2*R/3

We can define R as the Rindler Horizon

R= sqrt[3/lambda]


kappa*rho_loc= - 3*g^2/c^4

rho_loc= - {3/(8*pi*G)}*g^2


dS/dE= 1/(K_b*T) = (1/F)*(dS/dR) = 1/(K_b*T)

Where K_b is the Boltzmann constant and S is entropy related to the gravity field.

F= (dS/dR)*K_b*T

Given the Bekenstein Bound

S= 2*pi*R*m*c/hbar

And the Davies -Unruh equation

K_b*T= g*hbar/ (2*pi*c)

We get

F= m*g

A significant problem with this approach is the expected SUSY cutoff for the ZPE. Ideally this model can hopefully be combined with a cut off at the Planck scale, not the SUSY scale. This problem becomes even more severe in models where SUSY breaks at low energy. One possibility is that there are string modes unaffected by SUSY which can bring the cutoff to the Planck scale or the some scale close to the Planck scale. The upper KK spectrum might be a good candidate. There may also be mass splitting that evade the SUSY symmetry in the high energy symmetry breaking events such as the GUT scale or even the Planck scale. Or outside the string paradigm SUSY may not be symmetry of nature, though this seems unlikely given the effect on the inclusion of SUSY in the calculations of the running couplings.

Bob Zannelli



---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Felix Hoenikker<fhoenikk...@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 3:03 AM
Subject: The final TOE?
To: Everything List<everything-list@googlegroups.com>

Hi all,

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 , 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
inflating universe.

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 everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to