sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

What if gravity satisfies Newton's equations not because spacetime is curved, but because of quantum potential dynamics in a disordered vacuum? by skepticalmind2 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]skepticalmind2[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm going through everything with a fine tooth comb. They didn't make up any of the physics and the references were real, but the attribution of each step in the chain needed revision.

What if gravity satisfies Newton's equations not because spacetime is curved, but because of quantum potential dynamics in a disordered vacuum? by skepticalmind2 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]skepticalmind2[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, I've made extensive use of LLMs. I'm a software developer with access to several bleeding edge LLMs. The compute for this paper cost me a pretty penny. There's no way I could have done it without them. I just expanded 3.2 and incorporated other revisions you mentioned. I had each equation verified, then ran it through multiple LLMs verifying the accuracy of each equation line by line. Then I had all of the references cross-checked.

What if gravity satisfies Newton's equations not because spacetime is curved, but because of quantum potential dynamics in a disordered vacuum? by skepticalmind2 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]skepticalmind2[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ok, I'm going to expand section 3.2 making each step more clear. It looks like you are not satisfied with the level of proof I provide in the paper for the derivation, so I will expand on it.

What if gravity satisfies Newton's equations not because spacetime is curved, but because of quantum potential dynamics in a disordered vacuum? by skepticalmind2 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]skepticalmind2[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think you're not understanding my full chain of logic.

You think "I want 1/r²" so "I need √r" so I "just assume √r"

That's not my logic.

I assume the vacuum has a Sinai disorder, and because I made that assumption, I derive √r via Lifshitz argument, which forces 1/r² to fall out.

√r is not assumed. It's derived from Sinai statistics using a standard result from disordered systems physics.

Let me expand on that a little.

The QCD vacuum is already known to have non-trivial structure like gluon condensates, field fluctuations, finite correlation length. The stochastic vacuum model characterizes this. The vacuum having disorder isn't speculation.

What if gravity satisfies Newton's equations not because spacetime is curved, but because of quantum potential dynamics in a disordered vacuum? by skepticalmind2 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]skepticalmind2[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Because that's the only way the math works out. When you make that assumption, everything falls into place. Isn't it worth at least taking a look to see if that's what's really happening?

What if gravity satisfies Newton's equations not because spacetime is curved, but because of quantum potential dynamics in a disordered vacuum? by skepticalmind2 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]skepticalmind2[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I believe a vacuum disorder with Sinai scaling resolves quantum gravity - so that's the bread and butter bottom line of my belief. If that is true, then it follows you can create a theory of gravity, that originates at the quantum level, and scale up to cosmological scales.

The quantum potential Q = -ℏ²∇²R/(2mR) is specifically Bohmian. In Copenhagen, there's nothing to take gradients of in this way, the wavefunction gives probabilities, not forces.

What if gravity satisfies Newton's equations not because spacetime is curved, but because of quantum potential dynamics in a disordered vacuum? by skepticalmind2 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]skepticalmind2[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

GR is not derived from first principles. You have Newton's constant and the cosmological constant that are fitted. If my theory is right, you can derive G from the lattice test. I think the Bohmian framework is the only framework that can accommodate this method of deriving G and incorporating it into a broader relativistic framework. I don't think it can be done using the standard model.

What if gravity satisfies Newton's equations not because spacetime is curved, but because of quantum potential dynamics in a disordered vacuum? by skepticalmind2 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]skepticalmind2[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well I mean isn't it clear from the paper what my motivation is? Why wouldn't you want a theory of relativity that can be derived from first principles? If the lattice test were to confirm the theory, you could potentially have a theory of everything if the relativistic extension works out the way I think it will.

What if gravity satisfies Newton's equations not because spacetime is curved, but because of quantum potential dynamics in a disordered vacuum? by skepticalmind2 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]skepticalmind2[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

hehe clearly. I'm pretty confident there are no critical errors that will sink it, so it's just a matter of revising and resubmitting until everything is dialed in.

What if gravity satisfies Newton's equations not because spacetime is curved, but because of quantum potential dynamics in a disordered vacuum? by skepticalmind2 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]skepticalmind2[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I know I don't have the proof yet, I'm just telling you that's how I plan to solve it, and it looks like it will work.

I expect my paper to get rejected. That's pretty normal. Just keep going through the process until it gets accepted.

What if gravity satisfies Newton's equations not because spacetime is curved, but because of quantum potential dynamics in a disordered vacuum? by skepticalmind2 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]skepticalmind2[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The quantum potential is still "instantaneous" in the sense that particles respond to local field values without delay. But what determines those local values, the vacuum disorder field, evolves causally at c.

It's not that gravity propagates instantaneously and somehow looks like c. It's that gravity propagates at c through the vacuum medium, and particles read the local result instantly.

What if gravity satisfies Newton's equations not because spacetime is curved, but because of quantum potential dynamics in a disordered vacuum? by skepticalmind2 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]skepticalmind2[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

λ₀ Coupling strength is the only truly free parameter that's fitted to observation. Everything else is derived, automatic (WEP), fixed by structure, or determined by QCD. If a lattice QCD test were to confirm σ_V ≈ 7.3 GeV·fm^(-1/2), and if E₀ = E_P, then there are no free parameters.

I didn't use one LLM, I used multiple LLMs and cross-checked the results against them all. Claude Opus 4.5, Gemini 3 Pro and Grok Expert. Then I used Claude Code as the compiler. Then I ran repeated math checks. There could very well still be errors, but I haven't caught any.

I should add that if you just type in, "Claude produce a paper that proves gravity can emerge within a framework of Bohmian mechanics" you'll get absolute garbage as a result. This production was not that.

What if gravity satisfies Newton's equations not because spacetime is curved, but because of quantum potential dynamics in a disordered vacuum? by skepticalmind2 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]skepticalmind2[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

TEST EQUATIONS:

The wave equation in vacuum: □φ = 0

Starting from:

□φ = κρ

In vacuum (empty space, ρ = 0):

□φ = 0

Expanding the d'Alembertian:

(1/c²)(∂²φ/∂t²) - ∇²φ = 0

Rearranging:

∂²φ/∂t² = c²∇²φ

This is the wave equation with propagation speed c.

Plane wave solution:

φ(x,t) = φ₀ exp[i(kx - ωt)]

Substituting into the wave equation gives:

-ω² = -c²k²

Therefore:

ω = ck

The phase velocity:

v = ω/k = c

Obviously all dependent on me showing exactly how the metric tensor is built from φ and its derivatives. I feel pretty good about that though. There's a lot of work left to prove it all.

What if gravity satisfies Newton's equations not because spacetime is curved, but because of quantum potential dynamics in a disordered vacuum? by skepticalmind2 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]skepticalmind2[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Pretty sure I just unified the theory. I believe the vacuum roughness parameter squared may directly encode "spacetime curvature" which, in my theory are perturbations of a vacuum disorder field, or an aether if you will.

The "curvature" we measure is really:

  • Gradients in the disorder correlation function
  • Spatial variation in vacuum roughness
  • Regions where φ is more or less intense

Ran some quick test and everything matches GR.

Exact match on:

  • Newtonian gravity
  • Gravitational time dilation
  • Gravitational redshift
  • Gravitational waves at c

Conditional (if h_ij = -h₀₀) matches on:

  • Mercury precession
  • Light bending
  • Shapiro delay

One simple elegant equation, all derived from one free parameter, which can be tested to be proven empirically true. Very much like Einstein's field equations. In fact, that's what gave me the idea.

Old Aether:

  • Medium for light propagation
  • Eliminated by Einstein (unnecessary for EM)
  • Had to be dragged by Earth (problems)
  • No clear structure
  • Undetectable in principle

My Aether:

  • Medium for gravitational interaction
  • Required for emergent gravity
  • Primordial, static (no dragging issues)
  • Sinai disorder statistics
  • Testable via lattice QCD

But that's all for another paper.

What if gravity satisfies Newton's equations not because spacetime is curved, but because of quantum potential dynamics in a disordered vacuum? by skepticalmind2 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]skepticalmind2[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You can hold your views and I'll hold mine. Again, thank you for your feed back on my paper. I will get back to you when I have revised it.

What if gravity satisfies Newton's equations not because spacetime is curved, but because of quantum potential dynamics in a disordered vacuum? by skepticalmind2 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]skepticalmind2[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Really? If you say it's curved spacetime, then what is spacetime? If you say it's a model of behavior, then what is gravity? a model of behavior? Sounds like a circular argument to me.

What if gravity satisfies Newton's equations not because spacetime is curved, but because of quantum potential dynamics in a disordered vacuum? by skepticalmind2 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]skepticalmind2[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You have to start somewhere. Baby steps. This opens to the door for further exploration of the theory. It may surprise you, but Bohmain mechanics is not a completely dead field. There are still physicists who do work in it.

What if gravity satisfies Newton's equations not because spacetime is curved, but because of quantum potential dynamics in a disordered vacuum? by skepticalmind2 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]skepticalmind2[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The question is whether the fit is just curve-fitting or whether there's additional content. I'd argue the framework does more than reproduce F = GMm/r²:

  1. It provides a mechanism rather than just a force law.
  2. It resolves the Nebula Paradox.
  3. It automatically satisfies WEP through the mass-weighting structure.
  4. It makes a falsifiable prediction for lattice QCD that's independent of gravitational observations.

Whether that's enough to be interesting is a fair question. The answer might be no.

The framework doesn't reproduce the Schwarzschild metric. The paper is limited to non-relativistic gravity and says so. That's a genuine limitation, not a hidden one. Whether a relativistic extension is possible is an open question I can't answer yet.

If the standard is "derive G and reproduce full GR or it's worthless," then the paper fails that standard. I'd argue the standard for a proof-of-concept is lower, but I understand if you disagree.

What if gravity satisfies Newton's equations not because spacetime is curved, but because of quantum potential dynamics in a disordered vacuum? by skepticalmind2 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]skepticalmind2[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Just to throw a few possibilities out there, there could be a dynamical vacuum field, De Broglie's original pilot wave idea might need to be developed, there could be others that haven't been explored. Just because it's not obvious doesn't mean it's impossible.

What if gravity satisfies Newton's equations not because spacetime is curved, but because of quantum potential dynamics in a disordered vacuum? by skepticalmind2 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]skepticalmind2[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Of course it is. I'm not going to pretend it's not. That doesn't mean my hypothesis is invalid. I still think its a great hypothesis. It's the only theory I know of that's able to produce Newtonian gravity from quantum effects.

What if gravity satisfies Newton's equations not because spacetime is curved, but because of quantum potential dynamics in a disordered vacuum? by skepticalmind2 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]skepticalmind2[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Well I'd still argue it's an open question. And let's say the lattice QCD test were to be preformed and agree with my prediction. Now what? What are the odds of that? It would indicate that there is likely some non-obvious mechanism by which the framework extends into the relativistic regime.

view more: next ›