💰Special Offer!💰 Use our link https://joinnautilus.com/SABINE to get 15% off your membership!
For the first time in 4 decades, physicists have found a new approach to solving a problem which is almost a century old: How to combine quantum physics with gravity. I told you about this new approach, called “Postquantum Gravity” from Johnathan Oppenheim briefly before Christmas. He and his collaborators are now saying that their idea also explains dark matter and dark energy.
Paper here: https://arxiv.org/abs/2402.19459
My essay about Oppenheim’s idea on Nautilus is here: https://nautil.us/what-physicists-have-been-missing-506607/
The quiz for this video is here: https://quizwithit.com/start_thequiz/1710219597890×278179138655485950
🤓 Check out our new quiz app ➜ http://quizwithit.com/
💌 Support us on Donatebox ➜ https://donorbox.org/swtg
📝 Transcripts and written news on Substack ➜ https://sciencewtg.substack.com/
👉 Transcript with links to references on Patreon ➜ https://www.patreon.com/Sabine
📩 Free weekly science newsletter ➜ https://sabinehossenfelder.com/newsletter/
👂 Audio only podcast ➜ https://open.spotify.com/show/0MkNfXlKnMPEUMEeKQYmYC
🔗 Join this channel to get access to perks ➜
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC1yNl2E66ZzKApQdRuTQ4tw/join
🖼️ On instagram ➜ https://www.instagram.com/sciencewtg/
#science #sciencenews #physics
Zum ersten Mal seit vier Jahrzehnten haben Physiker einen neuen Ansatz zur Lösung eines fast hundert Jahre alten Problems gefunden: Wie lässt sich Quantenphysik mit der Schwerkraft verbinden? Ich habe Ihnen kurz vor Weihnachten von diesem neuen Ansatz namens „Postquantum Gravity“ von Johnathan Oppenheim erzählt. Er und seine Mitarbeiter sagen nun, dass ihre Idee auch dunkle Materie und dunkle Energie erklärt. Werfen wir einen Blick. Dieses Video enthält ein Quiz, mit dem Sie überprüfen können, wie viel Sie sich erinnern. Quantenphysik und Schwerkraft vertragen sich nicht besonders gut. Quantenphysik ist das, was wir eine nichtdeterministische Theorie nennen. Es enthält ein Zufallselement, eine eingebaute Unsicherheit und setzt dem, was Sie tun und wissen können, Grenzen. Wir sagen oft, dass sich Quantenteilchen an zwei Orten gleichzeitig befinden können, aber die Mathematik besagt eigentlich, dass es keinen Sinn macht, zu sagen, dass sie sich an einem bestimmten Ort befinden. Die Schwerkraft hingegen wird durch Einsteins Allgemeine Relativitätstheorie beschrieben. Es weist allem eine Zeit und einen Ort zu. Es ist deterministisch, die Zukunft ergibt sich aus der Vergangenheit, und die einzige Unsicherheit, die es hat, ist auf unseren eigenen Mangel an Wissen zurückzuführen. Es gab viele Versuche, die beiden zu vereinen und eine sogenannte Theorie der Quantengravitation zu entwickeln . Die bekanntesten Ansätze verleihen der Schwerkraft Quanteneigenschaften und umfassen die Stringtheorie, die Schleifenquantengravitation und die asymptotisch sichere Schwerkraft. Der weniger beschrittene Weg besteht darin, die Schwerkraft als Nicht-Quantentheorie zu belassen oder etwas an der Quantenphysik zu ändern. Diese Ideen haben nicht so gut funktioniert. Bis jetzt. Oppenheims neue Idee, die Postquantengravitation, besteht nun darin, Schwerkraft und Quantenphysik zu kombinieren, indem er der Schwerkraft ein zufälliges Element verleiht. Diese Zufälligkeit kommt von nichts anderem. Es ist eine grundlegende Zutat, es ist der Ausgangspunkt. Das ist so, als ob die Zufälligkeit der Quantenmechanik von nichts anderem herrührt, sie ist grundlegend, ein Ausgangspunkt, einfach eine Eigenschaft der Natur. Die Neuerung, die Oppenheim nun einbrachte, besteht darin, dass er einen Weg gefunden hat, die Mathematik beider Arten von Zufälligkeiten in einem Rahmen zu kombinieren. In dieser Post-Quanten-Theorie bleibt die Schwerkraft Nicht-Quantum und die Teilchen bleiben Quanten. Allerdings kommunizieren diese beiden Sektoren miteinander, weil Teilchen Schwerkraft haben und diese wiederum die Teilchen beeinflusst. In Oppenheims Theorie funktioniert das widerspruchsfrei, weil diese beiden Zufälligkeiten zusammenpassen. In der neuen Arbeit sagen Oppenheim und sein Co-Autor Russo nun, dass diese Zufälligkeit unter bestimmten Umständen das Gesetz der Schwerkraft verändert. Und das sind Situationen , in denen die Beschleunigung eines Objekts sehr gering ist. Wenn Sie die Debatte über Dunkle Materie verfolgt haben, wird Ihnen das sofort auffallen. Denn der Hauptkonkurrent der Dunklen Materie ist eine Modifikation der Einsteinschen Schwerkraft, bekannt als Modified Newtonian Dynamics oder kurz MOND. Und das macht sich schon bei geringer Beschleunigung bemerkbar. Der Grund dafür, dass diese Veränderung bei geringer Beschleunigung so aussehen kann, als ob es dunkle Materie gäbe, liegt darin, dass die Beschleunigung im Durchschnitt von der Stärke der Schwerkraft abhängt. Wenn Sie sich in der Nähe eines Planeten oder einer Sonne befinden, wie es wahrscheinlich bei den meisten von Ihnen der Fall ist, spüren Sie eine spürbare Anziehungskraft dieser schweren Objekte. Wenn man das als Kraft interpretiert, dann entsteht daraus eine Beschleunigung. Je weiter Sie von schweren Gegenständen entfernt sind, desto geringer ist die Beschleunigung. Allerdings wird die gesamte von der gesamten Galaxie ausgehende Anziehungskraft umso geringer, je weiter man vom Zentrum entfernt ist. Das liegt einfach daran, dass der größte Teil der Masse der Galaxie im Zentrum sitzt. Nun stellt sich heraus: Wenn man davon ausgeht, dass die Schwerkraft bei kleinen Beschleunigungen stärker wird, dann kann das die Beobachtungen erklären, die der Dunklen Materie in Galaxien zugeschrieben werden. Das ist, kurz gesagt, die Idee von MOND. Oppenheim sagt nun, dass sie ein ähnliches Verhalten erkennen, wenn sie die Änderungen betrachten, die sie am Gesetz der Schwerkraft durch diese Zufälligkeit erfahren. Je geringer die Beschleunigung eines Objekts ist, desto stärker wird es von der Zufälligkeit beeinflusst. Sie leiten eine Gleichung ab, die dem Newtonschen Gravitationsgesetz für das Newtonsche Potential ähnelt . Und dann haben sie einige ungewöhnliche Beiträge. Sie zeigen, dass diese zusätzlichen Beiträge denen der modifizierten Newtonschen Dynamik zu ähneln scheinen, die mit der Dunklen Materie konkurriert. Und als Zugabe: Sie bekommen auch einen Begriff, der ihrer Meinung nach wie dunkle Energie aussieht. Auf Twitter schreibt Oppenheim: „Leute, es scheint etwas zu passieren … Wir zeigen, dass unsere Theorie der Schwerkraft … die Expansion des Universums und die galaktische Rotation ohne dunkle Materie oder dunkle Energie erklären kann .“ Ok, aber Sie sind nicht gekommen, um zu hören, was die Autoren über ihre eigene Arbeit sagen. Lass mich raten, du bist gekommen, um zu hören, was ich sage. In Ordnung. Eigentlich mache ich das nicht gerne, aber los geht’s. Ich denke, es wird nicht funktionieren. Der Grund dafür ist, dass die Gleichung, die sie haben, im Newtonschen Potential linear ist. Damit die modifizierte Schwerkraft funktioniert, benötigen Sie eine Gleichung, deren Potential nichtlinear ist. Ich hatte keine Zeit, viel darüber nachzudenken, aber ich gehe davon aus, dass es nicht richtig herauskommt, wenn man sich die Skalierung der asymptotischen Geschwindigkeit mit der Masse der Galaxien ansieht . Die einzigen Differentialgleichungen , die dies richtig machen, haben eine ziemlich eigenartige nichtlineare Form mit einem Exponenten von 3 über 2. Also, ja. Ich wünschte, es würde funktionieren, aber ich glaube nicht, dass es funktionieren wird. Aber wissen Sie, ich bin nur eine alte, mürrische Frau, die denkt, sie hätte alles schon einmal gesehen, also stellt sich vielleicht heraus, dass das, was ich gerade vor einigen hunderttausend Menschen gesagt habe, völliger Unsinn war. Und wenn das so sein sollte, möchten Sie meine öffentliche Blamage nicht verpassen, also bleiben Sie dran. Wenn Sie mehr über aktuelle wissenschaftliche Entwicklungen erfahren möchten, empfehle ich Ihnen einen Blick in das Nautilus-Magazin. Nautilus ist ein Wissenschaftsmagazin, das Sie über die wichtigsten Themen, die heute diskutiert werden, auf dem Laufenden hält. Sie haben häufig Wissenschaftler, die für sie schreiben und Ihnen die Insider-Geschichten erzählen. Ich habe selbst einige Beiträge für sie geschrieben, zuletzt über John Oppenheims Theorie der Postquantengravitation. Nautilus gibt es in einer digitalen und einer gedruckten Version und es macht einfach Spaß, es zu lesen. Sie haben sich wirklich viel Mühe beim Schreiben gegeben und das grafische Design ist erstklassig. Was mir an Nautilus besonders gefällt, ist, dass sie alle Bereiche der Wissenschaft abdecken, von der Astronomie über die Wirtschaftswissenschaften, die Geschichte, die Neurowissenschaften bis hin zur Philosophie und Physik. Wenn Sie unseren benutzerdefinierten Link „joinnautilus dot com slash sabine“ verwenden, erhalten Sie 15 Prozent Rabatt auf Ihr Mitgliedschaftsabonnement. Schauen Sie sich das also an. Danke fürs Zuschauen, bis morgen.
49 Comments
This video comes with a quiz which you can take here: https://quizwithit.com/start_thequiz/1710219597890×278179138655485950
your understanding of this topic is mediocre, please avoid this topic as you just spread misconceptions to the plebs and this does not help science
Huh, I thought quantum theory was deterministic chaos, rather than outright non-deterministic.
But we don't need new ideas which will solve (conceal) mess which astrophysicists made, we need astrophysicists discovering real physics of universe.
"If you are near a sun or a planet, as most of you probably are…" I guffawed, I miss this kind of thing from when I was an undergrad at MIT many decades ago. Thanks for making physics fun!
And it’s likely to be wrong….
Sabine = 🤡
Yeah CEO’s will be replaced by AGI’s, who said that first? Was it on the news?
Quantum Sabine was highly inaccurate. Her quantum twin should have been upside down.
Sabine we are all grumpy when we have a few miles on the clock!
My hunch is that space is the problem. I bet that the randomness of quantum derives from space being an approximation, an analogy whose limitations start to show on quantum scales. If that’s the case, gravity should exhibit similar randomness when described in spatial terms.
I used to enjoy Sabine's channel before she became an enviro-whack job.
From an old grumpy man: you are not that old, naither that grumpy. You have still a long way to reach that condition, Sabine! I do appreciate your amusng and often informative videos. Best wishes, Richard K.
Your cover photos look like box covers to 90s Nintendo videogame cartridges.
lol, Quantum gravity is a dead end. Same with the standard model.
rational materialist putting their blinders on as per usual, they cant explain consciousness and since consciousness is the basis of reality they cant understand reality
We still don't understand the fundamental nature of energy, time, space and gravity and yet speculations about mysterious energy and mysterious matter abound at nausium. Physicists will never get to solve these kinds of problems because they have an infatuation with drilling ad infinitum and becoming lost in the detail that makes their heads spin. You know: "missing the forest for the trees!" Go back to basics and become an artist to lead you to a more solid perspective from which to hypothesize. PC.
At about the 2-min mark, Sabine says, "the randomness of quantum mechanics does not come from anything else, it's fundamental, a starting point, just a property of nature." You can accept that, but it's not necessary. Quantum information theorists have shown that quantum mechanics is based most fundamentally on the 2-dimensional Hilbert space or quantum bit of information called a "qubit." The randomness of quantum mechanics comes from the randomness of the qubit and that's not fundamental, it follows from the observer-independence of Planck's constant h, which is a consequence of the relativity principle and Planck's radiation law. Let me back up a bit.
According to Einstein, a theory whose formalism follows from an empirically discovered fact is a "principle theory" and special relativity follows from the empirically discovered fact that everyone measures the same value for the speed of light c, regardless of their relative motions, which he called the "light postulate." Now the light postulate is very counterintuitive and people like Lorentz wanted an explanation for it. Most people looked for a causal mechanism to explain the light postulate, e.g., meter sticks shrinking as they moved through the luminiferous aether (hypothetical medium for light waves). Einstein also tried such "constructive efforts" before he gave up and wrote:
"By and by I despaired of the possibility of discovering the true laws by means of constructive efforts based on known facts. The longer and the more despairingly I tried, the more I came to the conviction that only the discovery of a universal formal principle could lead us to assured results."
Instead of a causal mechanism to explain the light postulate, he invoked the relativity principle — the laws of physics (to include their constants of Nature) are the same in all inertial reference frames. Since c is a constant of Nature according to Maxwell's equations of electromagnetism and inertial reference frames are related by uniform relative motions (boosts), the relativity principle says the light postulate must obtain. Einstein's "principle explanation" is so compelling that very few physicists are still looking for a "constructive" counterpart. What does this have to do with quantum mechanics?
Well, quantum information theorists rendered quantum mechanics a principle theory like special relativity. The empirically discovered fact whence the Hilbert space formalism of quantum mechanics is Information Invariance & Continuity, which entails that everyone measures the same value for Planck's constant h, regardless of their relative spatial orientations. Since h is a constant of Nature according to Planck's radiation law and inertial reference frames are related by relative spatial orientations (rotations), the relativity principle says the "Planck postulate" must obtain. Where's the quantum randomness in that?
Well, let's look at a qubit of electron spin. When you pass an electron through an inhomogeneous magnetic field, it is either deflected "up" towards the North magnetic pole or "down" towards the South magnetic pole. This constitutes a measurement of its spin angular momentum, i.e., +h/4pi or -h/4pi. Therefore, as Weinberg pointed out, when you measure an electron's spin you are measuring Planck's constant h.
Now suppose you send electrons through a vertically-oriented magnetic field and then send those electrons that are deflected "up" (literally up in this case) to a horizontally-oriented magnetic field. What do you expect to find?
Well, since angular momentum is a vector, it has length and direction (picture an arrow). Therefore, vertical spin up electrons have angular momentum that points straight up, not side-to-side at all, and so should have no horizontal spin angular momentum at all. We might therefore expect them to pass straight through the horizontally-oriented magnetic field. But, they don't. They are deflected randomly in equal number to the left and right ("up" and "down" relative to the horizontal N-S magnetic poles), which averages to zero total side-to-side deflection in accord with our classical expectation for angular momentum. Why not zero? Why the random 50-50 split averaging to zero?
Everyone has to measure the same value for Planck's constant h, regardless of their spatial orientations, and measuring an electron's spin is a measurement of h. If the electrons passed straight through the horizontally-oriented magnetic field, that would constitute a value of zero for h. This is analogous to moving at the speed of light through the luminiferous aether and measuring c to be zero.
So, the randomness of quantum mechanics need not be viewed as fundamental. Instead, it can be understood to stem ultimately from the randomness of the qubit outcomes, which are the result of the observer-independence of h, as justified by the relativity principle.
If you want more details, see "Einstein's Entanglement: Bell Inequalities, Relativity, and the Qubit" Oxford UP (June 2024).
Something is dreadfully wrong with human society when there’s no place for a mind like yours among the ranks of the most influential scientists. You should be setting the research priorities of nations. (Even if you don’t want to; just ask Plato.)
This is absolutely elegant. I hope these guys are right and win a Nobel prize.
Gravity isn't physics it's chemistry.
Liquids gasses and solids all interacting taking their place amongst each other in a closed system.
The Solar system is an open system and is governed by a different set of laws.
The great irony of scientists denying religion is their religious-like dogmatic clinging to works they’ve put on a pedestal. Quantum physics indicates both Newton and Einstein were right about their math and observations but simply lacked the technology to see our quantum reality.
2:17 – "quantum remains non-quantum" … Hahahaha. Or maybe quantum should be both quantum and non-quantum at the same time. We'll call it… METAQUANTUM!
I take exception to two things in this episode: grumpy and old; neither of which do I see in you or the episodes I have personally observed. thanks again for your work!
How can "infinite" sum of "infinitely small" quantities give a finite quantity? How many points one point contain? Imagine a triangle, pick one side and start drawing parallel lines to that one inside of triangle. They all have infinite amount of points and yet they converge to the one point. the point where other two sides of triangle connect. I think that Max Planck was wrong. The smallest "thing" is as small as we want it to be, that's why Integral calculus works. Building particle accelerators is pointless.
You always leave me smiling and you have a beautiful one yourself Thank you ma'am
Gravity has 3 parts, and it is electromagnetic.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oDsDPbdTXlI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A56jc0_gYZw
Finally. To me it was clear that dark matter was a way to cover up a mistake
I will say I like that it sounds like this theory can eliminate dark matter and dark energy as necessary components, so they might be at least moving in something of the right direction.
That said, I also have a great deal of trouble with the notion that even quantum physics is properly "random." I don't think we need quantum wave collapse to be "random" to explain free will and to avoid a wholly deterministic universe, and, moreover, the way these random elements conveniently cancel out to form deterministic physics by the time we can properly observe it seems…convenient.
That said, I suppose I am okay with "random" as an explanation for how a photon decides which of two slits it will pass through; it's with entanglement that I start to question the when and how. Locality vs. realism remain an issue for me.
Post Quantum Gravity is not even wrong.
In Quantum Physics, a particle is not in two places at once. Upon observation (which is the only thing which gives real quantities) the particle is in only one place.
presenting formulas without telling what all the symbols mean looks like gobbeldigook to me. De text at [5:30] could be a startrek quote for all I know. I'm not saying you tell nonsense, I'm just saying it does not feel like I understand something now that I didn't understand before.
Could they have combined post quantum gravity with MOG instead of MOND?
If light is in two places at once, and the associated spacetime is in two places at once, could this qualify as a symmetry / simplifying things?
If an electromagnetic wave has quantum properties, and gravity (spacetime) has quantum properties, would some of the quantum properties eliminate each other?
I am not a physicist, but "dark matter" and "dark energy " overcomplicate things a lot. I don't like them🤢
Even if this theory won't work some other definitely will
Could gravitons be as small as the strings in string theory. Could in essence the universe just be a graviton field.
What about looking subjects close to engineering implimentation such as Topological quantum mechanics, topological insulators, and Hall effect. These the ones that I have recently stumbeled upon after attempting to understand single electron transistors but was then disapointed to find the only thing being researched was quantum single electron qbits and no apparent atempt to make a low power telephone. This after waiting since 1987.
High energy phisics, it seems to me, absorbs all the attention whilst engineering is left as usual with the crumbs of periferal insperation and chance to get the results of progress to the populous.
Oh how Euclids 5th postulate dangles
🌊🫧🫧🫧🫧🫧🫧🫧🛸
OK, You are correct in saying this this new theory of randomness is wrong. What these two are missing is Quantum Gravity AKA Multiple Temporal Dimensions (infinite). Einstein was right, of course, in classical relativity in his (4D spacetime – 1 time dimension) block time universe model. This, however, does not work in QM. Einstein, unlike Newton, shows us that TIME is relative (velocity) and not static. In doing this Einstein is pointing us to MTD in the QM world. If you plug this into your math I do believe Quantum Gravity works. There is more than one time dimension in QM (XD spacetime – infinite time dimensions) but only one in our classical world as we live it and see it as linear beings. Viola!
To combine quantum mechanics, relativity and big bang cosmology, you need a particle (or some agent) that behaves like all three.
You need a wave function (quantum mechanics) that expands like the wave function in the two slit experiment (like big bang cosmology) but also overlaps and interacts with other expanding spherical waves to create spacetime (relativity).
Hey guys im kind of confused about something. Is the idea that if we quantize gravity, explanations of what happens to time at a quatum level will follow? Like does time also get a random element?
I like the old, grumpy woman who has seen it before.
One camera lens does not 100,000 people make
Here's a ChatGPT summary:
– Physicists have discovered a new approach called post-quantum gravity, which aims to combine quantum physics with gravity.
– The new theory also claims to explain dark matter and dark energy.
– Quantum physics is non-deterministic with built-in uncertainty, while gravity, as described by general relativity, is deterministic.
– Previous attempts to unify quantum physics and gravity have included string theory, loop quantum gravity, and asymptotically safe gravity.
– Jonathan Oppenheim's post-quantum gravity introduces fundamental randomness to gravity, similar to the randomness in quantum mechanics.
– In this theory, gravity remains non-quantum, and particles remain quantum, but they can interact due to gravity's influence on particles.
– The new paper by Oppenheim and Russo suggests that this randomness alters the law of gravity at very small accelerations.
– This change at small accelerations can mimic the effects attributed to dark matter, similar to the concept of modified Newtonian dynamics (MOND).
– The theory also produces an equation with extra contributions that resemble those of MOND and includes a term that looks like dark energy.
– The author of the text, however, expresses skepticism about the theory's viability, particularly because the equation is linear in the Newtonian potential, whereas successful modified gravity theories are non-linear.
– Main message: A new theory called post-quantum gravity proposes a way to unify quantum physics and gravity by introducing fundamental randomness to gravity, potentially explaining dark matter and dark energy, but the theory's success is still uncertain.
More like 600,000 people 😂
Fine that Oppenheim proposes gravity to be of a random nature – but when you say that "it's just like the random ness in quantum machanics. Fundamental, and doesn't come from anything" (paraphrasing) – I have to protest a bit.
Though not really qualified (like, at all) I'm pretty sure that there is no consensus among physicists that the randomness in quantum mechanics stems from a truly fundamental indeterminacy in nature, nor that there is definitive proof that rules out underlying deterministic mechanisms.
It sucks the fact that in the current mold of science, humans have resolved that all of the universes properties are both random, and at least to those privy to quantum physics, biology, psychology, and computer science can probably see; if not proven wrong it can solve the origin of life and possibly confirm the next chapter of culture and science!
[skip below paragraph for science]
Now excuse my poor writing, for I am a layman, and I haven’t been proven to any title of grad school or beyond, but I am interested in these subjects and wanted to share my idea since I’ve long followed all these and other scientific fields. And my idea was a better developed scientist can hopefully see it and falsify and then maybe tell me why it doesn’t make sense from the start, or begin a new field of inquiry.
Plagiarize me in plight!
In quantum physics I suppose that any quantum particle that can be concerned as a wave, is a living organism, and that the mechanism of wave functions kind of behaves like early computer models, but it also acts like classical biological interior models in many ways as well.
Here’s my argument on why I’m starting to think the sleeping universe is real.
What is the sleeping universe? I suggest that the same condition of mathematically principled algorithms in our plane of reality inside the universe, is also present when no universe exists on the plane of existence.
randomness could have originated before the birth of our universe.
What do the universe, matter, mass, the animal kingdom, subatomic particles and objects larger or smaller. All have in common?
Yes they all pertain common traits like having enough stored energy to take out everything you know, an inherent desire to traverse to a lower state of energy, and an internal self improving engine that culminates into dual universe sized axis which is also hooked up to a self correcting number generator, and I just want to ask Who is it hiding from? Anyhow similar to biological or computer ai models, it slowly learns and evolves with the passage of time, it’s then advancing from one era of change to another where it gets faster similar to what Terrence McKenna brought up about time acceleration.
Quantum physics’ model
Of a wave function perfectly illustrates this.
The wavelength and amplitude (momentum and position, x and y) of a wave function change at a very fast rate, correct me here if I’m wrong but one method of categorization present in wave function behavior is that when the particle in a wave function experiences a change in position within it’s domain it logs it accumulatively and forms it’s own probability distribution. Then these super evasive particles with 2 evolving algorithms with the code potential of the universe twice over, then perhaps designed with time and randomness in mind, in entanglement it can in a not at all suspicious as hell manor find other different particles using the same implements to evolve.
Now particles may be dead matter, but since all matter and antimatter is moving in the universe, and it has energy,
With learning software designed to slowly impose a state of less energy, and to top it off both complex biology and unalive material both behave similarly in their structure of internal problem solving, and mentally a similar scope of existence.
This could indicate that the pre universe held the same deterministic randomness to it. And that in the plane of existence the universe take a part of, we have many avenues of speculation to consider, such as:
Is this proof the universe is entirely alive?
If the universe is alive, does it have any perceptions of reality or is it an advanced manifestation of dream from the mind of the universe?
Is it that we are living as a software model? One that may repeat the universe over again and again, using luck to start a new one. Having the universe learn novel experiences in each simulation and upgrading the capacity of being.
Does this explain the phenomenon of life colonizing inhabitable planets with no apparent and discernibly real triggers?
I don’t know the answer to any of these and maybe it’s something else entirely. If you read thank you for your time!
I don't see why (some) particles being quantum means that space-time/gravity must be quantum. It looks like the keep trying to force-fit this idea.
What do you think of the work of Sciama? Does this solve the gravity problem?