Gravity as a bias, an emergent effect (notes)

Mon, Nov 25, 2019 ❝Musings and untamed wild exploration of philosophical explanations for gravity and time.❞

Contents

2026-10-11 Some stray notes on physics musings that I wrote down to clear my head, already years ago. These are raw notes and considering that I am not actually a physicist, these were borne out of curiosity for physics.

I once selected Timelessness as the title of this blog, mostly for my casual interest in topics in the areas of physics, astrophysics, and astronomy. (I hate how the words astronomy and astrology are so much alike. I actually googled the word before writing it down, because I wasn’t sure. My brain is not made to keep those two words apart … sigh. In any case, I will always be writing about the true science-y one.)

The topic of Time in particular has always fascinated me. It is simply fascinating how something as significant and fundamental as time, can be so much of a mystery still. A number of years back I read the book The end of time by Julian Barbour. I’ve watched many talks and documentaries on the various subjects, as well as science tv shows and documentaries. Basically, it’s the kind of puzzle I like to have buzzing around in my head now and again, never expecting anything useful to come out of it other than giving my brain a non-computer-science-founded riddle to play around with for a change.

This post then is nothing more than a brain dump at an (arbitrary) moment in time of what is seemingly a somewhat coherent bunch of thoughts surrounding the topic of time. It is mostly for my own enjoyment. As the Higgs boson is already confirmed, the following is most likely already proven to be incorrect. Expect nothing of any value, especially given that I am by no means qualified.

Which notion of time?

First, let’s distinguish different notions of time. Then we can identify the notion of time this article is concerned with.

Time as in:

• experiencing time as a being: the psychological variant. The processing of changes by the brain. For example, experiencing the progression of time. Is it going fast or slow? Can your brain keep up with what is happening? Is whatever is happening very uninteresting and seemingly never-ending? Are you remembering something that happened last week?
• aging: the biological process where we slowly get older. This concerns the effects changes have on the human body, i.e. the aging process.
• change, the accumulation of changes: interactions, particles interact, changes occur as a result. The fundamental, low-level process of changes occurring. The measurement of changes, hence the measurement of “time”. Also, the (irreversible?) arrow of time.

This article cares about the last notion, the notion of “change”, of interacting particles bringing about change.

Gravity as a bias

- gravity, instead of as a force (or maybe it still is), it influences like a bias - or a preference. Let's say that the "gravitational force" influences - gives preferences to - which of the possible interactions between particles actually takes place.

The arrow of time

- arrow of time, given the existence of a "gravitational bias", exists as a consequence of the bias that makes once choice of interaction more likely than the others. Hence "turning back time", i.e. perform interactions in the inverse direction such that you end up in the state that you started with (or earlier if you continue going from there on), would not be possible as reversing the interactions would not reverse the "gravitational bias" therefore you would be "swimming upstream", that is against the direction of least resistance.

Envisioning the particle-wave-duality

- particle-wave-duality. Imagine a pond, i.e. a body of water. Let's assume that our space-time (or space-"time" if you consider above definitions) is the water in the pond. Anything we know lives in the water. Now let's assume that light-waves exist above the water in a "sheet of air" that borders on the surface of the pond. (We don't necessarily need the "sheet of air" to have actual height.) Now let's imagine light as a bullet coarsing with the speed of light in the "sheet of air", leaving propagating wave in the pond "in its wake" at the surface area between air and water. This "wave" would be what we experience as a light-wave. Now let's assume that by placing certain objects to the water surface, we introduce enough "graviational bias" to "pull" the bullet downwards into the water (surface). We would introduce the "atomic energy unit", that is the imaginary bullet, into the water. By sheer consequence of the transition from air to water there is more resistance. The resistance compromises the perfect light-speed of the "atomic energy unit". However, by "pulling down" the "atomic energy unit" into the pond, we have - as a consequence - annihilated the wave that was produced in its wake.  
The "graviational bias" need only be strong enough to make the "atomic energy unit" to bend from a straight path onto a collision course with the pond's surface. The "atomic energy unit" doesn't actually have to "dip in", instead it could be a transferrence of energy into the pond. In any case, the "graviational bias" need only be very subtle, an "epsilon", just enough to make a difference.  
Let's assume we cannot see the particle that produces the wave because it exists in a different dimension, while the wave "lives on the surface" of the pond and hence influences the pond. Or rather, the light particle is directly, accidentally influencing the other dimension that is the pond. Hence we see only the waves, not the particle. However, if we introduce this "gravitational bias", we influence the particle making it bend towards the pond, i.e. towards our dimension of space. However, transitioned / energy transferred into our dimension, the particle no longer exists to produce the wave. Hence the transition of energy ends the existence of the wave as it starts the existence of the particle. Both are right, but only one influences our dimension at any given time.

An epsilon is all we need

- "gravitational bias" to introduce epsilon, offsetting the perfect energy balance, hence introducing a preference. The preference either determines the direction, hence inversing direction is more than equally expensive. (Arrow of time) Or introduces a "interaction influence" enabling energy from neighboring dimension (energy packet in sheet of air above the surface of the pond) to transfer into our space-"time".  
Why a "gravitational bias", it is to emphasize the fact that "gravity" need not be a first-class force, but instead can be a consequence of something else, i.e. the matter that exists.

- "arrow of time", considering the "graviational bias" described like this, there isn't a real "arrow of time", it is a consequence/derived from the bias introduced by gravity.

- "time" would basically be synonymous to change, the transitioning from one state into another, hence something "was different" "at one time". Given only this characteristic, time would trivially be reversible, however it isn't. The "arrow of time" described above, the bias/preference in interactions, is what makes time unidirectional. Given descriptions above, it is not unreasonable to consider that at small enough scale, the arrow of time ceases to exist. That is, if there is a scale at which the "bias of gravity" dissolves, then there is no influence that forces the "arrow of time" into existence, hence interactions could occur in both directions.

Open questions

Questions:
- bias of gravity disappears given small enough scales?
- if "gravitational bias" is just the epsilon offsetting the equal probability of interactions, then in certain extraordinary circumstances where interactions are difficult/impossible, "gravity" (i.e. the gravitational bias) may not "exist" (have any meaning) at all.  
Consider a black hole. What if matter is packed together sufficiently densely that there is no possibility of interaction, does a "gravitational bias" still exist/have meaning? (Is it even possible to have things packed together so extremely?) If you have such a densely packed body of mass, the outer edges would still have a "gravitational bias" of course, so properties that black holes are famous for still exist. However, things need not be compressed all the way into a singularity and "gravity" ("gravitational bias") need not exist in the place where the densely packed matter exists.  
The "gravitational bias" would probably not be a force in itself, but rather an "emergent influence" at all places where interactions take place. It is emergent, instead of a primary force. Although the preference that is "gravitational bias" could originate from matter, as it would not relevant without potential interaction, it would only need to exist there where interactions occur. (Interaction - or energy transitions - or whatever you'd call such things.)
- How does "gravitational bias" make sense for a body of matter that's "floating through space". There isn't really any interaction, is there? (or is there interaction "at the quantum level", ... and down the rabbit hole we go ... pandora's box has been opened.)
- Does it make sense to have an epsilon/offset or are there never two interactions possible such that the epsilon can be the determining factor? Given the small scale, hence large amount of interaction, it seems reasonable.
- Does the epsilon influence the matter or does it (only) influence the quantum level? (I'm not sure I should even mention the quantum level. On the other hand, if there really are spontaneously existing quantum-particles, it would also mean that there are spontaneous interactions, hence possibility for the "gravitational bias" to exist.)

Conclusions:
- In all cases, the "gravitational bias" is an emergent effect that emerges everywhere where interactions occur.
- Black hole, densely packed area of matter in which interactions can no longer occur. Hence "bias of gravity" does not exist, because it is not relevant/necessary.
-