Η αιτία της βαρύτητας

## Causal description of gravity 1

What is gravity? We cannot define gravity without defining spacetime. But we shouldn't be generic and vague and speak about the infinite overall universe, because afar Hubble volumes negligibly contribute to our substantiality. We should focus on the local universe and particularly on local systems. An overall locality like the Solar System (it's not a puny observer but all its enveloped observation points) makes many Lagrangian transformations of its constituents. But Lagrangian mechanics isn't compatible with quantum field theory. Particles are excitations of physical fields. All particles move permanently at the speed of light, and they split it into external motion and internal timeflow (for example the photon has maximal external motion thus zero inner speed = frozen timeflow experiencing). Lagrangian mechanics isn't able to describe the specifics of special relativity. It would be ideal to describe the "local Lagrangian multitransformation field" of a particular locality (like the Solar System) in a very analytical manner which would include special relativity (timeflow vs external motion = constant speed of causality); and all these presented via quantum field theory equations. The "local Lagrangian multitransformation field" expressed via quantum field theory should result in mistakes = mismatches (it is impossible to create the accurate "local Lagrangian multitransformation [including all enveloped points] field", but that mistake isn't something wrong, instead it is the spatiotemporal tension of general relativity = gravity. Of course that's what we all want for years. I am not intelligent. I'm a stupid person. But we should work on my utterly stupid idea using computers and sketchy simulations, and gradually, year by year, replace my clumsy suggestion of using sketchy parallelisms (not proven mathematics, but good enough approximations) between 1. the proposed Lagrangian tension, 2. the timeflow vs external speed law and 3. quantum field theory general statistical description of large systems. Nowadays we have nothing of these at a scale good enough to lead us to a causal mechanism of gravity, but we can use computer approximations with the help of great mathematicians which will create a sketchy solution of the causal description of gravity. Future generations will write a better description with less sketchy correspondence of different mathematical descriptions. During our lifetimes we will not be able to find a good description of gravity, but we should at least help the next generation with some sketchy idea[s] they will have to make mathematically coherent.

## What are the specific field-causes of gravity? (Not merely how it bends spacetime, but what is it made of)

Why gravity attracts things towards the place more particle interactions (real or virtual) take place and doesn't sent them afar to the void?

Because particles which interacted with other particles share a vast entanglement connectome, which also encompasses more virtual particles of the void towards the direction of interaction activity versus the relatively interaction-wise inactive regions (absolute inactivity is impossible in spacetime).

Particles lose momentum via the interactions in a repeated manner. Single atoms can escape at the borders of the atmosphere because particle interactions act probabilistically, but rocks behave classically/Newtonianly because they are made of many particles locked in a group, and the majority rule prevails.

The void = emptyish spacetime = quantum fields jittering at low noise levels, isn't identical/tautological to nothing/inexistence.

Without quantum field jittering (according to an interpretation of quantum mechanics the phenomenon is called virtual particles, but anything unmeasured is interpretational) gravity would have been impossible. Spacetime itself must necessarily act.

(Everettian superdeterminism. Googolplex superdeterministic subcases within the hypernymous/superordinate Everettianism.)

```
gravity interaction-wise

```

## comment 1:

But gravity isn't a philosophically deep topic. OK. Tell that to Isaac Newton. It is a deep philosophical issue because it is a causality-transfer phenomenon.

Science hasn't solved all the necessary ingredients of the near-final theory of our universe (near final, because any axiomatics [and ontoaxiomatics] is incomplete).

What is the hypernym of causality in physics, because not only causality matters. It's hypernym matters also = partial entanglements which hold the versions universe as wholes. Study the Hubble volume, an imaginary sphere of subluminal spatiotemporal expansion (regions on the surface of that virtual sphere superluminally recede from each other). The centre of each Hubble sphere is arbitrary. Interactions amongst particles can take place only around their Hubble volume, but that's a totally wrong popular definition. The correct definition of the Hubble volume: quantum entanglements can be initiated/actualised within a Hubble volume, but they can be maintained even outside the Hubble volume. Quantum entanglement cannot transfer useful (telecommunicative) information; but it holds the universe as a whole, even outside different Hubble volumes. Hubble volumes have arbitrary centres, and if we negligibly move their centres we create a slightly different overlapping Hubble volume. Infinite Hubble volumes exist, and share partial entanglement information (the hypernym of causality). Afar Hubble volumes cannot causally interact in an immediate manner, but via the infinite intermediary Hubble volumes they can hold the universe as a whole.

We have to study the hypernym of causality (partial entanglement which holds spacetime as a whole) as a component (not the sole ingredient) of gravity.

## comment 2:

The main idea is that a. nearby particles and virtual particles create a 4D mesh (4D, timeflow = slowing the inner clocks of particles is of core importance), b. particles ofnthe same type arise from the same fields, and probabilistically some exhibit similar states in large numbers (not all agree with that: partial entanglement information sharing; entanglement information is superluminal, holds spacetime as one, but we cannot transfer useful communication data [it mere holds particles in relationships but the engagement information itself is random when readed] - According to that view particles have to be close enough (the closer they are, the more probable it becomes they share partial entanglement) but not necessarily touch, but it doesn't explain what happens to particles of different types... we don't have the final unified field theory.), c. combination of a and b.

## comment 3:

Pierre-Simon de Laplace proposed the gravitational field. It was a step forward towards the elaboration of the causal mechanism of gravity in relation to the initial description of Isaac Newton.