In the relativistic transactional picture (RTI), spacetime is an emergent construct. It emerges from specific interactions at the quantum level (i.e., transactions). This process creates a metrical structure; thus, RTI allows the harmonious integration of quantum theory and general relativity, two theoretical domains generally thought to be in conflict. I’ve just completed a collaboration with researcher Andreas Schlatter in which the quantitative specifics of this development are laid out. The bottom line: quantum theory and general relativity are now reconciled and unified. Details can be found here: https://arxiv.org/abs/2209.04025
Transactions Complete Entropic Gravity
Published
Transactional Interpretation 
Hi
You may be interested in this publication:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/331302828_Emergent_dark_gravity_from_nonholographic_screens/fulltext/5c729cf8299bf1268d212fa4/Emergent-dark-gravity-from-nonholographic-screens.pdf?origin=profileFeaturedResearchPublicationItem
David Thornton
Sent from my iPad
>
Ruth, I have really become interested in this whole approach to understanding gravity from a thermodynamics perspective rather than from a mechanics perspective that makes assumptions about the inertial foundation of gravity that may not be true. This is coming out of my reading of Robert Rosen who makes a very clear categorical distinction between ‘simple’ systems that admit to the mechanistic formalism and that it entails–which include some assumptions–like computability and state-based ontology–on which Rosen’s work casts dispersions, and ‘complex’ systems that are more like living organisms for which a thermodynamic approach may be more appropriate. Here is Rosen’s claim drawn from his introduction to ‘Essays on Life Itself’: “I claim that Gödelian noncomputability results are a symptom, arising from within mathematics itself, indicating that we are trying to solve problems in too limited a universe of discourse.” The claim is that the mechanistic formalism as a basic model is inadequate and misleading–effectiveness does not admit to computability. And I don’t think that the implications of Gödel have really sunk in because of how deep the belief in computability goes. And in the universality of a belief in the exclusivity of ‘inertial’ mechanistic forces and the basic difference between a ‘response’ to a force and the ‘generation’ of a force. Rosen’s claim that ‘complex’ systems which manifest ‘closed causal loops’ do not admit to state descriptions–do not have an ‘ontology of states’–suggests that one must turn to a non-mechanistic thermodynamic approach. If the universe is composed of complex systems resembling the function of living organisms, and it behaves more like a ‘complex’ organism than a ‘simple’ mechanism–which is Rosen’s claim–then a whole-system understanding that thermodynamics provides may actually be more relevant (with the generalization of the concept of ‘entropy’, for example) than mechanics. Which is a point made by Rosen in ‘Essays on Life Itself’. There is also the question about how this all fits together with quantum physics (which is not necessarily a ‘mechanics’!) which is addressed in this remarkable paper by Slobodan Perović : ROBERT ROSEN’S RELATIONALIST UNDERSTANDING OF BIOLOGICAL STATES AND QUANTUM MECHANICS.
https://www.readcube.com/articles/10.2298%2Ftheo1803005p
The bottom line on this is that a thermodynamic approach for seeking an explanation for gravity makes more sense than trying to explain gravity using the mechanical formalism and its associated assumption.
The “Transactions Complete Entropic Gravity” monograph suggests that some cosmological phenomena may be explain in a more compelling manner by RTI that other quantum interpretations. In particular, I would be interested to known if you have considered extending RTI theory to the cosmological realm beyond entropic gravity. A few ideas come to mind. Under RTI the universe evolves as “a structured set of events” (transactions) from which spacetime emerges. Such an explanation seems more compelling that the one offered by move conventional quantum cosmologies. Another aspect of cosmology that might be better explain by RTI is the so call “dark era” of the early universe. In the dark era, the superheated plasma constituting the universe would have few if any on shell photons needed for emission and absorption events by which spacetime is transacted into existence. Consequently, the early universe would consist almost entirely as a quantum reality independent of time and space, offering an extremely limited set of possibilities. Thus, the expansion of the spacetime universe must have been extremely slow until the neutral hydrogen fog that trapped photons emitted by early stars and galaxies became reionized, creating a vastly increased set of opportunities for actualized transactions. As a consequence, spacetime would expand autonomously at an accelerated rate.
What would seem more difficult to explain within RTI is the so called early inflationary phase of the universe. Perhaps some type of direct action non-unitary quantum inflationary field could explain cosmic inflation, based on a set of transactions that are no longer permissible under conservation laws.
If RTI can be extended successfully to explain phenomena studied by other physical disciplines, I think that success would induce more people to embrace RTI.
Thanks very much for your comments and questions. Actually, it’s not clear that the inflation hypothesis is needed under transactional gravity (TG). Inflation was invoked as an attempt to resolve such issues as the ‘flatness’ and ‘horizon’ problems. There is no horizon problem under TG, since the quantum substratum is in full causal contact among its constituents and the spacetime construct arises directly from that. Also, the fact that TG naturally leads a small cosmological constant suggest that it may also resolve the ‘flatness’ problem without the need for inflation. However, I have not examined these issues in detail.
The relationship between gravity and quantum mechanics is a very interesting question, regardless of which interpretation we take. It is also very exciting that RTI suggests something specific about quantum gravity (most interpretations are completely ambivalent on this point).
While reading the article and researching the topic, I found a very interesting thought experiment written by three Israeli physicists (arxiv:1812.11450), and I would like to ask your opinion on what RTI would say about it.
The gedankenexperiment is as follows:
This allows Alice to send information to Bob faster than light (FTL)! This seems quite absurd. Especially since this would violate the QM no-cloning theorem (the article describes how, but that is not important now).
My question is, what does RTI say about the gravitational field of an electron while it is “flying”.
I think that according to RTI, an electron has no gravitational effect on its own. So an electron/photon/etc. flying freely – an Offer Wave – does not generate a gravitational field.
Thus Bob would not measure anything, even if he had infinitely sensitive and accurate atomic clocks. So this gedankenexperiment would not work.
Sorry, one more thing. I forgot to mention that it is not the gravitational field of the electron itself that is measured, but the gravitational effect of the electron’s magnetic field!
So if Alice measures the spin in the Z direction, for example, then Alice and Bob’s electrons have a magnetic dipole in the Z direction, which therefore has an asymmetric gravitational field (different in the Z direction), and Bob measures this with the atomic clocks that surround his electron.
So the question is, what RTI does say about the gravitational effect of this magnetic field of an electron / any spin-half quantum system?
Thanks for the comment & question. Yes, if I understand the premise of the experiment, I agree with you: there is no ‘gravitational effect’ of the electron’s magnetic field on its own. Gravitational effects emerge from actualized transactions and the ‘flying electron’ is a pre-transaction process. A photon, in contrast, is an aspect of the spacetime structure but only insofar as it mediates a transaction (connects an emission and absorption event).