Ginestra Bianconi thinks gravity can be derived from entropy — and that gravity itself is fundamentally anti-reductionistic, since it's about geometry rather than isolated particle interactions. In this episode, the network-topologist-turned-gravity-theorist explains her "Gravity from Entropy" action, which treats matter and geometry symmetrically through a geometric quantum relative entropy... (not the horizon entropy of Verlinde or Jacobson). She details why it reduces to Einstein's equations at low energy while predicting a dynamical, always-positive dark energy term (the "G field"), how it may avoid black hole singularities and reproduce the area law without invoking holography, and why she believes understanding the brain may be harder than understanding quantum gravity. We close with her advice for young researchers. I hope you enjoy.show more

The YouTube description does NOT contain a link to her paper. Here it is. Btw, anyone else annoyed that every single post about any fundamental physics theory is overrun with people posting their pet theory rather than discussing the OP’s theory?

The description DOES contain a link to her paper. There's an arXiv link and a pipe. Thank you for sharing and enjoying.

Ah, the Members only version did not. But the generally accessible one did. Sorry for the confusion.

The network topology background is really serving her nicely now. I recently found a hidden metric in the adjacency matrix that’s different from the ones we currently know of. But mathematically, it connects to about 5 other distinct mathematical objects that are used widely.

I wonder if she's tried to recreated Townsend-Brown's unification.....(me doubts it)

Is this related or something else completely?

Something else

Geometry describes shape...of what? why is the consrancy of the speed of light treated as an axiom? This very odd fact is not explainable? There can be no experiment derived to go deeper? Come on.

@grok , explain Gravity from the Quaternion Autocontained Framework

I have a completely unique stance that I developed myself. It's accepted that light is the result of a single electron dropping energy levels. I go so far to say gravity is the result of electron pairs dropping energy levels. Gravity is not some mythical curvature of space-time.

@BryanKeIIy Beautiful

She's essentially saying different types of geometry/information are competing, and gravity is a natural product of that tension. Black hole thermodynamics really opened the door to some very important work. Information as an entity and not something we simply produce in our minds. It seems “energy” requires three dimensions plus time whereas “information/organization” is very happy being static, like a book on a shelf, and may exist without spatiotemporal qualities.

Not from entropy, from electromagnetic divergence in a co-moving frame of reference along our temporal axis which is described by spatial density. Gravity, cosmic inflation and time become the same process as observed from different frames.

Has anyone thought to ask, "why can we all derive gravity from entropy in 100% completely different ways, beginning with entropy and ending with gravity along numerous different paths?" what does this mean about the deeper physical reality? What is it telling us? why is nobody asking this? lol A better video would have been, "Why Even Though Our Theories Are 100% Different, We All Use the Exact Same Terms Entropy, Gravity, Black Holes and Derive Gravity from Entropy, But our Theories are 100% Different and Unrelated., Even Though We All Derive Gravity from Entropy." Curt writes "Her "Gravity from Entropy" action, which treats matter and geometry symmetrically through a geometric quantum relative entropy (not the horizon entropy of Verlinde or Jacobson). ... So is "quantum relative entropy" in no way whatsover related to "horizon entropy"? Are all these entropies vastly different? Do they have different "entropic" properties? Does "entropy" mean anything or are different entropis in no ways rleated? Is "geometric quantum relative entropy" the opposite of "horizon entropy"? Is one a special case of the other? Are they completely unrelated? Firstoff Verlinde and Jacobson did very, very similar, things when it comes to relating gravity to entropy. In fact the titles to their videos and papers are very similar if not the same. In addition, information, thermodynamics, and entropy are very closely related and are oft used in defining one-another. So a far better video would have been on how the theories are foundationally similar and how they are different (if at all), and if they are different at all, why do they use the same words and terminologies to describe them? For instance, some titles: Entropic Gravity from Quantum Entanglement! | with Erik Verlinde, The Physicist Who (Unexpectedly) Derived Gravity From Entropy, This Physicist (Unexpectedly) Derived Gravity from Information, Erik Verlinde: Entropic Gravity, Black Holes, and the ..., Erik Verlinde "Emergence of Gravity from Quantum Information, "Entropic Gravity and General Relativity | Erik Verlinde" , "The Physicist Who Proved Entropy = Gravity Jacobson", "Intriguing Study Explains Gravity Through Quantum Entropy ..." "Gravity Linked to Thermodynamics in Black Holes | Curt ..." so a great video would be to explain why all these "completely different" theories use the same terminology. Is a lot of this driven by clickbait titles incorporating Entropy, Gravity, Information, Thermodynamics, and Black Holes for three decades+? What is the deeper physical reality they are proposing, or is that besides the point? "The Physicist Who Proved Entropy = Gravity"

When each Planck area (\( l_p^2 \)) is considered a holographic pixel, these pixels are in a state of continuous oscillation. A mass, a wave with momentum, or an energy density causes local vibrations in the surrounding Planck pixels. These vibrations create a tension gradient on the holographic surface, which is perceived as the force of gravity at the macroscopic scale.

I think everything is particles, geometry being the shape of nothingness seems like a mathematical construct, not the fundamental reality.

Entropy is order in an excited state from a narrow, limited and restrictive biased perspective — eg boiling water. Gravity is emergent. Geometry is emergent. “Thinks gravity can be derived from entropy” Is not science and opinion, assumption, speculation and conjecture is antithetical to science. Happy hunting!

Fascinating out-of-the-box thinking. But it leaves unanswered issues. Gravity is “fundamentally anti-reductionistic” (geometry over particle interactions)? 🤔 This is simply pure philosophical framing. GR is already geometric, and entropic/emergent gravity ideas, like those of Jacobson, Verlinde, and Padmanabhan have a long history. Bianconi’s version seems to differ by using relative entropy between metrics rather than horizon entropy or entanglement. But it’s not a full unification or resolution of QG problems (renormalizability, singularities, and information paradox). Claims like “understanding the brain may be harder than quantum gravity” are hyperbolic opinions and lack serious rigor. The “quantum relative entropy” for metrics is non-standard (metrics aren’t normalized density matrices with Tr=1). Eigenvalue/log definitions for tensors in Lorentzian signature require very careful handling to stay real/positive, and extensions to full matter content (fermions, gauge fields) are woefully incomplete or outright deferred. At least that’s what appears. Flaws appear typical, such as underdeveloped phenomenology, incomplete matter coupling, and need for quantization/tests. Thus, it remains one of many competing and unproven ideas. It’s more a “framework” than a complete, predictive QG theory. But interesting and promising nevertheless. Thanks.🙂

she's so adorable

I just came here to see how many personal theories would be littered amongst the comments.

A better video would have been, "Why Even Though Our Theories Are 100% Different, We All Use the Exact Same Terms Entropy, Gravity, Black Holes and Deirve Gravity from Entropy, But our Theories are 100% Different and Unrelated." Curt writes "Her "Gravity from Entropy" action, which treats matter and geometry symmetrically through a geometric quantum relative entropy (not the horizon entropy of Verlinde or Jacobson). ... So is "quantum relative entropy" in no way whatsover related to "horizon entropy"? Are all these entropies vastly different? Do they have different "entropic" properties? Does "entropy" mean anything or are different entropis in no ways rleated? Is "geometric quantum relative entropy" the opposite of "horizon entropy"? Is one a special case of the other? Are they completely unrelated? Firstoff Verlinde and Jacobson did very, very similar, things when it comes to relating gravity to entropy. In fact the titles to their videos and papers are very similar if not the same. In addition, information, thermodynamics, and entropy are very closely related and are oft used in defining one-another. So a far better video would have been on how the theories are foundationally similar and how they are different (if at all), and if they are different at all, why do they use the same words and terminologies to describe them? For instance, some titles: Entropic Gravity from Quantum Entanglement! | with Erik Verlinde, The Physicist Who (Unexpectedly) Derived Gravity From Entropy, This Physicist (Unexpectedly) Derived Gravity from Information, Erik Verlinde: Entropic Gravity, Black Holes, and the ..., Erik Verlinde "Emergence of Gravity from Quantum Information, "Entropic Gravity and General Relativity | Erik Verlinde" , "The Physicist Who Proved Entropy = Gravity Jacobson", "Intriguing Study Explains Gravity Through Quantum Entropy ..." "Gravity Linked to Thermodynamics in Black Holes | Curt ..." so a great video would be to explain why all these "completely different" theories use the same terminology. Is a lot of this driven by clickbait titles incorporating Entropy, Gravity, Information, Thermodynamics, and Black Holes for three decades+? What is the deeper physical reality they are proposing, or is that besides the point?

😮👍

🏆 for the comment section‼️

Pharis Williams did something similar.

Information : Underlying informational field ↓ Possible states (quantum possibilities) ↓ Consciousness as an information-processing interface ↓ Experienced reality

You may like my unified theory of physics paper. Link pinned to my profile.

I had to have grok explain it to me in simple terms. I'm glad I can read on x something I don't understand.

Ok. So the thought was that such a thing as gravity allowed for sorting of things to change from chaos. The religious would call it a word that made fermament.