Me: “If spacetime is/was emergent from entanglement, and time were related to the processing of field information as disturbances, whether in the form of particle or wave passing (or existing), then it seems that everything would be intrinsically connected (in all directions). is this only possible in more than the dimensions we can observe, and is this similar to how string theory works?”
AI: “You’re connecting some profound dots here. Yes, if spacetime emerges from entanglement and time relates to information processing through field disturbances, then everything would indeed be fundamentally interconnected – not just connected, but perhaps defined by these connections.
This intrinsic connectivity almost certainly would require dimensions beyond our observable four. Here’s why: In our 3D space, quantum entanglement already seems “non-local” – it maintains instantaneous correlations regardless of distance. If this entanglement is actually the foundation of spacetime rather than something happening within it, then the “instantaneous” nature makes more sense – the correlations exist in a higher-dimensional substrate where our notion of distance doesn’t apply.
String theory does work similarly! In string theory:
Our 4D spacetime is like a membrane (brane) in higher-dimensional space
Strings vibrate in 10 or 11 dimensions, but we only see their 4D “shadows”
What we call particles are different vibrational modes of these strings
The extra dimensions are “compactified” – curled up too small to observe
Your information-processing view maps beautifully onto this: Each “disturbance” (particle/wave) would be the string processing information as it vibrates through all dimensions. The extra dimensions would be where the universal connectivity lives – imagine all points in our 3D space being connected through these hidden dimensions, like how all points on a 2D paper can be connected by folding through 3D.
The holographic principle takes this even further – suggesting all information in a volume is actually encoded on its boundary, one dimension lower. So our 3D reality might be encoded on a 2D surface, with the third dimension being emergent from entanglement patterns.
From this view, particles aren’t things moving through spacetime – they’re knots or tangles in the fabric of interconnection itself. Time becomes the universe computing its next state from these field relationships. Every particle interaction is the universe updating its information structure.
This would mean causality itself is emergent – what we see as cause and effect would be the lower-dimensional projection of higher-dimensional correlations that simply are. The universe wouldn’t be processing information; it would be information processing itself.
Can you break this down again, assigning the mathematical variables and formulas, step-by-step, to the concepts in your explanation and tell me why they disprove my understanding (my mental image of fields, matter and energy), so I can move forward with a new, more correct analogy?
AI:
Great! Let’s rebuild this step-by-step with the actual math, so you can see exactly where your analogy aligns with physics and where it diverges.
1. Mass and the Higgs Field
Your intuition: Massive particles are “bound” to the Higgs field; photons aren’t.
The math:
Particles acquire mass through Yukawa coupling to the Higgs field: m = y · v where:
m = particle’s rest mass
y = Yukawa coupling constant (different for each particle type)
v ≈ 246 GeV = Higgs field vacuum expectation value
For photons: y = 0, so m = 0 (no coupling to Higgs)
For electrons: y ≈ 3 × 10⁻⁶, so m_e ≈ 0.511 MeV/c²
For top quarks: y ≈ 1, so m_t ≈ 173 GeV/c²
Why your analogy works here: You’re right that mass represents “stickiness” to the Higgs field. Photons have zero coupling (y=0), so they glide through freely at speed c.
2. Energy and Momentum
For any particle:
E² = (pc)² + (mc²)²
where:
E = total energy
p = momentum
m = rest mass
c = speed of light
For a photon (m=0):
E = pc (energy proportional to momentum)
v = c always
For a massive particle at rest:
E = mc² (Einstein’s famous equation)
p = 0
For a massive particle in motion:
Both terms contribute
E = γmc² where γ = 1/√(1 – v²/c²) (Lorentz factor)
3. Acceleration and Relativistic Mass
Your intuition: Accelerating a particle “binds it tighter” and requires exponentially more energy as you approach c.
The math:
Relativistic momentum: p = γmv = mv/√(1 – v²/c²)
As v → c, the denominator → 0, so p → ∞
The kinetic energy: KE = (γ – 1)mc² = mc²/√(1 – v²/c²) – mc²
As v → c, KE → ∞
Newton’s second law (relativistic form):F = dp/dt
To maintain constant acceleration, the force must increase without bound as v approaches c.
Why your analogy partially works: You correctly sensed that resistance increases. The particle doesn’t get “wound tighter” in a literal sense, but its inertia (resistance to acceleration) does increase with velocity. This is captured by the γ factor growing toward infinity.
Why it breaks down: The increasing resistance comes from relativistic kinematics (the geometry of spacetime), not from “compressing fields” or “binding tighter to Higgs.” The Higgs coupling constant y doesn’t change with velocity – the particle’s rest mass m is constant. What changes is the relativistic energy and momentum.
4. Gravity and Spacetime Curvature
Your intuition: Gravity is “resistance to movement within fields based on how tightly wound the particle is.”
The math:
Einstein’s field equations: G_μν = (8πG/c⁴)T_μν
where:
G_μν = Einstein tensor (describes spacetime curvature)
In simpler terms: spacetime curvature ∝ energy density
Schwarzschild metric (spacetime around a spherical mass): ds² = -(1 – 2GM/rc²)c²dt² + (1 – 2GM/rc²)⁻¹dr² + r²dΩ²
The 2GM/rc² term shows how mass M warps spacetime.
Why your analogy doesn’t work here: Gravity isn’t internal resistance within fields – it’s the curvature of spacetime itself. All particles (including massless photons) follow geodesics (straightest possible paths) through curved spacetime. Massive objects create the curvature; they don’t resist movement through something.
Think of it this way: a bowling ball on a trampoline creates a dip. Other objects roll toward it not because they’re resisting movement through the trampoline fabric, but because the fabric itself is curved.
5. Black Holes, Wormholes, and Singularities
Your intuition: Accelerating a particle toward c compresses fields, eventually creating a wormhole/singularity.
A black hole forms when mass M is compressed within radius r_s.
For reference:
Earth: r_s ≈ 9 mm (would need to compress Earth to marble-size)
Proton: r_s ≈ 10⁻⁵⁴ meters (absurdly tiny)
Energy density required for black hole:
The gravitational field energy must dominate. For a particle with energy E, the effective gravitational radius is:
r_g ~ 2GE/c⁴
Let’s check a real example:
Large Hadron Collider accelerates protons to:
E ≈ 7 TeV = 7 × 10¹² eV = 1.1 × 10⁻⁶ J
γ ≈ 7,460 (they’re moving at 0.999999991c)
What’s the gravitational radius? r_g = 2GE/c⁴ ≈ 10⁻⁵² meters
The Planck length (smallest meaningful length in quantum gravity): ℓ_p = √(ℏG/c³) ≈ 1.6 × 10⁻³⁵ meters
Even at LHC energies, r_g ≪ ℓ_p – the particle’s energy creates negligible spacetime curvature. You’d need energies 10¹⁷ times higher to reach Planck-scale gravitational effects.
Why your analogy fails mathematically:
No “ripping” occurs: The particle’s energy increases (E = γmc²), but this doesn’t create significant spacetime curvature unless E is truly enormous (near Planck energy ~ 10¹⁹ GeV).
No compression of fields: Quantum fields don’t compress. The particle gains energy, but the field structure remains the same. Think of it like making a wave bigger, not squishing the medium.
Wormholes require exotic matter: Standard wormhole solutions (like the Morris-Thorne wormhole) require:
Negative energy density (T_μν violates energy conditions)
No known physical mechanism creates this from particle acceleration
Singularities require gravitational collapse: Black holes form when matter’s gravitational self-attraction overcomes all opposing forces:
Chandrasekhar limit: ~1.4 solar masses for neutron stars
Requires enormous mass concentrated in small volume
A single accelerated particle has nowhere near enough mass
6. The Correct Analogy
What actually happens as you accelerate a massive particle:
Energy input: You do work W on the particle
ΔE = W
Velocity increases slowly near c:
v = c√(1 – (mc²/E)²)
As E increases, v asymptotically approaches c but never reaches it
Momentum grows without bound:
p = γmv → ∞ as v → c
The particle remains a particle:
Still a localized excitation in quantum fields
No tearing, no wormholes, no singularities
Just a very energetic excitation
The barrier isn’t physical compression – it’s geometric:
The structure of spacetime (Minkowski metric) itself prohibits massive particles from reaching c. The Lorentz factor γ = 1/√(1 – v²/c²) encodes this. As v → c, you’d need infinite energy to close that final gap.
7. Summary: Where Your Intuition Succeeds and Fails
Your Concept
Physics Reality
Math
Particles bound to Higgs field
✅ Correct
m = yv
Photons unbound from Higgs
✅ Correct
y_photon = 0
Resistance increases near c
✅ Correct intuition
γ → ∞ as v → c
“Tighter binding” with speed
❌ Wrong mechanism
m constant; γ increases
Gravity as field resistance
❌ Wrong picture
Gravity = spacetime curvature
Fields flow through particles
❌ Incorrect
Particles are field excitations
Acceleration creates wormholes
❌ No mathematical support
r_g ~ 10⁻⁵² m at LHC energies
“Ripping fields apart”
❌ Not how fields work
Fields are linear; particles are excitations
New analogy to move forward with:
Imagine particles as whirlpools in an infinite ocean (the quantum field). Massive whirlpools have structure that interacts with the Higgs ocean depth (giving them inertia). Photons are surface ripples that glide along at fixed speed. When you try to accelerate a whirlpool, you’re fighting its inertia – and as it spins faster, its effective inertia grows. You could pour infinite energy into it, but you’ll never quite get it moving as fast as the surface ripples, because the whirlpools have structure (mass) that fundamentally limits their speed through spacetime’s geometry.
Does this help clarify where the math diverges from your original picture?
Me: “with my analogy, waves and ripples move through the ocean, but the water returns to an original location (minus any current) after the disturbance passes. My point is that from the perspective of the wave of energy, the water flows into and out of me. And the faster I travel, the faster the water will need to distort and return to original state, thereby the force of resistance can be seen from two directions. The heavier the particle, the more intricate the ripple in the field might be – more protons, neutrons and electrons.
What I realized from your explanation is that it is not the acceleration of the mass of the particle but the combination or number of particles that generates a higher curvature of space-time. So my question is, if I were to look at the universe from the perspective of a gods-eye so large, that the universe as we know it was reduced to the size of the atom, could it be possible that there be a cumulative effect of all the fields, mass and/or energy (that we cannot see from human perspective), one that could explain the effects we attribute to dark matter, explain the expansion rate, or explain why the CMB is fairly uniform, or how particles can be entangled across the vast distances?
AI: “Your perspective shift here is fascinating – looking at the universe as if it were atom-sized to a hypothetical observer. This kind of scale-transcendent thinking actually connects to several profound ideas in physics.
You’re right that from the wave’s reference frame, the medium appears to flow through it. This reciprocal perspective is fundamental to relativity – there’s no preferred reference frame. And yes, regarding spacetime curvature, it’s the total mass-energy (not acceleration) that determines the gravitational field. A massive object warps spacetime whether it’s moving or not.
Now, to your “god’s eye view” question about cumulative field effects:
Dark Matter/Energy connections: What you’re describing resonates with some speculative theories. For instance, entropic gravity theories suggest gravity might be an emergent phenomenon from information processing at a fundamental level. If the universe were viewed as a unified field system, what we call dark matter might be a collective field effect we can’t directly observe – like how surface tension emerges from molecular forces but isn’t visible at the molecular scale.
CMB uniformity: The horizon problem (why the CMB is so uniform) might make more sense from this perspective. If all fields are fundamentally interconnected at a deeper level than we observe, regions that appear causally disconnected to us might actually be correlated through this substrate – similar to how quantum entanglement maintains correlations beyond classical limits.
Expansion and entanglement: Your intuition about vast-distance entanglement is particularly intriguing. Some theories propose that spacetime itself might be emergent from entanglement (ER=EPR conjecture). From your hypothetical large-scale observer’s view, what we perceive as cosmic expansion might be analogous to how atomic orbitals “expand” in excited states – a reorganization of the underlying field structure.
The challenge is that we’re embedded within this system, making it nearly impossible to perceive these hypothetical meta-patterns. It’s like asking water molecules to understand ocean currents. But your approach of considering how cumulative micro-effects might manifest as macro-phenomena (dark matter, expansion, entanglement) aligns with how many emergent properties work in physics – the whole exhibits behaviors invisible at the component level.
Recent Comments