the title is rather an understatement — it is a really strange idea, not just strange, what i was just thinking about.. but it comes as a logical conclusion from my previous post..

as nothingness is impossible and quantum fluctuations are the result of the impossibility of nothingness, then each quantum fluctuation must arise from the impossibility to collapse into nothing, therefore, nothingness must be a force not allowing anything to collapse into it. true nothingness as a force, it truly is strange, but it must be the case if there is no flaw in my reasoning. the fact that nothingness itself cannot really be a force, because true nothingness means abscence of anything, is not an obstacle — it only seems to outside observer like a force, because it is impossible for anything to completely disappear.

the logic may also bring me to the answer what is gravity: if true nothingess is a repulsive “force”, then a single quantum fluctuation is a carrier of attractive force of gravity, which in total sum results in zero energy. therefore, gravity is negative nothingness, and as nothingness has no time, then gravity is also carrier of time — more gravity means slower time, and less gravity means faster time. time as such, while unified in true nothingness, is then a separating “force”. it must be then space-gravity-time (SGT), not space-time (ST). or rather space-gravity-entropy-time (SGET). i must take a break i think.

one may ask why the qauntum fluctuations exist in the first place.

here’s the definition of qauntum fluctuations: “Quantum fluctuations are a point change in the energy of a volume of space due to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. Therefore, a quantum fluctuation has no cause.”

i think there is a cause: the answer comes from the fact that absolute nothingness is impossible. i have written about impossibility of existence of nothingness, but i didn’t think before that this may be the reason for the existence of the quantum fluctuations.

Quantum engineers from UNSW Sydney have created artificial atoms in silicon chips that offer improved stability for quantum computing.

/…/

Scientia Professor Andrew Dzurak explains that unlike a real atom, an artificial atom has no nucleus, but it still has shells of electrons whizzing around the centre of the device, rather than around the atom’s nucleus.

“The idea of creating artificial atoms using electrons is not new, in fact it was first proposed theoretically in the 1930s and then experimentally demonstrated in the 1990s—although not in silicon. We first made a rudimentary version of it in silicon back in 2013,” says Professor Dzurak

/…/

“But what really excites us about our latest research is that artificial atoms with a higher number of electrons turn out to be much more robust qubits than previously thought possible, meaning they can be reliably used for calculations in quantum computers. This is significant because qubits based on just one electron can be very unreliable.”

as gravity slows time, and time is related to entropy which is a measure of spent energy, and also slows down with gravity, then it means that gravity is borrowing energy from time.

it’s just an idea.. got to think further. i noticed there are few science papers out there with the similar proposal that time is energy. need to dig into it now, to see what others think.

how stucture in the universe rises from the random nature of quantum fluctuations.

video below is very informative presentation, compact one — in just eight minutes is given current understanding of how stucture is rising from quantum fluctuations. but! listen to every word and all the sentences in the presentation carefully — don’t miss it that some parameters were put in by hand (in other words: made up), simply because we don’t know the correct values. i mean not in the beginning of the talk — about the ripples in the early universe — which he explains later where they came from, but in the end of the talk — the overall height of the ripples and “few other parameters”, like the amount of dark matter. it produced a theoretical graph, matching the graph to the actual measurements, resulting in “rather extraordinary fit”..

..wait a second.. hmm.. really?! i think it should be no surprise then.

anyway, regardless of some unknown precision, it’s a good presentation clarifying our current understanding, and the gaps in our understanding, how stucture in the universe rises from the random nature of quantum fluctuations..

the clocks paradox, also called the twins paradox. an error in the theory of relativity.

here’s a clear video presentation of the paradox, one minute long, without useless additional information or inserted secondary elements to mess with your understanding..

there are some “solutions” to the paradox, by physics professors, using complex mathematics, showing solution with the difference in speed only, without the use of acceleration/deceleration. the academics are claiming that those physicists who explain the paradox with gravitational effect, don’t know what they are talking about. the problem with the complex math is that the professors fail to produce the calculations twice, beginning once from the reference point of one observer, and then from the reference point of another observer. that can only mean one thing — the math is wrong. there must be an error in the formulas. to prove the clocks/twins paradox with speed only, without local gravity produced by acceleration and deceleration, the math must be performed twice, once from each reference point, coming to a different result with the same formulas, which is impossible. there are careers involved, and tenures, thus it makes total sense for the professors to stop short before performing the same calculations again, from another point of reference in the clocks/twins paradox.

also there are some “solutions” described with the help of graphs (in the end of the article i give one example), but the same issue remains — there are clear logical errors. it is easy for anyone to debunk a “solution” without going into details of an explanatory presentation — simply let the demonstration to be performed twice, coming from each reference point. one must be able to, using exactly the same demo from the beginning till the end, without arbitrary changes to formulas or graphs, come to a different result from different reference point. they must show that in first demonstration the clock of one observer, who is the reference, is ticking faster, and on repeated calculation the clock of another observer, who is taken as reference, is ticking slower. it is impossible.

this is one of the contradictions in logic over which i was fighting with my physics teachers in my school times. i didn’t have a name to the paradox then, i just noticed the error. back then, for me the paradox of clocks was resolved by the existence of aether. in fact the whole trouble began when a physics teacher said that the aether doesn’t exist. then i came in with my logic that it will create problems in the theory of relativity. later i realized that even the existence of aether doesn’t resolve the paradox, because a “stationary” observer on earth may in fact be moving with enormous speed through the aether together with the earth or solar system or galaxy or cluster of galaxies, who knows. the speeding space ship will move in one direction through the aether, and then on another direction coming back to earth, in the result having the same amount of aether passed through the space ship as through the stationary observer on earth during the same time period.

thus the existence of the aether is not a solution to the relativity problem in clocks/twins paradox. it could only be a solution if earth would be stationary relative to aether. more probable is that our galaxy is closer to a stationary position in aether, which means that in different points of rotation around the galaxy and around the sun, the earth is moving at different speeds through the aether. this could be possible to measure and to find out the stationary reference point of the aether in the universe.

the only way to resolve the paradox is to revisit the theory of relativity critically. in my view the solution is in the effect of gravity, instead of the effect of speed. refer to my articles about it.. https://youthextension.wordpress.com/2020/02/06/common-mistake-in-description-of-time-travel/ https://youthextension.wordpress.com/2020/02/05/how-gravity-affects-time-by-the-statistical-phenomenon-of-entropy/
_
the fact that technological advances in the precision of measurements and modern supercomputers have proven the theory of relativity to be correct many times, is not an obstacle to further scrutiny of the theory. some of the formulas may have errors in them. to put it into computer slang: “garbage in — garbage out”. this is in no way to diminish the value of current understanding in physics, i am simply saying that we are far from knowing everything and from being always correct. physics textbooks have been rewritten hundreds of times. nevertheless, the physics books have way more truth in them than holy scriptures.

_
to conclude the article, in the video below is an example of a popular, but wrong solution to the paradox. the connecting lines on the graph are there suddenly changing direction. if the reference point was the same, then the lines should have gone all in one direction on the entire length of the graph, or they show going back in time. the lines could only change direction, if in the middle of the graph the reference point was suddenly changed, arbitrarily, without finishing the explanation from the first reference point. and on top of that, the graph was fit into an assumption of slowing of time of a moving object from the very beginning. a correct presentation of a solution must give the correct answer in the end, with no arbitrary manipulation of data or presumption of facts.

i have seen many such graphs, supposedly explaining different phenomena in physics, presented in a visually appealing form and told with a nice clear voice suggesting to listeners knowledge of the subject, but in fact are arbitrary drawings of graphs and pointless calculations fitting some presumed truths, a show-off for those who don’t know any better.

my advice is, don’t take any explanations without critical thinking, either from textbooks, popular ones on social media, or rare and new ones.. neither mine. i may also make mistakes. in any case i do my best to avoid any errors, thinking deeply before publishing my solutions. when i doubt in my understanding of a subject, then i state it next to the presented ideas, not to sound like i know the ultimate truth, misleading others and wasting their time.