Stephane H. Maes, (2020) “Quantum Gravity Emergence from Entanglement in a Multi-Fold Universe”, viXra:2006.0088v1, (June 9, 2020). URL: https://vixra.org/pdf/2006.0088v1.pdf Quantum Gravity Emergence from Entanglement in a Multi-Fold Universe Stephane´ H. Maes∗ Abstract 1 Introduction Abstract: We start from a hypothetical multi-fold universe This paper presents a radically new analysis of the UMF , where the propagation of everything is slower or equal to the speed of light and where entanglement extends foundations of quantum physics and quantum grav- the set of paths available to Path Integrals. This multi- ity. It is not just following a constructive path of fold mechanism enables EPR (Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen) spacetime or quantum geometry. It is not just ”not “spooky actions at distance” to result from local interac- thinking and instead computing” Path Integrals with tions in the resulting folds. It produces gravity-like attrac- variational approaches, Feynman diagrams or lattice tive effective potentials in the spacetime, between entan- gled entities, that are caused by the curvature of the folds. models of Actions, Lagrangians or Hamiltonians, de- When quantized, multi-folds correspond to gravitons and rived or guessed from Hilbert-Einstein actions and they are enablers of EPR entanglement. Gravity emerges geometric considerations or analogies. It is not start- non-perturbative and covariant from EPR entanglement be- ing from linearizing or quantizing General Relativity tween virtual particles surrounding an entity. (GR) equations at small scales. It is not attempting In UMF , we encounter mechanisms that predict grav- to deal with divergences and renormalization by fur- ity fluctuations when entanglement is present, including in ther tweaking the Action, Hamiltonian or Lagrangian macroscopic entanglements. Besides providing a new per- spective on quantum gravity, when added to the Standard and then claiming victory when recovering GR and Model and Standard Cosmology, UMF can contribute ex- gravitons (as spin 2 bosons), or vice versa, or space- planations of several open questions and challenges. It also time thermodynamics baked in all along because of clarifies some relationships and challenges met by other the commonalities between an Action and the Hilbert quantum gravity models and Theories of Everything. It Einstein Action. leads to suggestions for these works. We also reconstruct the spacetime of UMF , starting from This paper may not immediately appear to follow a the random walks of particles in an early spacetime. UMF reasoning or formalism familiar to today’s physicists. now appears as a noncommutative, discrete, yet Lorentz It is not because the more well beaten paths are not symmetric, spacetime that behaves roughly 2-Dimensional the right ways to go; to the contrary. It is rather that, at Planck scales, when it is a graph of microscopic Planck lately, many have called out “physics in crisis” and size black holes on a random walk fractal structure left by “the need for a new physics” [236, 237]. Today, it particles that can also appear as also microscopic black holes. Of course, at larger scales, spacetime appears 4- is something it is no more just the topic of only sci- D, where we are able to explain curvature and recover Ein- entific articles, discussions at physics conferences or stein’s General Relativity. We also discover an entanglement deep within physics departments. Discussions of the gravity-like contributions and massive gravity at very small challenges have reached much wider audience arti- scales. This is remarkable considering that no Hilbert Ein- cles and publications (e.g. [1, 248, 236]). The list stein action, or variations expressing area invariance, were of the issues warranting new approaches include, introduced. Our model also explains why semi classical ap- proaches can work till way smaller scale than usually ex- non-exhaustively: the un-intuitiveness of quantum pected and present a new view on an Ultimate Unification physics with interpretations that are often esoteric of all forces, at very small scales. and hard to follow; the problems with mathematics We also explore opportunities for falsifiability and vali- as sole driver for theoretical physics progress along dation of our model, as well as ideas for futuristic applica- with the loss of falsifiability [238] and absence of U tions that may be worth considering, if MF was a suitable validated new physics in last few decades [236]; the model for our universe U . real frustrating long marches to merge, or maybe just po- ∗Fremont CA, USA. [email protected] sition, General Relativity and Quantum Physics in- Preprint.v1 - June 9, 2020. 1 cluding as a result the absence of an unambiguous sistent with the established Physics as well as some quantum theory of gravity [2] or all-encompassing of the latest trends in Physics. The intent is to revisit grand unification1−2 or related ”Theories of Every- and model all aspects more rigorously in upcoming thing”; the lack of explanation for dark matter and works. dark energy [3] or particle/anti-particle imbalance; Our work has not benefited from living and breath- the conflicting observations in terms of cosmology ing Physics, tracking and discussing trends and new and the universe expansion that is accelerating (too papers or attending conferences over the years. It fast), as well as in terms of its early inflation [1]. relies extensively on occasional updates about some To this, we should add the religious wars between of the latest fads and publications. For the rest it schools of thoughts on how to target quantum gravity is the result from an old intuition, that Feynman’s [237]. We thought that something a bit more radical Path Integrals and Actions are the most fundamen- may be worth attempting. tal formalisms of Physics (like an ”equation of God”, Instead of spending time trying to map our theory and we are not talking of Euler’s formula) and that onto EPR (Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen) entanglement [4, 5] well-established frameworks, we decided to pursue and related works, and implications around the Bell a thought process, inspired by a few first principles inequalities [265], are fundamental and at the center and considerations intersecting General Relativity of something still only partially understood. and Quantum Physics and introduce a universe UMF In hindsight, (EPR) entanglement is today at the where Physics applies as usual3 but where some ad- core of the most non-classical quantum phenomena ditional quantitative, qualitative, phenomenological and defines Quantum Physics. Quantum entangle- and mathematical features are added, combined and ment is also the foundation of quantum computing pursued. This way, we hope to address some of the and Qubits [6, 7]. The essence of the incompati- challenges discussed above; hoping that emerging bilities of GR and Quantum Physics relate to local mechanisms can explain aspects of these challenges. realism vs. quantum nonlocality [5, 265] and su- The approach that we follow seems justified, because, perposition4. Also, Feynman’s integral or more gen- today, Physics seems to lack something to leap over erally functional integrals involving Actions and La- its current stumbling blocks. And yes, doing so, we grangians or Hamiltonians formulations are behind maybe escape the sirens of theoretical physics based most5 modern physics theories [322]. The reason for only on progressing always the same way with an the existence of Actions (locally extremized or equiva- aesthetically pleasant enough program and all its lently locally invariant) in Physics (classical or quan- rigour. The price to pay is that we do not have yet tum) remains a wonder: why is it possible to capture the complete formalism to express or derive every- complex dynamical models (histories or trajectories) thing. We try to be revolutionary, provocative and to simply in a concise extremization of an Action equa- address heads on what we think are some the main tion [322]6? Physical Actions give rise to most of mod- irreconcilable differences between GR and Quantum ern physics models (Dynamics and Kinematics). Physics. Yet, we also try to stay connected and con- Our hypotheses slowly developed over the years, linking the Path Integrals and EPR together as a rea- 1Think a` la SUSY / Super symmetry / Super gravity / son why spacetime would curve and gravity would Super strings. Today they are threatened by, for example, the absence of observations of SUSY particles (aka super 4Besides also the issues of background independence of partners) at LHC and other accelerators, the absence of ob- GR vs. background dependence of QFT. servations of proton decay [239, 240, 248, 236], as well as 5 However, it is known that every physical theory and the possibly even bigger problem of unobserved magnetic model does not necessarily come with a known Lagrangian, monopoles [321, 256, 341] predicted by mechanisms like Action or Hamiltonian. Exceptions with no or multiple La- Kaluza Klein as encountered in GUT, supersymmetry the- grangians are encountered in high energy, high interaction ories, supergravity and superstrings. or emergent / induced / effective theories [62, 63, 322] as 2Indeed, magnetic monopoles probably don’t exist simply well as in phenomenological theories and phase transition because gravity seems to break electromagnetism duality models. Think of the Ising model for example. [342]. We will revisit later once we can safely argue validity 6We will show that our discrete model of spacetime and of a semi classical approach. particles could in fact give a hint of why Actions exist and 3Meaning that physics models remain as applicable in are extremized through the natural existence of a multi- UMF as in Ureal; unless when said explicitly otherwise. paths formalism like Path Integrals in UMF . 2 result from the need to support Einstein’s “spooky at the microscopic level (i.e. with quantum grav- action at distance” of EPR despite c limits.