As mentioned in the previous section, I consider it very unfortunate that Verlinde, in calculating the contribution to gravity of intergalactic space, has given in to the paradigm of current Western physics. Frankly, I do not really understand why Verlinde did that. In my opinion, there is a very elegant solution which can by-pass this paradigm, probably making the results of his research better. I would really like to discuss this with him, hence I conclude the addendum to this website with a public letter:

Dear Mr. Verlinde,

With great pleasure I studied your research article 'Emergent Gravity and the Dark Universe' and summarized it with the necessary diffidence so it could be added as an addendum to my website. From that perspective, I am missing one aspect, unfortunately, of which I do not really understand why you do not use it. In my opinion it is very obvious and the results would probably be much better. I therefore hope you will excuse me for approaching you with this letter.

It is very clear that in proving your research, you believe to be dependent on making the Einstein equation correct. This in itself is self-evident - your research is aimed at explaining the shortage of gravity calculated by this equation at the level of the galaxies - but it also has a great disadvantage. It automatically implies, as described in §6.4.2 of this website, a distinction has to be made between the galaxies on the one hand, with curved spacetime generating gravity as its foundation, and intergalactic space on the other hand, with Minkowski's flat, non-curved spacetime as its foundation. In this way you conform yourself to the paradigm of current Western physics, which does not allow gravity being generated from Minkowski spacetime, whereas you correctly assume that this should be happening in the case of emergence. That is why you actually have entered a devilish dilemma.

In your research you do not mention this dilemma, but simply assume that the qubits - which in your opinion are the abstract underlying fabric of our universe's spacetime - appear to make this paradigmatically tinted distinction themselves with the help of their entropy of entanglement (S): For galaxies you associate their S with the many (curved) surfaces (A) of the underlying spacetime areas, while for intergalactic space you associate their S with the volume of the underlying Minkowski spacetime. (See the repeated image below.) Entropy of entanglement S acc. Verlinde

By assuming in your proof that the quantum mechanical qubits are taking the paradigm of classical Western physics into account, you have in fact made quantum mechanics subordinate to this paradigm, even if it does not concord at all. Moreover, quantum mechanics is far more reliable than classical Western physics. This is the reason that I do not understand why you do not continue to focus on the ultramicroscopic level of quantum mechanics in your research, instead of on the cosmic level with the Einstein equation.

By hypothesizing that qubits are the same throughout the universe — they are in fact the atoms of spacetime — you can assume that the 'glue hypothesis' of Van Raamsdonk, and therefore the entropy of entanglement S of the qubits, works in the same way throughout the universe. So both in the underlying spacetime of the galaxies, and in the underlying spacetime of intergalactic space. This results in the situation as vizualized in the image below.

In my opinion, the calculations of the contributions to gravity will improve, because the amount of entropy of entanglement  S is proportional to the size A of the imaginary tangent planes of the adjacent spacetime regions. S is therefore larger if the tangent planes of the underlying spacetime areas are less curved. In my opinion, it can be inferred from this that S is inversely proportional to the contribution to gravity in 3D spaces. Around the celestial bodies, the qubits have a small entropy of entanglement and thus make a larger contribution to gravity in 3D space. As the imaginary tangent planes of the adjacent spacetime areas A increase, their entropy of entanglement increases as well while their contribution to gravity in 3D space decreases. Calculating in this way, will make the average contribution to gravity in intergalactic space significantly lower than in galaxies, but much larger than in the case of volume related entanglement, as used by you.

Note The question "How to explain all that gravity in intergalactic space?" is answered in paragraph 6.4.3.

If the contribution to gravity, as calculated according to the previous image, broadly corresponds to the measured gravity deficit near galaxies, this is convincing evidence for the correctness of your hypothesis. Since your proof has been based on the behavior of qubits, however, it actually only applies to the level of quantum mechanics. But that does not have to be a problem. After all, current physics is part in this now because of the Λ-CDM model, in which the Λ in the Einstein equation is associated with dark energy and cold dark matter (5.4.2). The major advantage of this indirect recognition is for one that quantum mechanics no longer describes an obscure ultra-microscopic world, but gets a 'face' as a covering theory for the existence of 'the dark universe'. On the other hand, current physics does not need to be secretive and arcane for paradigmatical grounds any more about an abstract spacetime. Instead of opposing it, it can now even refer to it as 'the world of Western quantum mechanics'. Or, in other words: There can be no question of incommensurability when referring to another reliable theory.

Last but not least, I hope that in the future, current physics will not only allow for a quantum mechanical description of the abstract spacetime, but also a cosmic one. Even the fact that the cosmic description, like the quantum mechanical one, is based on subjective observation, won’t pose a problem any more.


Hoping it can be confirmed by research, and that you can agree with my view, I sign,  

Yours sincerely,

Hittjo Hummelen

=============

For those who were still in conflict about the sensitivity hypothesis of the Sphere Observer and his remarkable discoveries, Verlinde's research will hopefully provide sufficient reasons for wanting to know how these discoveries have been elaborated into an exceptionally practical theory in the very distant past, the Theory of the Elements. Although this theory was handed down by scholars from China and neighbouring countries, they were for unknown reasons not understood. The history of the Theory of the Elements, as described in Part I of my book, shows that no historical records describe how the doctrine has arisen. In the meantime it will be clear that this is essential to being able to understand it. In Part II of my book I hope to have reconstructed the Theory of the Elements in a responsible manner on the basis of the data described in the introduction to this website. The reconstruction makes clear that this is a cosmic description of the abstract 2D spacetime, and therefore is a quantum theory for the cosmos. In Part III of my book I did my utmost to substantiate this quantum theory as well as possible with the help of Western research data.

All this with many thanks to my mentor Frederic de Leeuw, who helped me enormously and was able to save me from various physical mistakes.

Hopefully the reader will now continue to the contact form