How gravity can be derived from quantum physics

[Zyxzevn]

Deriving Newton's gravity law from Heisenberg's uncertainty principle

The most accurate theory, Quantum physics, is in conflict with General relativity.
But if we use Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, we can directly derive Newton's gravity.

Sadly, people still believe that gravity bends space-time.
But if that were true, it would cause a difference in Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.
And since this is not the case, and it is the most accurate theory ever tested, we can immediately conclude
that gravity does not bend space-time.
If we look at the evidence for bending of space-time, we can see that its evidence is still based on the old idea
that that space is a perfect vacuum. Therefore general relativity is based on systematical errors
and wrong assumptions.

[willendure]

That's pretty interesting. Statistical mechanics indeed!

[kodybatill]

Very interesting! So the space between atoms is so vast for a quantum like particle - that the particle never truly reaches a least distance from an atom. In my studies - all types of inert gases may control quantum interactions of energy - JUST - constantly beyond the distance of quantum energies meeting with a physical atom.

[GenesisAria]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dEaecUuEqfc

This is the only approach to quantum mechanics that can reconcile with electric and dielectric principles of universal formation. The interpretation of the uncertainty principle as inherent randomness is QM's largest blunder. My recent post about the unified field contains the easiest explanation of what field incommensurability is, what makes a dipole, and how coherency of polar orientation increases the scale of the dipole. Gravity literally has the same physical effect as magnetism even if the variables, ranges, properties necessary to make it happen: it's a change in the motion vector of an object; not a force applied, not a force removed.\

You can't reify things from concepts, you can't define something from a principle which references a lack of data. The uncertainty only exists within the observational aspect of quantum physics, but when defining actual behaviours, this uncertainty does not exist, and we use it as a crutch to overlook inherent complexities in the magnetic fields of the quantum dipole. This also includes the basic incoherency of a particle itself. Particle wave duality doesn't exist: because the answer is very simple, it's a gradient. There are more condensed particles, and more rarefacted particles. They are never a perfect indestructible ball any more than a planet or a star is. They have dense core, and density decreases as you go out, until you reach the end of the nucleus, then you're into the electron field (there is no particle).

The mainstream of physics is so far into the rabbit-hole they can't even sit back and see basic logical errors in the interpretation of quantum experiments and other observations in physics.

[Bengt Nyman]

Gravity and strong force can be derived directly from Coulombs law and interactive quark positioning.