Why we don’t know what gravity is!

When an apple falls from the tree, we know that it is gravity that causes it. We can calculate them using Newton’s gravitational equation.Einstein’s field equations describe gravity mathematically as a curvature of space.

But what is gravity? Neither of the two equations provides any information about this. Ultimately, they are phenomenological descriptions that say nothing about the essence. They have searched in vain for gravitons, i.e. gravity particles that establish the connection between two masses. The search for quantum gravity is also unsuccessful.So how can gravity between two objects be explained? Are we dealing with intangible connections here?

Let’s try a purely logical explanation. Let’s say there are things that we can’t perceive because of our sensory makeup. The reason for this could be that there was no evolutionary pressure with regard to certain properties of matter in order to have to develop corresponding sensors. Another reason could be that the neural path we have taken cannot perceive certain things in principle.

But that doesn’t mean that these things that are imperceptible to us don’t exist. We just can’t perceive them. But it is also possible that, in addition to the four space-time dimensions, there are one or more other dimensions in which these things are contained.

If it were, we would only be able to describe this indirectly, we would only be able to describe the effects, but not the things themselves.

Here, however, we must distinguish between what is not recognizable in principle and what we do not yet recognize. Everything we perceive, even at the quantum level, belongs in principle to the world of the knowable. For us, the problems of the quantum level arise from the microscale, on which we can hardly identify causalities because the magnitudes are too small and the objects therefore overlap.

Everything that we cannot perceive, such as dark matter, does not belong in the world of the knowable, although it determines us.

But what is the evidence that it behaves this way and not completely differently? Since ancient times, we have made the mistake of believing that we can know the world, not in terms of the instrumental connections of things, but in terms of things themselves. From an epistemological point of view, it does not make much difference whether one can recognize this being in itself or or, what is essential is that it exists. So there is an object of cognition in itself, created by God or something like that, and we are the ones who may or may not know that thing.

However, this view is wrong from the ground up, because it attests to the biological being human being characteristics that he cannot have as a biological organism. An organism does not recognize, it navigates, explores the world around it and draws conclusions from it that correspond to its life context, formulates theories from them and tries to apply them.

In other words, we are not able to formulate transcendent theories.

If we nevertheless continue a logical argument, then we can say that we transform the world into a modality that suits us, let’s call it a neural modality, an entity-specific, subjective world. So, for us, as for any entity, there is no objective world, but only a subjective one. We can comprehend these with our means of logic, but only these.

Anything that does not present itself to this organismic neural modality, we cannot comprehend. Perhaps we can indirectly tap into phenomena that have an influence but that we cannot perceive. Let’s take the example of dark energy.

In order to accelerate the universe, dark energy must possess the following properties:

1. The energy density of dark energy must be negative. Normal matter and energy have a positive energy density, which results in an attractive gravitational force. Dark energy, on the other hand, has a repulsive effect and accelerates the expansion of the universe.
2. The energy density of dark energy must be constant or increase with the expansion of the universe. If the energy density were decreasing, the acceleration of the universe would eventually subside.
3. Dominance in the universe: Dark energy must make up most of the energy density of the universe. Current estimates suggest that it accounts for about 68% of the total energy density, while matter accounts for only about 32%.
   
   Could dark energy be located in a fourth dimension of space? The existence of a fourth dimension of space has fascinated humanity for centuries. Science, philosophy, and fiction explore the possibilities and implications of this additional dimension. But is it real or just a product of our imagination?

Arguments for the Fourth Dimension:

1. Physics: Einstein’s theory of space-time describes the world as a four-dimensional entity in which three spatial dimensions are merged with the time dimension.

Higher-dimensional string theories: These theories postulate the existence of at least 10 dimensions to explain the fundamental properties of nature.

Quantum phenomena: Some phenomena, such as the quantum Hall effect, are easier to explain in four-dimensional models.

2. Mathematics: Higher-dimensional geometry: Mathematics provides abstract concepts for spaces with any number of dimensions. 4D objects: Mathematical models such as the tesseract (a four-dimensional cube) describe objects that cannot be represented in our 3D world.

3. Perception: Possible sensory expansion: Some people report synesthetic experiences that could be interpreted as an indication of expanded perception.
Dreams and visions: Some people seem to experience 4D spaces in dreams or visions.

Arguments against the Fourth Dimension:

1. Perceptibility: We cannot perceive the fourth dimension directly, which makes its existence difficult to prove. Difficult visualization: Most people have difficulty imagining 4D objects and spaces.

2. Experimental evidence: Despite numerous experiments and observations, there is no clear evidence for the existence of a fourth dimension of space.

Alternative explanations: Findings that might point to the fourth dimension can often be interpreted in 3D dimensions by alternative explanations.

It is possible that dark energy consists of an alternative form of energy/matter.

1. Vacuum energy: One possibility is that it is the vacuum energy of the room itself. This energy exists throughout the universe and has a negative pressure that accelerates the expansion of the universe. However, vacuum energy is invisible to us because it is not matter or radiation in the conventional sense.

2. New form of matter: Another possibility is that dark energy consists of a new form of matter that is not yet known. This form of matter could interact with invisible particles that we cannot observe directly.

3. Modification of gravity: There are also theories that explain dark energy not as a form of matter, but as a modification of gravity. Regardless of the exact nature of dark energy, it is likely that it is invisible to us because it is fundamentally different from matter and energy as we know it.

Dark energy doesn’t seem to emit or absorb electromagnetic radiation, so we can’t observe it directly. Dark energy appears to be detectable only through its gravitational effects on the motion of galaxies and galaxy clusters.

In order to distinguish ourselves from dark energy and dark matter, the terms quasi-energy and quasi-matter are used here. For it is neither energy nor matter in the conventional sense, whatever its properties may be.

There are, moreover, two kinds of laws of nature, those that nature makes, which we know just as little as the ‘objective world’ (which does not exist) and those that we ourselves make by observing nature and drawing our conclusions from it in the form of theories.

Although a metaphysics based on epistemic or anthropic relativism has a logical basis in that it assumes the epistemic transformation of the world into a subjective modality, this logic is also an expression of this modality and thus moves in a tautological loop From which there is hardly any escape.