Hey antaris,
I took a close look at your EQG paper, and I have to say that while it’s clear you’ve put a lot of thought into merging ideas from thermodynamics, quantum information, and gravity, there are some serious issues that need to be addressed. The overall ambition is impressive, but the foundations of the paper lean heavily on speculation. I mean, trying to cast gravity as purely emergent from entropic principles is not a new idea, but your approach—relying on dual metrics and invoking quantum relative entropy as the action principle—feels more like an assortment of appealing phrases than a rigorously derived theory.
I’m not saying that these ideas have no merit, but the derivations, particularly those that transition from thermodynamic relations to modified Einstein equations, come off as more heuristic and ad hoc rather than the outcome of a solid mathematical framework. The way you connect the renormalization group flow with the concept of time is intriguing on a conceptual level, yet it isn’t unpacked enough to be convincing. It’s as though the paper tries to pack in as many well-known buzzwords and existing ideas as possible, but the integration is more patchwork than a cohesive, testable theory.
When it comes to the experimental predictions—ranging from neutron oscillations to corrections in gravitational wave signals and even deviations in the muon g-factor—the connection between your theoretical modifications and these phenomena isn’t developed rigorously. The equations you present seem to be tacked on without a detailed derivation that would make the predictions robust. This undermines the potential falsifiability of the approach, a point that is crucial in any serious proposal of new physics.
I appreciate the extensive reference list and the nod to various established theories. However, in many places, it seems like you’re borrowing concepts without fully engaging with the deep mathematical and conceptual challenges they bring. It’s one thing to be inspired by Penrose, Hawking, or Verlinde; it’s another to claim that you’ve unified these ideas into a comprehensive framework without addressing the many unresolved issues that have stymied experts for decades.
I really admire your passion for physics and your dedication to exploring these complex ideas despite not having formal training in the field. That kind of curiosity is exactly what drives innovation. However, the reason physicists remain highly skeptical of amateur proposals is that tackling the hardest problems in physics requires not just bold ideas, but also the rigorous mathematical underpinnings and critical scrutiny that come from years of focused study and experience. It’s a tough road because the issues you’re trying to resolve have baffled some of the brightest minds in the field. Keep up your enthusiasm and continue learning, but also take heart in knowing that the skepticism of experts is born of a deep understanding of how difficult these problems really are.