Why Gravity May Not Be Quantum: The Reactive Substrate Theory Perspective

For over a century, physicists have tried to unify General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics by assuming gravity must be quantized like the other fundamental forces. But what if that assumption is flawed? The Reactive Substrate Theory (RST) offers a radically different approach—one that treats gravity not as a force mediated by particles, but as a geometric effect emerging from a continuous, non-material field called the Substrate. This post reviews the major arguments against quantum gravity presented in the PBS Space Time video “Why the Universe’s Expansion Doesn’t Make Sense,” and offers RST’s interpretation of each.
1. The Conventional Approach: Quantizing Gravity Mainstream physics assumes gravity must be quantized and mediated by a hypothetical particle called the graviton. RST fundamentally rejects this.
RST’s Model: Gravity is not a force mediated by particles. It is a geometric pressure gradient—a classical strain—within the continuous Substrate field (S). Matter is modeled as a high-tension soliton (σ) that displaces the surrounding Substrate.
Implication: The need to quantize gravity only arises if all interactions are assumed to be particle-based. RST models gravity as a classical strain effect, making the graviton unnecessary. The failure to detect a graviton is not a technical limitation—it’s circumstantial support for RST’s non-quantized view of gravity.
2. The Bohr-Rosenfeld Thought Experiment for Electromagnetism Bohr and Rosenfeld argued that if charged particles are governed by quantum uncertainty, then the electromagnetic field must also be quantum. RST agrees with their logic but reframes the mechanism.
RST’s Model: Electromagnetic fields are dynamic shear waves in the Substrate. These waves are coherent and quantized because they emerge from structured, localized tension knots in the Substrate called solitons (σ).
Distinction: The Substrate supports both continuous and quantized behavior depending on the coherence and velocity of the field strain. Electromagnetism is quantized because it propagates through the Substrate in a structured, wave-based mode.
3. Failure of the Bohr-Rosenfeld Argument for Gravity The argument fails for gravity because there is no known negative mass to cancel gravitational fields. RST interprets this failure as evidence that gravity is not a charge-based force.
RST’s Model: Gravity is not attractive in the traditional sense. It is a geometric consequence of Substrate tension gradients. It acts as a buoyant push—high-tension matter sinks into lower-tension regions of the Substrate.
Implication: Since gravity lacks a polarity or charge symmetry, it cannot be canceled like an electromagnetic field. The inability to apply quantum symmetry to gravity is not a paradox—it’s a sign that gravity emerges from a fundamentally different, geometric mode of Substrate behavior.
4. The Dyson Graviton Detector Thought Experiment Freeman Dyson’s thought experiment shows that any device sensitive enough to detect a single graviton would collapse into a black hole due to the constraints imposed by the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.
RST’s Interpretation: This physical collapse barrier supports RST’s view that gravity is not particle-mediated.
Instantaneous Stress: The Substrate transmits gravitational effects through static tension gradients, not through discrete quanta. These effects propagate as non-local stress reconfigurations. The Substrate’s geometry bypasses the black hole paradox entirely—no particle detection is required.
Note: “Instantaneous” in RST refers to non-local field reconfiguration, not literal superluminal signaling.
5. Conclusion and Alternatives The video concludes that gravity may not be quantum like the other forces. RST agrees and provides the underlying mechanism.
RST’s Status: Gravity is a classical, geometric phenomenon emerging from the Substrate’s static tension structure.
Testable Prediction: RST predicts that gravitationally induced quantum entanglement is not caused by particle exchange, but by Substrate stress reconfiguration influencing quantum states through field geometry. This offers a specific, testable alternative to graviton-based models and aligns with the video’s closing suggestion for indirect verification.
Tags: Reactive Substrate Theory, Quantum Gravity, General Relativity, Graviton, PBS Space Time, Dyson Argument, Bohr-Rosenfeld, Substrate Field, Unified Physics, Consciousness and Physics, Nonlocality, Quantum Mechanics, Gravity, Theoretical Physics
Imagine the Substrate is like a stretchy sheet floating in space. Most people say heavy stuff like stars or black holes press down into it, making a dip. But RST says: nope—it’s more like a helium balloon pulling the sheet upward.
Mass doesn’t squash the Substrate—it lifts it. It creates a low-tension zone, like a bubble in the field. The surrounding Substrate, which is under higher tension, pushes everything toward that lifted spot. That’s gravity in RST: a buoyant push from the outside, not a pull from the inside.
So instead of a bowling ball making a dent, think of a balloon tugging the sheet upward—and everything else gets nudged toward it because the tension around it wants to even out.

Popular posts from this blog

Conceptual Summary #2: (∂t2​S−c2∇2S+βS3)=σ(x,t)⋅FR​(C[Ψ])

Image
The tests designed to find the Aether—principally the Michelson-Morley experiment (M-M)—would be largely ineffective at detecting the fundamental S field (Substrate) in the Reactive Substrate Theory (RST) framework, though their null results are highly compatible with RST's structure. The reason lies in the distinct conceptual definition and behavior of the two media. The Test: Michelson-Morley and the Aether. The M-M experiment was designed to detect the "aether wind," a predicted change in the speed of light caused by the Earth's motion relative to a stationary, rigid medium—the classical Luminiferous Aether. Classical Aether: A static, absolute reference frame; an elastic, passive, material-like medium that fills space and serves as a carrier for light waves. Predicted Result: Light traveling parallel to Earth's motion through the Aether should be slightly slower than light traveling perpendicular to it. Actual Result (Null Result): No significant differenc...
Read more

The Non-Attraction Model of Gravity: From Attraction to Displacement: RST's Theory of Gravitational Push..

Image
Brief on the Reactive Substrate Theory (RST) RST posits that all of reality—matter, energy, space, and time—emerges from a single, continuous, non-material field called the Substrate (S). Matter: Defined as a σ Soliton, a stable, localized "knot of tension" in the S-field, replacing the concept of a point particle. Energy: Defined as dynamic, propagating tension (waves) in the S-field. Unification: RST views E=mc2 as the conservation of Substrate tension: mass is stored tension; energy is tension in motion. Reactive Substrate Theory (RST) fundamentally redefines gravity as a Substrate tension gradient, which is the mechanism underlying the "buoyant" view of gravity. This explanation also clarifies why the Michelson-Morley (M-M) experiment failed to find the classical Aether, supporting the RST concept of a dynamic Substrate. In essence, gravity is "buoyant" in RST because matter (high tension) sinks into a less-strained S-Field (lower tension...
Read more

Beyond the Flaws: Why RST Succeeds Where Push Gravity and EM-Aether Failed to Unify the Void

Image
RST vs. Extended Electromagnetic Theories (Pre-Relativity) These theories attempted to unify all forces by making gravity a secondary or residual effect of electromagnetism, treating space as an electromagnetic Aether. Why Extended EM Theories Failed Gravity's Independence: The most critical failure is that gravity does not behave like a polarizable electromagnetic force. Gravity affects all matter equally (the equivalence principle), regardless of its charge or composition, which a secondary electromagnetic effect would not do. No Gravitational Shielding: Electromagnetic fields can be shielded (Faraday cage), but gravity cannot.1 This fundamentally contradicts the idea that gravity is an electrical or magnetic residual force. Conflict with GR: They could not accurately predict or explain phenomena later verified by General Relativity (GR), such as the exact amount of light bending around the Sun or the precession of Mercury's orbit. RST vs. Le Sage's The...
Read more