Updated Dropbox plans get more storage and improved capabilities - <AUTHOR> https://blog.dropbox.com/topics/product-tips/plus-professional-updates <comment><USER2> Despite using dropbox heavily for work (And liking it), I don't understand their value proposition for personal use. Their pricing seems completely out of line with their competition.

2TB or nothing for a single account with no family sharing that costs more than iCloud? No thanks.

I would consider upgrading my free plan if they had smaller storage tiers available at competitive prices. Even then it would be a hard sell since it isn't as well integrated as iCloud is on Apple's ecosystem.

<comment><USER3> I agree. Paying 9.99 for 2TB of iCloud storage is an easy pill to swallow when it's backing up my phone (and photos) automatically. I'll never understand why Dropbox avoids the smaller tiers for personal accounts. They have to be missing out on a sizable market.

<comment><USER4> > I'll never understand why Dropbox avoids the smaller tiers for personal > accounts. They have to be missing out on a sizable market.

Magic Pocket [1] makes the storage one of the cheaper parts of their capex/opex, so it's more prudent (hopefully backed by data on their side) to throw storage at users while pushing the average revenue per consumer user up. Could they lower the price while delivering less storage? Sure! Would they achieve the same margins? I'd hazard a guess they've run the numbers and the answer is no.

[1] [https://blogs.dropbox.com/tech/tag/magic- pocket/](https://blogs.dropbox.com/tech/tag/magic-pocket/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I really wish dropbox would offer a 2$ plan for 100GB comparable to google drive because I just don't need a full TB and I'd easily sign all family members up. The syncing is just way faster than the google drive sync.

<comment><USER6> In Dropbox's most recent quarter[1], the cost of goods sold - that is, the cost of actually delivering the service, not marketing, corporate operations, or other tasks - was about 25.5% of revenue.

That means of every $10 Dropbox charges, they spent an average of ~$2.55 on service delivery costs like storage. Customer support is often included in that, but let's assume all $2.55 was spent on storage. On a $10/month plan, reducing the included storage by 50% would reduce their costs by ~$1.27.

Using your example, decreasing the storage by 90% would reduce their costs by about $2. That is, to generate equivalent margin, the available plans would be 1 TB for $10 or 100 GB for $8 (not $2).

[1]: [https://dropbox.gcs-web.com/news-releases/news-release- detai...](https://dropbox.gcs-web.com/news-releases/news-release- details/dropbox-announces-fiscal-2019-first-quarter-results)

<comment><USER5> I'm only an engineer and don't have much business acumen so forgive me if that is a dumb question, but wouldn't it be perfectly fine to accept a much lower margin as long as you're still making money, given that having me around as a Dropbox customer is better than me going to a competitor?

<comment><USER7> In general, sure. In reality... not necessarily. Just think about everything else that goes into providing the service and getting (and retaining) users.

After you've included marketing and all the business people who are guiding the direction of the product you've got the HR and internal IT people and systems supporting all of that.

Having 100 customers paying $10 and 1000 paying $1 are very different things. Customer service costs are going to be (likely disproportionately) higher for the latter group simply because you've got a different pool - they are no longer your business users and power users, they're grandma and grandpa who have no idea what they're doing or how to explore and figure out how to use your service. Even if you build better tools and guides for self service that's an engineering investment.

Credit card transaction fees will also be higher. Due to the type of user you're also going to have a much higher rate of failures, which means more retries, follow-ups (Sendgrid is charging per email after all), and more users who are in the grace period whose data you have to retain but who aren't actually paying for it. You'll also have more people calling in or emailing trying to resolve this, which brings us back to higher customer service costs.

So while storage seems like what you're selling and that there should be a linear correlation between 100gb and 1tb in reality what you're selling is the service around that storage and that's why things will never scale the way you'd expect.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Dropbox, from one of your first paying customer, I do not need more space, I want family sharing and face recognition on pictures. Thus I'll move to icloud..

<comment><USER9> Pretty sure the idea is not to be Netflix and offer a family plan, it's to sell a suite of features into small businesses and corporations. E.g. They just acquired HelloSign.

You should move to iCloud if you absolutely want those features unless they say they're building them or you anticipate some form of auto-tagging and face recognition being useful for professional/business users.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> >We're always looking for ways to make Dropbox better for you

Like by reducing the number of linkable devices from infinity to 3 for free accounts? I was enjoying my free 16GB of space from referring two dozen of my friends and family members. Guess how many angry text messages and e-mails I've received.

Hint: way more than enough to preclude me from recommending Dropbox to anyone ever again.

<comment><USER11> Same here. Replaced Dropbox with Resilio Sync. It's really beyond the pale to retroactively cripple existing accounts. And their website still claims "Sync files across devices" as a feature for free accounts, which I'd consider a lie ("Sync files across devices", which is the entire point of having Dropbox at all, is very different from "Sync files across three devices")

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> What about this?: [https://linux.slashdot.org/story/18/08/10/2120248/dropbox- is...](https://linux.slashdot.org/story/18/08/10/2120248/dropbox-is-dropping- support-for-all-linux-file-systems-except-unencrypted-ext4)

<comment><USER13> That seems very misleading. Ubuntu 18.04 doesn't even support ecryptfs (as far as I know, certainly it isn't the default), and it was not recommended for years prior because it's not a very solid protection (for many reasons).

If you use ext4 + luks encryption I believe Dropbox works fine.

Standard disclaimer, I work at Dropbox, but I have absolutely nothing to do with product. Opinions are my own etc etc

<comment><USER12> With LUKS, you'd want to backup the locked partition, perhaps as an image. And that's just a binary file.

What about ext3, xfs, etc?

Encrypted files (7zip, GnuPG, VeraCrypt, etc) behave just like normal files, right?

<comment><USER13> > With LUKS, you'd want to backup the locked partition, perhaps as an image. > And that's just a binary file.

I don't think the files get backed up encrypted, they get backed up _decrypted_ , and are encrypted at the filesystem layer only.

It isn't as if you can't put encrypted data into Dropbox, this is just about filesystems.

> What about ext3, xfs, etc?

To my knowledge these are not supported filesystems, but there's probably an official doc stating this somewhere.

> Encrypted files (7zip, GnuPG, VeraCrypt, etc) behave just like normal files, > right?

Sure, throw them into a Dropbox folder and they should upload just fine.

<comment><USER12> Thanks for the clarification. The key issue, then, is for people running other filesystems in Linux. And especially for *BSD users.

Re LUKS, I meant to use a tool that converts the encrypted LUKS volume (on this machine, /dev/md1) to an image file. Working in a USB drive, say. Then storing that 500GB (or whatever) file in Dropbox. If that's too big, then have a separate smaller LUKS volume. Or even, for VMs, a LUKS-encrypted VDI.

Also, the unencrypted LUKS volume can just be ext4, for Dropbox compatibility.

<comment><USER13> > The key issue, then, is for people running other filesystems in Linux. And > especially for *BSD users.

Correct.

> Then storing that 500GB (or whatever) file in Dropbox.

Sure, Dropbox can handle that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Many times I've almost bit the bullet and paid for the (now old) Dropbox professional plan just for the smart syncing capability. But I decided not to because the feature was not worth an extra $9.99. But for $2 extra, I'd say this is a nice upgrade for smart syncing and extra storage.

<comment><USER15> I did bit that bullet. It was worth it for me, but I'm quite excited to be able to pay less and still have smart syncing.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> I've had a professional plan for quite some time so that I would have access to Smart Sync. I'm rather excited about being able to pay less and still get everything I want.

Dropbox Plus, here I come!

</comment><comment><USER16> Fantastic. Just downgraded from Pro to Plus, saving 100 Euros per year. All I wanted was SmartSync, previously exclusive to Pro.

</comment><comment><USER17> Do they have a timetable for when they'll upgrade existing plans? I'm on plus and while I don't care too much about the extra 1TB of space the smart sync would be really nice.

<comment><USER14> From the end of the post:

> We're excited to roll out these changes to Plus and Professional starting > today.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Google Drive offers unlimited file storage for their G Suite plans which are now roughly $11/mo I believe. They also do free versioning and have cross- platform clients. While Linux isn't directly supported, there are several great clients. The Team Drive feature is pretty neat too.

</comment><comment><USER19> Full-text search available for free with Google Drive. It's surprising that it's available on the more expensive Dropbox plans yet still "coming soon" on the Plus plan.

</comment><comment><USER20> Wasn't Rewind already a thing?

<comment><USER14> It was called Packrat. I used it a few years ago. I don't know if it was still offered or taken away so they can bring Rewind.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Can someone post the full text here so I don't have to hurt my eyes by trying to read that terrible font?

<comment><USER22> Pasting here but tip for the future, use the "reading mode" on your browser.

Updated plans get more storage and improved capabilities By Dropbox Team 3-4 minutes

We're always looking for ways to make Dropbox better for you and the way you work. So, we're unveiling improvements to our plans to help you store more content and work more efficiently. Plus the storage and more

You've got many files and multiple devices, so it's important to have easy access to the content you need, whenever you want it. And, ideally, everything is stored in one secure place with space to spare.

That's why we're doubling storage for Dropbox Plus to 2 TB—plenty of room for all your files, photos, videos, and projects. We're also adding Dropbox Smart Sync, so you can move out-of-date items from your hard drive to the cloud and save space on your computer. And full-text search (coming soon) lets you search the text content of your files using keywords instead of a file name or extension, so you can find what you're looking for even faster.

We also know accidents happen, so we're introducing Dropbox Rewind, our account rollback capability that keeps your content—along with your peace of mind—intact. With Rewind, you can undo accidental edits or restore deleted work by taking folders or your entire account back to any time in the last 30 days.

Plus subscribers can get all this for the new price of $11.99 a month—or save $2 a month with our annual plan. Existing Plus subscribers will get these new features for the same price until the end of their current billing cycle. After that point, they will move to the new pricing structure. Look and work like a Professional

With the updated Dropbox Professional, you can do less busywork and more of your best work, while also making life easier for your clients.

Professional users can show off their work with features like preview support for DWG and MXF files, time-based comments, and Dropbox Showcase. Now, we're making it even better for you to share and secure your work with:

        3 TB of storage—that's 50% more space than previously available with Professional plans
        Dropbox Rewind, our new account rollback feature, with 180-day version history, an increase from 120 days
        A watermarking tool that lets you protect your work and ideas
        An enhanced Smart Sync that automatically moves out-of-date items off your computer and into the cloud

Professional subscribers will get our new features with no change to their current pricing. Not just Business as usual

Coming soon, we'll also be rolling out improvements to our Dropbox Business plans. Standard users will get 5 TB of storage, an increase from 3 TB. Business Standard and Advanced teams will also get 180 days of file version history, up from 120-day version history.

Business Standard and Advanced teams will get these coming updates with no change to their current pricing. We're excited to roll out these changes to Plus and Professional starting today.

To learn more and find the right Dropbox for you, visit our Plus and Professional plans pages. Or get to know our newest features, Rewind, enhanced Smart Sync, and watermarking.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> It's almost like they're intentionally trying to make their website hard to read.

<comment><USER24> You can tell they spent quite a bit of resources on design... I just can't get used to it. It doesn't feel friendly or useful either, it doesn't fit what I'd expect from a cloud storage provider and it's not really pretty to look at either.</comment></comment>


Apple Lays Off 200 Employees from Autonomous Car Unit - <AUTHOR> https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/24/apple-lays-off-over-200-from-project-titan-autonomous-vehicle-group.html <comment><USER2> Maybe Apple doesn't want to pursue a dream which, as far as we know, can only have a limited outcome? They don't really like such compromises in products. Check this:

[https://medium.com/s/story/self-driving-cars-will-always- be-...](https://medium.com/s/story/self-driving-cars-will-always-be-limited- even-the-industry-leader-admits-it-c5fe5aa01699)

> Waymo's CEO, John Krafcik, has admitted that a self-driving car that can > drive in any condition, on any road, without ever needing a human to take > control—usually called a "level five" autonomous vehicle—will basically > never exist. At the Wall Street Journal's D.Live conference, Krafcik said > that "autonomy will always have constraints." It will take decades for self- > driving cars to become common on roads. Even then, they will not be able to > drive at certain times of the year or in all weather conditions. In short, > sensors on autonomous vehicles don't work well in snow or rain—and that may > never change.

Or read [https://www.spectator.co.uk/2018/07/the-dream-of- driverless-...](https://www.spectator.co.uk/2018/07/the-dream-of-driverless- cars-is-dying/) or any number of "sobering up" articles from last year.

<comment><USER3> I'd like to point out that what he says here about autonomous vehicles and the limits of their sensors applies to humans too. It is just socially acceptable to drive in averse conditions with limited visibility, and if you hit another car, person or something else, you just blame it on the weather. It's not socially acceptable for an autonomous vehicle to just wing it in bad conditions.

I find it curious that we are going to hold autonomous vehicles to a perhaps impossibly high standard while we also hold people to barely any standards at all.

Think about this: If you are in an advanced autonomous vehicle and you get a warning that conditions are so bad that the sensors can no longer see well enough to drive and that you should take over, should you really take over or should you stop driving?

<comment><USER4> One of the biggest advantages humans have is that humans can take risks. We have _agency_. Computers cannot take risks; not because they cannot be programmed to take risks, but because they are programmed by huge corporations with massive, centralized liability.

This is why level five autonomous cars will never exist. It's not a technical problem; it's a political one.

Its easy for someone on hackernews to say "maybe you shouldn't be driving if the car can't"; try saying that to a single mother working as a third-shift nurse, just trying to make ends meet, who's patients will suffer if she doesn't get to work. Try saying that to a technician who needs to get to a downed electric line in the middle of a torrential downpour to restore power to 20,000 people sitting comfortably in their homes. Try saying that to a Marine deployed in Nangarhar, under fire from enemy combatants.

Level Five autonomy could exist, but what we'd end up discovering is that humans let Jesus take the wheel far more often than the engineers in sunny Silicon Valley think. Level Five might mean seeing five feet in front of you and horrible traction, operating on your knowledge of the road, and just driving forward. Until an organization is willing to program a car to still drive forward in those conditions, level five won't happen. Uber practically shut down their entire program after one person died; over 100 people die every day in traditional vehicle accidents.

<comment><USER5> > over 100 people die every day in traditional vehicle accidents.

Which isn't acceptable either. To some degree, people look towards autonomous vehicles as a way of reducing the number of fatalities/injuries on the road. If they're not better than humans & the other benefits don't add up, they won't be accepted.

<comment><USER6> >Which isn't acceptable either.

Based purely on the evidence at hand, our society deems it not only acceptable but not even noteworthy.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> > Of late, Apple CEO Tim Cook has touted his company's initiatives in health > as the key to its future growth. "I believe, if you zoom out into the > future, and you look back, and you ask the question, "What was Apple's > greatest contribution to mankind?" it will be about health,"

Make sense, they'd rather concentrate on health. There's an obvious inroad there with wearables.

<comment><USER8> I really doubt that Steve Jobs would have bet the company on that.

<comment><USER9> Maybe he would have.

If you visualize technology progressing through time, there is an obvious merging of human and machine. Computers were large, now they are so small, you leave your Air Pods in your ears for hours because you forget they are still in.

Imagine another 50 years. Computers will most certainly be seamlessly connected to us in some way.

Imagine a device that can read your mind and give you what you want before asking? What if you're more intelligent just because you buy a specific product? What about a device that is proven to lengthen your life just by using it?

Biological research and health are what's necessary to get there.

The interesting things happen at the intersections. Who could compete?

Steve seemed like a smart guy. Maybe if he saw things this way he would bet the company as you say.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I don't think Apple has advancements in machine learning tech as much as its competitors. For example, take a look at how primitive Siri is. It struggles a lot in comparison to its competitors even for some basic commands.

Or, take a look at Apple Music's recommendation system in comparison to Spotify's discover weekly.

Now, take a look at Amazon and Google. They both have their own cloud infrastructure (which ironically Apple uses) with machine learning built right into it. Both have state of the art image recognition systems (proprietary) for various applications (Eg. Google Image search, Amazon shopping, etc.)

I am not saying Apple can't do it, I just think they're lagging behind and this move totally makes sense.

<comment><USER11> From what I read Apple are taking a different approach? Google/Amazon are harvesting massive amounts of data and training against it and Apple are taking a privacy first approach saying you shouldn't have to harvest lots of data for intelligent AI.

Currently the harvesting data for models look to be working better for Google / Amazon with current technology. The question is how will Apple progress long term and given time can they achieve AI with some level of privacy. I don't know enough to have any comments but like Apple's public stance on this.

<comment><USER12> Are you suggesting Apple plans to do AI without harvesting data, or with transparent privacy controls on data? There's literally nothing for machine learning to _learn_ besides harvested data. It's like suggesting that a power company is trying the strategy of using no wires for delivering electricity to houses..

I'd be excited if Apple found a way to trustlessly aggregate data and perform homomorphic training of their ML models, but they seem to be laying off that flavor of talent..

<comment><USER13> It's actually not that Apple isn't collecting data sets, but they're doing so at a more measured pace by thoroughly anonymising it using differential privacy. If the AI needs to use raw personal data in it's calculations, that is done on the user's device to keep that information private.

This appears to be slowing them down compared to their competitors, but it's not clear how much as against them being a bit behind for other reasons.

<comment><USER14> Others also anonimyzes data using differential privacy, k anonymity etc. It is a common practice and enforced when working with private / PII data.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> My list so far: Apple, Tesla, Buzzfeed, Verizon/Yahoo/CNBC, HuffPost, SpaceX

Doesn't look like the layoffs will be ending soon either. If it was just one or two that would be one thing, but this is forming a pattern. What do all these companies know?

I keep hearing word of a potential recession or downturn. Is anybody here more keyed in than myself and can provide an explanation?

<comment><USER16> without having read the article: layoffs in preparation of an economic downturn would be unusual, especially when it's R&D in a cash rich company

I don't think there's a pattern, companies lay off and rehire people all the time due to changed goals and/or requirements

<comment><USER17> What if the economic downturn has already started and it's just that these specific companies are feeling the effects sooner than others?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I wonder if this autonomous driving thing has gone off the boil across the industry. Years ago fully autonomous was only just around the corner - as in five years away - but now nobody is talking of much more than improved lane keeping assist grade safety features, stopping if someone walks in front of the car rather than navigating a whole city including small streets.

The scale of autonomous has been misleading. Either something is autonomous or it isn't. 'Level x' autonomy is marketing speak.

I am quite happy with incremental improvements in driving aids, e.g. how Intel MobilEye is advertised. Spaceboy Elon sold it all to us as an impossible future. I reckon that Apple probably got on board the electric autonomous driving bandwagon but can't perform the required magic. You can hire all the engineers you want to build magic things but after a while there is no point paying them if the magic is not going to happen. They may well have pivoted to a car type of thing that has great UX instead of 'magic'.

<comment><USER19> I never really understood how the industry was able to ensure, from a legal standpoint, the failsafeness of autonomous cars. There are bound to be errors, such as the incident last year with running over a homeless woman who was clearly visible to a real eye, but not detected.

It's simply impossible to account for all the corner cases, especially when you have to factor in manual drivers who can behave arbitrarily (what if they purposely drive weird just to mess with the autonomous cars?).

In fact, autonomous cars may increase danger rates as human drivers become quite peeved at sharing the road with them, and try to derail them at all cost.

Maybe these are the reasons they gave up.

<comment><USER20> > what if they purposely drive weird just to mess with the autonomous cars?

I got a car about 6 months ago with Level 2 Autonomy and I'd say it's even more than just trying to mess with them. Now that I know the subtleties of how my car behaves, it's easy to spot other drivers who have theirs engaged too. I can use that to my advantage when appropriate and it takes some ethics not to abuse them. For example, if I have to merge I'll merge in front of one of those cars, purely from a safety standpoint -- I know that car is going to respond and give itself lots of space. Of course, people could use that much more maliciously to take advantage of those cars "niceness".

I've never had anyone mess with my car just for the sake of it, but you can see the seasoned Tesla owners taking the opportunities that they spot. It changes the way other drivers drive if they can identify the behavior.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> I really wish companies chasing this far-fetched dream of an autonomous car instead invested in their local transit authorities to make public transit free for all.

<comment><USER22> the sad reality is that public transit isn't very profitable and has been consciously sabotaged since the invention of cars.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> Any stats on how many employees they had to start with? If it was a team of 500 vs 2500 that changes how I'd view this heavily.

<comment><USER24> Apple accused a Project Titan ex-employee of trade secrets theft, and it was disclosed that there 5,000 employees "Disclosed" on Project Titan.

[https://www.businessinsider.com/apple-self-driving-car- proje...](https://www.businessinsider.com/apple-self-driving-car-project- details-fbi-stolen-trade-secrets-investigation-2018-7)

<comment><USER25> Of course the most important comment is towards the bottom. If they laid off 200 out of 5000, then it really means nothing

<comment><USER26> And they haven't laid off all 200; many will be moved to different assignments at Apple.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> A lot of negativity here. Hey maybe Apple has figured out autonomous car and no longer needs that 200 employees!

<comment><USER28> As usual.

The truth is that Apple hasn't promised anything and delivered nothing.

Google on the other side, has promised everything and delivered nothing.

And they promissed it "in five years" in 2012...

<comment><USER29> Aren't they running trials now

<comment><USER30> Waymo have been operating on public roads since 2017.

[https://www.theverge.com/2017/11/7/16615290/waymo-self- drivi...](https://www.theverge.com/2017/11/7/16615290/waymo-self-driving- safety-driver-chandler-autonomous)

<comment><USER28> That's just bull, it's on Arizona, on a closed circuit test track.

> And starting very soon, the company plans to invite regular people for rides > in these fully self-driving vehicles.

What happened since 2017?

<comment><USER30> They invited regular people for rides in these fully self-driving vehicles.

[https://www.reuters.com/article/us-waymo-selfdriving- focus/w...](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-waymo-selfdriving-focus/waymo- unveils-self-driving-taxi-service-in-arizona-for-paying-customers- idUSKBN1O41M2)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> It always seems odd that huge tech giants like this lay off certain sectors. Are they dumping them because they don't have anywhere else that they'd be useful to Apple? Surely recruiting is harder than moving someone laterally in the company.

<comment><USER32> A automotive engineer isn't going to be much help on ios mac and phones.

<comment><USER33> You'd be surprised at how much of automotive development is just regular software engineering. Sure, the 5% of their skills that are automotive- specific aren't much use, but the rest of their skills are certainly useful - especially at Apple, who does actual close-to-the-metal coding.

<comment><USER32> Ok any software engineers want explain constant pressure and constant wear and which component of a cars drive train it applies to?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> In dense urban environments, like say FiDi areas - why not have sensor and car-control infrastructure integrated into the city streets/curbs/sidewalks.

One doesnt have to realy on the most amazing sensors in a car if the city can be responsible for driving the vehicles down its pathways.

Let the car enter a given area and relinquish a certain amount of control from the car to the environment it is in.

Let the traffic light system dictate what cars are movingg in which direction.

Ensure that the cars never enter a crosswalk or bike lane etc.

once you leave the area - you then have whatever control of the car you would normally.

<comment><USER35> A nice idea in theory, however most cities are woefully behind on public infrastructure to begin with. They're going to be much, much slower to roll- out than any self-contained SDC by SV or Detroit makers.

<comment><USER34> Recall that company that was installing parking spot sensors in SF? What happened to them?

But a company could support making a "Smart Curb" which monitors all traffic infomation around it, acts as a beacon, and does other things...

Lots of "iot" ideas could happen from that - like all the Scooters replying to the curbs stating their location.

People could choose a ble beacon tag for their traditional bikes and could have it always visible. Effectively a BLE beacon fabric in an urban environment is an interesting idea to me.

<comment><USER36> Go anywhere with winter and look at the state of the curbs. Its like eastern europe. In one season everything shifts several inches up or down or out or in, cracks and crumbles, and gets covered with dirt and debris until it is warm enough to begin street sweeping again.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> Although they aren't shutting down, I was thinking that even if they did, Apple can just wait for the dust to settle and buy one of the existing/growing players once the technology is proven out (they definitely have the cash to do it).

Spending a lot of money and trying to catch up to Waymo/Zoox/Cruise etc is also kinda hard, even for Apple, because of all of the pieces of the stack they need to work on and access to a very competitive/small talent pool.

<comment><USER38> That is unless those newer co's are overvalued in the market. I imagine Apple would love to buy Netflix for 10-20bb but at 140bb that's a hard sell.

Driverless is such a foundational tech it makes sense to have lots of efforts pursuing it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> Did they get laid-off or reassigned? The article is vague.

<comment><USER40> Seems to me like some of them got laid-off and some got reassigned.

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> Right now roads are designed for "human sensors." At some point we'll need to redesign the roads for new kinds of sensors. I have no idea what this will look like, maybe all the roads will have RFID in them or some other tech. I think that's the hurdle we haven't gotten past yet, recognizing we need new roads.

<comment><USER26> Considering we can't seem to pay for our existing road infrastructure, I don't think this will happen in the next 20 years.

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> How can 200 employees have any significance when talking about such a huge project as autonomous Car ?

<comment><USER43> 200 is a pretty meaningless number unless someone has inside knowledge of Apple and know how large the project was.

200 out of 210 is a killer, 200 out of 4000 might just be a re-balancing of skills/priorities.

</comment></comment><comment><USER44> The autonomous car community is learning the same lesson the aviation community found. Autopilot is a very powerful tool that increases safety, but it doesn't replace pilots. Similarly car automation will increase safety but it won't broadly replace drivers.

</comment><comment><USER45> In what is being billed internally as a restructuring effort, Apple this week released more than 200 employees from its "Project Titan" group, a secretive branch of the company focused on developing self-driving car technologies.

</comment><comment><USER46> At the risk of offending some folks, let me offer some conclusions based on living near the Waymo facilities for 4+ years. Their autonomous cars are already driving better than about 30% of the licensed people on the road in my town.

</comment><comment><USER47> haven't seen those cars in Sunnyvale for something like a couple months. The cars are really heavy on sensors, so Apple shouldn't have issues with detailed 3d scene acquisition, it is probably understanding of the scene is where they struggle - not surprising giving that they are hardware company and for example behind the likes of Google in the AI dept.

</comment><comment><USER48> The couple of now former Apple Titan employees I know all took new jobs in the last six months. This has been coming for a while.

</comment><comment><USER49> Making room for that TSLA acquisition..

</comment><comment><USER50> I wouldn't trust an Apple self-driving car. If i saw one i would start running.

<comment><USER51> Why not?

<comment><USER50> If you look into the failure rate of apple products, the defects in things that all other manufacturers seem to get right then you begin to build a picture of how this is going to turn out.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER52> All the best Apple for your future endeavors.!!

</comment><comment><USER53> Well, that was quick.

</comment><comment><USER54> When you can't make a laptop with reliable screens or keyboards, or an iMac lineup that has CPU's 2 generations behind.. Maybe it's time to shut down the stupid vanity projects and focus on your core business instead?

<comment><USER55> I have no idea why you're getting downvoted.

If a company decides not to produce wireless routers (which were class leading) or monitors etc anymore, all because they're non "core" to a computer/mobile hardware company then I don't see how building automotive AI is core to a computer/mobile hardware computer company that has zero core competency in either car manufacturing or AI.

<comment><USER56> They stopped making routers and monitors not because they are non "core" products, they stopped making them because there is not much money in it. You buy routers ones every 10 years probably, and margin is limited, but supporting them throughout this period is quite expensive. As for monitors, there is so many competitors right now, that it's hard to make it worth building your own monitor, Especially if you want to win the market share you need to distinguish yourself from competition, and there is very little you can do to make your monitor distinguishable from your competitors.

Automotive AI meanwhile is a future and they have to think about future with all the money they have now.

<comment><USER57> If Apple truly cares about the user experience they would have kept the wireless routers in their portfolio. A great opportunity missed to have a product that is more user friendly than the competition.

I'd argue the wholesome user experience will prove be more important for Apple in the long run than having a big profit margin on every product.

<comment><USER58> The "user experience" for most users trying to use a third party router instead of the one bundled with their internet service where support comes from their ISP would be worse.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER59> Welcome to the trough of disillusionment.

</comment><comment><USER60> I can only imagine Apple selling cars like they currently do their hardware. They ship a product that had multiple design defects. Then deny the claims or blame it on the users, until the users start suing them. Having people beta test your phones is one thing. But in no way do I trust a vehicle made by Apple on the roads.

<comment><USER61> You go in to the dealership because your three year old car needs repairs. They tell you its going to need a new engine and suspension and going to cost almost as much as a new car, and try to sell you on one instead of the repair. Mechanic down the street replaces your shocks and an intake manifold gasket for less than a tenth the cost of the dealer repair quote.

</comment></comment><comment><USER62> Let's be honest, Apple hasn't been able to ship a decent, non-defective computer in many years, now.

I would be extremely scared of driving a car where the steering wheel or breaks got stuck from dust particles like their keyboards (but the break pedal is over 85% thinner!).

Apple is still able to sell stuff because they're milking the successful products of the last years when Steve Jobs was still alive, but the situation is quickly shifting. Personally, I switched from Apple to Linux and just bought an absolutely wonderful Surface Book 2 (yup, EUR 2000), and it's the best computer I've ever owned. Compared to my last, defective, keeeey- repeeeating MacBook Pro it has a detachable screen so that it can turn into a tablet or you can fold it for presentations, touchscreen, awesome design, and the screen is 3:2 so I can see more text. I had been a customer for over 10 years.</comment>


"Windows 8 a disappointment, users prefer Windows 7" says survey - <AUTHOR> http://www.booksnreview.com/articles/1220/20120928/microsoft-surface-tablet-features-release-date-windows-8-disappointment-users-prefer-windows-7-says-survey.htm

<comment><USER2> "Perhaps most tellingly, only 26 percent of the 50,000 surveyed say they've actually used Windows 8"

Sounds like a great survey.

</comment><comment><USER3> Flagged for pure bullshit... misleading title, bullshit linkbait article, ignoring servey results to the point of making things up.

</comment><comment><USER4> "So what's so wrong with Windows 8 it's already turning off users? According to the survey, price is at the top of the list with 35 percent saying it's Windows 8's most glaring weakness. The downloaded Windows 8 upgrade has been given a promotional price of $39 until January 2013"

Really, people, the _price_ is what you're going to complain about the most? I am truly baffled.

</comment><comment><USER5> If 20% people are still voting for Windows XP, I am not sure if all of them have used Windows 7 and 8. I would take the results with a pinch of salt.

</comment><comment><USER6> Q: Why is a book news/review site publishing AOL-quality fluff pieces on tech news?

A: Oh they hired a huffpo author.

</comment><comment><USER7> breaking news: software users hate new stuff (until they love it)

<comment><USER8> "Windows 9 a disappointment, users prefer Windows 8" says survey – 1 year from now

<comment><USER4> Probably, except it'll be more like 4 years</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Do brains deadlock? - <AUTHOR> Massively parallel processing and zero deadlocks? That's curious. <comment><USER3> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buridan%27s_ass](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buridan%27s_ass) and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analysis_paralysis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analysis_paralysis) ?

<comment><AUTHOR> Do either of these, say, shut off the nervous system from the lungs or the stomach?

Deadlocking the brain should appear in the underlying autonomous nervous system, but it doesn't. That's very odd.

<comment><USER3> Do you also find it odd that deadlocking a computer doesn't cause the cooling fans to stop and RAM refresh cycle to fail?

That is, what is the basis of "should"?

We have computer systems with a hardware watchdog. If the keep-alive heartbeat fails - like when the CPU deadlocks - it resets the computer. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watchdog_timer](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watchdog_timer)

Computers have multiple systems to help prevent total system shutdown. Why can't humans also have such?

<comment><AUTHOR> The autonomic system doesnt have a global observer doing that job. No part of the brain has watchdogs to make sure it keeps doing what it's supposed to be doing. You instantly hit the homunculus problem assuming the brain had another brain watching it because then it would need another brain to watch that, ad infinitum.

<comment><USER3> That's all fine and good, but you didn't understand my argument.

I was objecting to your assertion that a "deadlock" would necessarily cause the autonomous nervous system to fail.

Since computers don't do that, why do you think that evolved systems - <USER2> have billions of years to build up robustness - must do that?

Your objection to the "homunculus problem" is not relevant. A watchdog does not need to be a "brain" in any but the most poetic sense. It can be switch on a timer, where the timer is reset by the system.

Computer can have deadlocks on many levels. I could write a multi-threaded program which deadlocks. Even though that's frozen, the rest of the computer could act like normal.

Since you didn't specify which sort of deadlock you were looking for, I pointed to ones which occur at the most recently evolved parts of the brain.

<comment><AUTHOR> And you haven't addressed the implied global scope your hypothetical neural watchdog requires.

Find a global watchdog behaving in the manner you describe within any neural system for any animal at any period in the history of Earth's biosphere.

Find any "neural system resetting" anywhere, in fact.

<comment><USER3> _Shrug_ That wasn't the point. You said that if computers act like X then why don't humans act like X. I pointed out some cases where humans acted a bit like X.

You then asked why those cases weren't also Y. I pointed out that computers aren't always also Y, so why did you think that humans with X must also be Y?

I am not implying a global watchdog, for the simple reason that distributed computing systems can have local watchdogs which reset a node when the node is not active, even without global intervention.

The mechanisms can be different - animals swim while submarines don't, but both move underwater. My point was that I disagreed with your intuition and conclusion, and since I can find one counter-example to show that X doesn't imply Y, you can't conclude that X must imply Y. Nor can you conclude my counter-example is the only possible mechanism.

You still haven't described the basis for your intuition.

<comment><AUTHOR> Distributed systems also deadlock in ways that local watchdogs can't account for. You still imply the global watchdog of _the brain of the systems designer_ to navigate those problems.

All of your examples _require_ a human homunculus to steer a system away from deadlocking.

The brain doesn't have an architectural homunculus to do that for it, and yet, it does not deadlock in any way resembling the deadlocks we see in computer science.

My question is how did the brain do this without a system architect? How can natural selection have a bias that prevents deadlocking in neural compositions?

<comment><USER3> While you haven't expressed the source of your intuition, based on your answers, you see the architecture of human-designed systems, which are engineered based on economic considerations, as being predictive of what natural systems are like.

This is not, generally speaking, true.

Even when built on standard computing architecture, we see that designs influenced by evolutionary design can result in "bizarre, mysterious, and unconventional" designs. I'm quoting from Thompson and Layzell's "Analysis of Unconventional Evolved Electronics" (1999). In that paper, note that the evolve system had a different response to temperature change than the "brittle failure" of normal digital circuits. System crashes like what you describe are "brittle".

Evolution, by human design senses, is incredibly wasteful. We are not going to build computers or distributed computing systems that way, hence any intuition based on those design principles are likely not applicable.

You asked "How can natural selection have a bias that prevents deadlocking in neural compositions?"

The "how" is easy - organisms with hard crashing deadlocks don't reproduce.

You want to know what that mechanism is, which is a different question.

If you really want to understand this, you'll have to talk to biologists who focus on this sort of topic, not a "hacking news" sites.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> "Nice try, but my head was built with paradox-absorbing crumple zones."

\-- Robot Santa on "Futurama"

</comment><comment><USER5> It's more like massive amount of reactive asynchronous communicating processes, where deadlocks cannot happen. Even if two processes accidentally enter a loop where they react by sending messages to each other, they still will be able to react to messages from other processes.

<comment><USER6> This.

Or maybe epilepsy?

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> It could be argued that someone in a coma is in a deadlocked state

</comment><comment><USER8> maybe this is relevant? [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PWMMcaF7YPQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PWMMcaF7YPQ)</comment>


Ask HN: How best to reach local restaurants? - <AUTHOR> I'm trying to talk to local restaurants about my startup to get their feedback. Rather than just walking in randomly, would it be better to try calling them first and trying to talk to the manager by phone first to then schedule time to come in? <comment><USER2> Depends on which country you are targeting. In India, it's just that you step in and ask for the manager. Pitch and get their card/number to followup. You also make sure to leave your card and may be a brochure.</comment>


Gravity Is Not Like the Other Forces - <AUTHOR> https://www.quantamagazine.org/why-gravity-is-not-like-the-other-forces-20200615/ <comment><USER3> I know this is tangential, but as lay person regarding physics I am stuck on the following thought experiment regarding gravity:

We know about gravitational potential energy. We harness it all the time with dams and whatnot. Generally speaking, when we lift matter high above, we get some of the used energy back when it falls back down.

But when we talk about sending say, a spaceship into space, it may fall on a different planet, with a different gravity (a function of the planet's mass), changing the amount of energy yielded by the fall.

The question is: Where is the energy stored in the meantime? Where does the extra energy, if the ship falls into a heavier planet, come from?

It seems that the energy is being stored somewhere, and that matter itself allows us to tap into that, but is not the place where it is stored. Is there anything I can read to better understand what we know about this?

<comment><USER4> That turns out to be a really interesting question. In physics the gravitational energy of a massive body is considered to be negative.

That takes a bit of getting used to. If you consider the universe after the Big Bang, it consisted of extremely thinly dispersed clouds of hydrogen and helium atoms. Over billions of years these collapsed into galaxies and stars. During the process of that collapse these atoms accelerated towards each other, impacted and heated up considerably due to the release of kinetic energy. This kinetic energy has to come from somewhere, so we consider that the energy of the gravitational field of a star or planet is negative energy. It's an energy deficit.

As an side, it is estimated that if you add up the energy in star, including the matter it's composed of, and deduct the negative energy of it's gravitational field they cancel out. It seems likely that the net energy of the universe may well be very close to zero.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero- energy_universe](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-energy_universe)

<comment><USER5> I am happy that you provided the only realistic answer here. Gravity is the negative to light...radiation pressure pushes and gravity pulls. We live in a yin yang universe. Like Alan Watts would say, the universe is in the middle of cosmic dance, and eventually all positives and negatives will neutralize and we will be back where we started. This bides well for cyclic theories of cosmology.

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_pressure](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_pressure) Radiation pressure - <USER2>

<comment><USER6> I'd love to hear a refutation to this (however simple) rather than an anonymous and empty downvote.

<comment><USER4> Gravity and light are unrelated phenomena, one being a curvature of space and the other a fluctuation in electromagnetic fields. They are in no way the opposite of each other. It's like saying apples are the opposite of oranges. It's not even intelligibly refutable.

<comment><USER6> Sorry, that leaves me even more confused. I didn't mean to start an argument though.

Light pressure is a thing. And gravity certainly pulls. And pulling seems the opposite of pushing.

> It's not even intelligibly refutable.

So, your calling your refutation unintelligent? I don't think that's what you meant.

<comment><USER7> Just light, what about the rest of the electromagnetic range of emissions? Gravity can push, ever tried to roll a car uphill? The weak and strong nuclear forces are also from Bosons, why are light and gravity special? Did you know you can send enough light into a region that you can cause that region to pass into a blackhole, it's a called a Kugelblitz.

Rapid fire of some refutations.

<comment><USER5> When a physicist says 'light' they mean electromagnetic energy of all frequencies - not just visible light. All the forces become unified at high temperatures. The universe is thought to have 0 total charge, so even the attractive coulomb force does not counter gravity -- it in sum total, does nothing. Gravity doesn't push the car down the hill, the car pushes you, because it itself is being pulled, silly semantics.

The gravitional force is a negative, it destroys separation and distance. Light and the other forces create separation and distance.

In your black hole example, the light has a momentum, and that doesn't vanish if a black hole forms, the black hole will continue moving.

Rapid fire of some refutations.

<comment><USER7> >Gravity doesn't push the car down the hill, the car pushes you, because it itself is being pulled, silly semantics.

That was my point. You're looking for some wonderful unifying human beauty. I can make the same arguments.

>In your black hole example, the light has a momentum, and that doesn't vanish if a black hole forms, the black hole will continue moving.

My mistake, it's a bit more complicated, what if you pointed two lasers at each other and created a pulse from each of such magnitude the when the light pulses pass by each other the Schwarzschild radius is passed? The blackhole is formed from the photons and nothing can escape the interior of the blackhole. Too much EM radiation can destroy separation and distance.

Also: [https://www.quora.com/Since-photons-are-always-moving- would-...](https://www.quora.com/Since-photons-are-always-moving-would-a- kugelblitz-be-travelling-at-speed-of-light)

<comment><USER5> Blackholes aren't the end - they evaporate.

The photons had a gravitational field before the black hole. Their gravitational field is merely summed. Their total gravity is still conserved.

Nothing has really changed. The fate of the universe is still going to be a balancing act..

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Imagine some kind of alien life form that arose and evolved in intergalactic space. They evolve intelligence and start developing physics. Their physics knows about electromagnetism and maybe the strong and weak nuclear forces, but they have never seen any sufficient concentrations of mass to notice gravity.

They would still know about mass but for them it would just be a property of matter that determines how strongly it reacts to force.

Their model of how force works would be that for each kind of force there is some kind of charge. How much of that kind of force you have between two bodies is determined by how much of that kind of charge each has and how far apart they are.

How each body responds to that force is determined by its mass.

Mass and charge are independent for all of their known forces. You can have two bodies with the same mass but different charge for a given kind force, or two bodies with the same charge for that force but different mass.

Eventually they would discover gravity and I think it would immediately stand out as fundamentally different from the other forces because its charge is not independent of mass. You double the gravitational charge on a body you also double its mass. You double its mass you also double its gravitational charge.

<comment><USER9> It is not so different. To double the electric charge of an electron you also have to double its mass.

<comment><USER10> True, but only if you stick to electrons. Switch to muons, and you have more mass, but the same electric charge. Depending on what particles you use, the mass and charge vary independently.

<comment><USER9> the point that I tried, and failed, to make is that you can't arbitrarily change the charge of a body without changing its mass.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Since reading Brian Greene's books I have a question that I can't seem to get an answer to. If there really are extra curled up dimensions and the graviton is not connected to the brain of the 3 extended dimensions in our Universe and is therefore free to travel into and out of the curled up dimensions then why does gravity obey the inverse square law? Shouldn't we be able to detect the extra dimensions by the effect of gravity diminishing faster than inverse square as the gravitons go into and out of the extra dimensions? The inverse square law of gravitational propagation indicates that there either are no extra dimensions or that the graviton is also connected to a brain that prevents it from entering and exiting these extra dimensions. Since the other 3 forces also obey the inverse square law the extra dimensions might as well not exist making the conclusions of string theory invalid. What am I missing?

<comment><USER12> No, what you're saying is correct. If the inverse square law was obeyed perfectly, space would be restricted to 3-spatial dimensions.

The extra spatial dimensions are usually theorized to be extremely compact so the effects of a higher power law (the inverse square law can be generalised to 1/r^(n-1) with n as your amount of dimensions.) can be neglected.

Of course, to prove it you'd have to at some point measure these effects, and there is some evidence that the inverse square law breaks down. ([https://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ph/0307284.pdf](https://arxiv.org/pdf/hep- ph/0307284.pdf))

<comment><USER11> I would think that over cosmological distances even if the effect of extra dimensions on the propagation of gravity was tiny, Less than half a human hair, the net effect would be measurable especially if there are not just 1 but 8 extra curled dimensions as M-theory predicts. Well thanks for confirming that what I was thinking was an accurate criticism and I hope that physicists can devise an experiment to prove or disprove the extra dimensions some day soon.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I put in the work to study GR from Susskind' theoretical minimum (fantastic lecture series: [https://theoreticalminimum.com/courses/general- relativity/20...](https://theoreticalminimum.com/courses/general- relativity/2012/fall) ). I still don't understand GR.

Yes I can now say "oh gravity is '''just''' curvature on a lorentizian manifold", but what in the world does it _mean_? My current picture is something like this:

A Lorentizian manifold looks locally hyperbolic, so we need to imagine a light cone. Now the curvature of this manifold tells us how we need to __distort light cones __at different points to build up the full space.

How the fuck do I visualize this? Is there some way to embed this in low dimension to play with it? For example, to understand regular curvature, you can play around with a sphere and a cone to get a feel for curvature ~= angle deficit ~= loopy deficit ~= holonomy.

I don't know how to visualize the curvature of space-time, and I'm completely unconvinced I actually understand it beyond squiggles on paper. I'd love a way to embed and visualize this. Please tell me if you know how!

As an aside: It is definitely possible to get a feel for _hyperbolic geometry_ by playing HyperRogue: ([https://roguetemple.com/z/hyper/](https://roguetemple.com/z/hyper/)) --- A free roguelike set in hyperbolic space.

What I don't grok at all is the _curvature_ across hyperbolic spaces, analogous to how a sphere has _curvature_ across flat spaces. I'd love to know how to get a feel for this.

<comment> Ono-Sendai Sure, I can explain how to visualise it (I think :) )

First off, a note: lots of people think they know how to visualise GR, but actually don't. For example, explaining with marbles falling down curved rubber sheets doesn't help, because you're using gravity (the marble being pulled down) to explain gravity. And if you think you can just explain it with geodesics along a curved rubber sheet with a heavy weight in the middle, then think about how to explain why a stationary object falls towards the heavy weight.

Anyway, here is how to visualise it:

Imagine you are driving a car along some surface. We require that each wheel rotates at exactly the same speed with respect to the surface. Now imagine there is a decreasing curvature gradient from left to right across the path of your car - in other words the surface below the left wheel is curving faster than under the right wheel. Seen from above, the left wheel has extra distance to travel in the vertical direction than the right wheel, to achieve a given horizontal distance. This causes the direction of the car to turn slowly to the left - in other words the car is 'gravitationally attracted' to the left - i.e. towards the region of greater curvature, i.e. towards the attracting mass.

To explain why static objects are gravitationally attracted to a mass, you just have to realise that according to Einstein, there are no such things as stationary objects (in some sense). Rather, even a 'stationary' object is travelling rapidly through spacetime. To go back to the car metaphor - the car is not stationary, rather it is always driving forwards (through spacetime).

Some notes on this - think about what a bizarre, weirdly-shaped surface the car must be driving over.

You can also think of the car front axle as being a wavefront of light.

And finally - if you think this explanation is too bizarre, don't blame me, blame Einstein. Personally I don't actually like GR as a theory due to how weird it is.

<comment><USER14> > For example, explaining with marbles falling down curved rubber sheets > doesn't help, because you're using gravity (the marble being pulled down) to > explain gravity.

Exactly, and it drives me nuts. There are many similar examples in SR and GR that maybe help a layperson intuitively, but creates confusion and frustration when you actually try to learn the theory. I can think of 2:

The "escape velocity" explanation of black hole event horizon. Yes, the number comes out correct. No, it does not make sense and does not help me understand how black hole works.

"Mass increases when object moves". No it doesn't. And no it doesn't explain why massive particles can't reach speed of light, because in the frame of the object, its speed is zero.

I can't tell you how much time I've spent searching for the answers, and drowned by these answers that seemingly make sense.

<comment><USER15> For the latter concern, you may find this Physics Today article from Okun helpful:

[http://www.hysafe.org/science/KareemChin/PhysicsToday_v42_p3...](http://www.hysafe.org/science/KareemChin/PhysicsToday_v42_p31to36.pdf)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I would describe myself as a hopeless philosopher in terms of physics. I like to theorise about the nature of everything in universe. In no circumstances I'd say I know what I'm talking about. I'm aware that I lack a lot of knowledge in this field, which actually makes my journey pretty amazing through the learning about the complexity of the universe.

These few words just to let you know that whatever you read here it might be a complete nonsense and it's not even a pseudoscience but some fantasy/fiction reflections.

I'm most amazed by the nature of tri-dimensional space itself. Back then, there was popular belief in Aether - the substance that carries wave of lights. To be honest I tend to believe such 'thing' could explain many of the most weirdest questions that appears in my head.

I wonder if it's possible that the Aether is the space itself. And the space is the Aether. Tiniest, basic 'particles' that are frame for everything else. There would be no 3-dimensional space without at least 4 of such Aether quants. Also for example photons don't just 'fly' through space, but jumps from one quant of Aether to another one. That's how they 'fly' in straight line. That's why when the space is curved they will follow that curvness.

And the gravity is not just a curved spacetime but something like an atmosphere made of Aether quants that are repelled by the particles containing Higgs boson. Which naturally makes the Higgs boson the only particle that can interact with Aether.

I know that so far none experiment has confirmed the existence of Aether. But I can't let go the feeling that we are missing something here.

<comment><USER17> You are not the first to think of this, or even the hundredth. It's been decades since I first saw it, but I did see someone propose kind of an interesting approach, for amusement: why not take the aether thing as far as it could go? Keep adding bizarre properties to it to explain experimental results. Go wild!

If I recall, the end result was something very much like the properties of spacetime. But with no particles. Just ... take the particles away. You're attached to the particles.

The reason you cannot let go of that feeling is that you're trying to attach your base human experience (which is largely Newtonian, low spacetime curvature, quantum effects not immediately visible, a fairly confined region of temperatures and pressures) to a domain where your base experience is completely irrelevant. All of the waves you witnessed were the disturbance of matter as a traveling phenomenon. It's what you grew up on. And so envisioning a scenario wherein the wave isn't carried on some kind of matter, however hidden, "feels" wrong.

Also, don't do physics without math. If you just want to keep reaching from one analogy to another, you can build all kinds of castles in the sky, but you won't have anything at the end of it. Remember, physics is a _quantitative_ prediction. Your concepts have no math or calculations, and so there is no measurement to contradict them. Nor can you "farm the math out" to other parties. Nobody capable of doing the math will do the math _for_ you. If you desire to pursue this, you must begin to do the math, yourself.

<comment><USER18> I should note that it's really not possible to know that aether doesn't exist or whatever, all of these are just models that experimentally match our observations. And your answer describes why we don't use it: it's not that aether is wrong, it's just that if you try to extend the model to account for observations, you get the same model as what we currently have but corrected slightly because you're assuming that aether exists. It turns out that it's just simpler to not assume that, which is why we have our current model.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> For some context: the article only interviews quantum gravity researchers, so it has that particular slant. They are concerned with coming up with different strategies to mitigate the issues general relativity has with singularities, and these strategies range from "sensible deviations from general relativity" to "fun, but highly unlikely".

In terms of how the theory of gravitation is not like the other fundamental forces, I think the most salient point was made by Sera Cremonini: gravitation is not a renormalizable theory. At least in the sense of how we have approached renormalization with the other forces. It is intrinsically non- linear, because the source is the field (and vice-versa).

To get anywhere close to a grand unified theory that incorporates gravitation requires a rethink of the normalization procedure (and likely requires an entirely new geometric framework—this was a pre-requisite for both general relativity and Newton's Universal Law).

<comment><USER20> > For some context: the article only interviews quantum gravity researchers, > so it has that particular slant.

I would go even further: Natalie Wolchover only interviewed string theorists and quantum field theorists. They all assume that gravity in some way or another will just be yet another quantum field theory.

There is not a single piece of evidence for this, though. Personally, I also don't think it is a particularly promising approach. As Hawking so eloquently put it:

> But I believe [gravity] is distinctively different, because it shapes the > arena in which it acts, unlike other fields which act in a fixed spacetime > background.

(Hawking in Hawking & Penrose: The Nature of Space and Time, chapter 1)

<comment><USER19> > I would go even further: Natalie Wolchover only interviewed string theorists > and quantum field theorists. They all assume that gravity in some way or > another will just be yet another quantum field theory.

I didn't want to push that point too much. I am personally uncomfortable with the lack of emphasis on empirical evidence. However, that's not to say there can be fruitful results.

In terms of re-thinking geometric approaches, I quite liked (what I understood of) Nima Arkani-Hamed's suggestion for avoiding issues with localization. Similarly for Penrose's twistor theory.

<comment><USER20> > I quite liked (what I understood of) Nima Arkani-Hamed's suggestion for > avoiding issues with localization.

Which suggestion are you referring to? Do you happen to have a link?

<comment><USER19> The 'Amplituhedron': [https://arxiv.org/pdf/1312.2007.pdf](https://arxiv.org/pdf/1312.2007.pdf)

The idea is to focus on the amplitude of scattering interactions from the momentum-space twistor perspective, rather than perturbations about a point in space-time.

For background: Nima made a name for himself by greatly simplifying complex particle interactions, from tens of pages of Feynman diagrams to around a page. I think of the above as an extension of that project. However, I don't recall all the details, as it's been six years since I went to his talk on this.

<comment><USER20> Oh yes, I've heard a bit about the Amplituhedron. Unfortunately, it only serves to simplify the _perturbative_ calculations in Yang-Mills theories order by order, i.e. the Feynman diagrams. It doesn't describe the full (non- perturbative) theory, so it's not really a candidate for a replacement of "classic" local QFT.

<comment><USER19> Thank you for pointing this out; this accords with my recollection, but you clearly stated a fundamental issue with the approach in its current state.

I thought of the idea as more a sketch of how things might be looked at with a perspective change, rather than a full-blown theory (at least in the form I saw it in 2014). I guess I was holding out for the (highly unlikely) possibility of an asymptotic limit or something similar. It just seemed to be rooted more in reality than most of string theory/LQG. Of course, that could be my bias towards novelty!

<comment><USER20> > I guess I was holding out for the (highly unlikely) possibility of an > asymptotic limit or something similar. It just seemed to be rooted more in > reality than most of string theory/LQG. Of course, that could be my bias > towards novelty!

I totally understand! I was quite excited about the Amplituhedron, too, when I first read about it!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> They should have started with Newton, not Einstein. Heisenberg is also missing.

Newton was so excited to detect this new supernatural attracting force over great distances to hold the planets together, as clear proof that God exists.

Mechanics cannot explain contact-less attracting forces, in mechanics there are only repelling forces, caused by direct contact. Newton never gave up and disappeared into this gravity=god hole forever.

Quantum-mechanics had the same problem, as Heisenberg detected. The dual nature of particles and waves don't hold for gravity, there cannot be a gravity particle as counterpart to the attracting force. Einstein was the same opinion, but still the Boor folks had their way. Even the Einstein-Podolsky- Rosenstein Paradoxon, which disproved causality in the standard model, was explained away.

Same for black holes, the mysteriously postulated dark matter and more.

<comment><USER22> If you are OK with reversing time then mechanics can explain attractive forces. It then becomes a question of why our perspective is one-sided.

<comment><USER23> Nope, still repulsive forces. Think about it - two balls head towards each other, collide, and move away from each other, having experienced a repulsive force. Reverse time, and it looks exactly the same.

Or more mathematically, force is measured in Newtons, which is kg * m / s / s. Reverse the sign of the seconds part of that, and, oh, it's squared so it ends up being exactly the same.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> I don't understand why people think that gravity should be describable by same math other forces are. Why should there be a quantum gravity field or quantum mediating particles for gravity?

As far as we know gravity is just acceleration due to non-flat shape of space(-time). Why would that have anything similar with exchanging photons, gluons or other bosons? I understand how you might think there's a quantum math for a field. But how can there be quantum math for acceleration?

<comment><USER25> Quantum physicist here. The reason is not that we _want_ to describe both gravity and the standard model using the same formalism, it's that currently general relativity and the standard model are actually fundamentally incompatible and the most obvious way to come up with a model where there are no incompatibilities is to try to describe both using the same mathematical framework.

>Why would that have anything similar with exchanging photons, gluons or other bosons?

You make it sound like it is obvious that the strong force would be mediated by gluons or the electromagnetic force by photons, but it actually isn't at all, and it is only relatively recently that we have started describing all forces as being mediated by these so-called "force carriers". It is not obvious at all that there are any photons at all involved in, for example, two magnets repelling each other, or in electromagnetic induction of a current.

<comment><USER24> Thank you for your response. What's the source of incompatibility between standard model and general relativity?

Gravity is about acceleration and flow of time. What's the problem with plugging general relativity in place of classical dynamics whenever you care about flow of time and acceleration in quantum physics? As if those gravity and other forces and particle had nothing to do with each other.

Why does general relativity is more incompatible with quantum mechanics than with fluid dynamics for example?

My understanding is that general relativity says that gravity is not even a real force. It's just a function of acceleration caused by misshapen space- time (deformed by mass/energy).

Some other things I don't understand... How gravity is considered to be a fundamental force, while Pauli exclusion principle is not, despite the fact that it can keep neutron stars from collapsing. Is it because there's no hope for finding mediating particle in the math that describes the principle because the math is too simple?

<comment><USER25> >Thank you for your response. What's the source of incompatibility between standard model and general relativity? Gravity is about acceleration and flow of time. What's the problem with plugging general relativity in place of classical dynamics whenever you care about flow of time and acceleration in quantum physics? As if those gravity and other forces and particle had nothing to do with each other.

The difficulty is that the standard model uses "quantum field theory" (QFT) as the physical model in the background to describe it. However QFT is actually quite hacky in a lot of ways, the main one being that actually it predicts that every point of space should have an infinite free energy (see here for example [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_energy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_energy)). The way we get around this is by subtracting off this infinite energy, which is one of many similar techniques called "Renormalization" ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renormalization](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renormalization)).

Well it turns out that if you produce a quantum field theory for gravity, it is not actually possible (or at least in any way easy) to "renormalize" it (i.e. it's really hard to subtract off these infinities)

The issue is more that QFT is really weird, rather than that general relativity is

>Why does general relativity is more incompatible with quantum mechanics than with fluid dynamics for example?

Well general relativity (GR) and QFT both describe fundamental interactions, whereas fluid dynamics describes an emergent property of electromagnetic (EM) interactions between many particles. Gravity is also usually very irrelevant in fluid dynamics unless we are looking at very large objects like the flow of matter in stars for example, so in most cases it is just EM interaction which is fully described by QFT. In other cases we have relatively weak gravity + QFT, for example in those stars, in which cases we can actually already describe the dynamics fully using approximate versions of gravity and not have any incompatibility. In cases where gravity is very strong though we do have these issues as we just don't know what happens due to lacking a proven theory of quantum gravity. One example is how the matter behaves in the super-dense core of a neutron star, known as the neutron star "equation of state", which is currently unknown, as in these cases both quantum and gravitational effects are very strong.

>My understanding is that general relativity says that gravity is not even a real force. It's just a function of acceleration caused by misshapen space- time (deformed by mass/energy).

Yes that is completely correct to our understanding, but we could maybe model it as a "real force" by writing a quantum field theory for it

>Some other things I don't understand... How gravity is considered to be a fundamental force, while Pauli exclusion principle is not, despite the fact that it can keep neutron stars from collapsing. Is it because there's no hope for finding mediating particle in the math that describes the principle because the math is too simple?

Honestly the fact that the Pauli exclusion principle isn't a force has always been confusing to me too as it behaves like one in so many situations, but it is similar to gravity really which as you said isn't really a force, but more like an influence. In fact GR says that we follow the geodesic (roughly translated to the "shortest path") along the curved space-time, i.e. it is by minimising the so-called "action". This isn't really a force, more like a fundamental law of motion. I think the Pauli exclusion principle is similar in this way, but I don't think it is a satisfactory explanation

<comment><USER24> > Well it turns out that if you produce a quantum field theory for gravity, it > is not actually possible ...

I heard about that. But why would you want to have quantum field theory of gravity? Why can't you just consider gravity to be only about the shape of space-time in which everything including quantum field theories of everything else happen?

> Well general relativity (GR) and QFT both describe fundamental interactions > ..

Does GR really describe fundamental interactions? For me it seem that it only describes shape of space-time where all the fundamental interactions take place.

> In cases where gravity is very strong though we do have these issues as we > just don't know what happens due to lacking a proven theory of quantum > gravity.

Isn't it just because we lack data from systems where gravity is extremely strong and systems are small/isolated enough to show any quantum effects? How can we be sure that we need quantum gravity? Why it's not enough to calculate QFT in curved spacetime instead of flat spacetime?

> One example is how the matter behaves in the super-dense core of a neutron > star, known as the neutron star "equation of state", which is currently > unknown, as in these cases both quantum and gravitational effects are very > strong.

I see.

> Yes that is completely correct to our understanding, but we could maybe > model it as a "real force" by writing a quantum field theory for it

Apparently we can't due to problems with renormalization. And I argue we shouldn't be able to because I believe it's completely different thing from a real force and if same math worked for two dissimilar things I'd be worried. :-)

I'm happy to hear that Pauli principle is unsettling not only to grumpy weirdo like me. :-)

<comment><USER25> >I heard about that. But why would you want to have quantum field theory of gravity? Why can't you just consider gravity to be only about the shape of space-time in which everything including quantum field theories of everything else happen?

No, because it turns out that curved space-time is actually incompatible with quantum field theory in certain extreme parameter regimes, in a way that it actually makes it impossible to make predictions on scales where both gravitational and quantum effects are very strong (e.g. neutron stars). We want a quantum field theory of gravity as then it will "play nice" with other quantum field theories.

>Does GR really describe fundamental interactions? For me it seem that it only describes shape of space-time where all the fundamental interactions take place.

I think it is quite fundamental that energy curves space-time and that it affects the paths of objects (even light), but yes maybe I wouldn't call it a fundamental interaction in the same sense as quantum field theories, particularly because it isn't quantised so it isn't really a single "thing" being exchanged (like a gauge boson). Most physicists do call it an interaction or a force though. I mean that it describes nature on a fundamental and indivisible level (at least so far as our current/most popular understanding)

>Isn't it just because we lack data from systems where gravity is extremely strong and systems are small/isolated enough to show any quantum effects? How can we be sure that we need quantum gravity? Why it's not enough to calculate QFT in curved spacetime instead of flat spacetime?

Of course we lack this data, which is why measurements of, for example, the aforementioned neutron star equation of state will give us more understanding. We can't be sure that we need a quantum theory of gravity, it could be that it is actually just impossible to describe both gravity and QFT at the same time. QFT in a curved spacetime is only a first approximation of general relativity and doesn't capture all of the effects of GR (see here for example [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_field_theory_in_curved...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_field_theory_in_curved_spacetime)). I don't really know much about quantum gravity, but I don't believe that QFT in curved space-time is sufficient, at the very least it doesn't solve the cosmological constant problem ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_constant_problem](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_constant_problem))

> And I argue we shouldn't be able to because I believe it's completely > different thing from a real force

It's worth considering that what we call a force in quantum field theory is very different from what Newton would have considered a force! Probably in fact the gravitational "force" due to curved space-time would seem more like a force to him, certainly QFT is much weirder than GR after all...

<comment><USER24> > I think it is quite fundamental that energy curves space-time ... Most > physicists do call it an interaction or a force though.

Isn't it sort of 'legacy' way of thinking and naming things?

> QFT in a curved spacetime is only a first approximation of general > relativity and doesn't capture all of the effects of GR (see here for > example > [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_field_theory_in_curved...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_field_theory_in_curved...)).

Oh. Thank you. This looks way more promising. But I see that it has few very hard to accept results like lack of objective vacuum or particles loosing meaning (which I'm ok with :-)). And I see how it still fails to include influence of particles generated by gravity. But it makes interesting predictions already.

I really think that's the way forward.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Isn't it conclusive already that gravity _insn 't_ a force? It works nothing like what we consider forces, and we already have models that show it's curvature in space-time, not force. A black hole doesn't exert infinite force on things, for example – one could say it doesn't exert any force at all, just curves all paths you could possibly take back in on itself.

</comment><comment> Ono-Sendai I think the big reasons gravity is different are as follows:

* very weak (many orders of magnitude less strong than the other forces)

* no positive/negative mass 'charges', the gravitational force is attractive only.

* works via curvature of spacetime (according to Einstein), instead of the exchange of force particles (e.g. instead of by jiggling fields)

<comment><USER27> You last point is not necessarily a description of gravity, but a description of the models we use to reason about it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> I would like to join in with many of the statements in this thread describing a joint lack of understanding of the physical universe as well as a deep fascination with it. I certainly count myself among those ranks.

In watching way too many YouTube videos on quantum physics and gravity I began to create a model of how the universe works at the very small scale and after a while something occurred to me.

We know that the path of a photon can be bent if it passes near a black hole. The key being that spacetime is being somehow consumed by a black hole and the photon is being dragged towards it. Thus, its path appears bent. I thought that similar effects should happen with volumes of a lighter mass. Perhaps with the same mechanism.

Neutron stars would have a smaller effect on photons, and a more measurable effect on heavier particles and molecules. Neutron stars would also somehow 'consume' spacetime. Just at a lower rate. Thus heavier particles would escape.

So too with the earth. Only, in this case, the mass of the earth is small enough that molecules can escape all on their own.

So, what is gravity? Gravity in this model is the effect of spacetime being consumed. By analogy the spacetime is like standing under a shower. We are glued to the earth because we cannot gain enough purchase against the torrent of spacetime being consumed by the mass of the earth.

Which brings me to the second question. Well, this is where actually having some physics would be useful. But after many drunken bouts of thought, I'm convinced that this spacetime consumption is down to [color confinement]([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_confinement#QCD_string](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_confinement#QCD_string)).

Anyway, enjoy. If nothing else, this should at least be useful for some sci-fi anti-gravity mechanism.

<comment><USER29> Great questions/ideas!

To maybe nit-pick a bit to help out:

Space time is not 'consumed', it's just curved in 4-D. The Einstein Field Equations are a very good model of what we think is occurring.

Photons are massless, hence why they can travel at light-speed. Their energy is the thing to worry about when doing GR.

<comment><USER28> The crucial question I guess is: Why do objects fall down a gravity well if its just a curvature?

The 'consumption' to me is more intuitive, but then again I'm just not a mathematician. Is it the field equations specifically thatI should look at or are there others?

And also what type of math structures should I be studying to understand the field equations?

<comment><USER30> They don't fall a gravity well, they follow straight lines in a curved spacetime. Not subject to the other forces everything follows the straightest line (geodesics) it possibly can in a curved spacetime.

The field equations define the spacetime geometry but they are very hard to solve, you will gain little insight from them. Instead you should try to understand the concept of a geodesic, how they are extremes of a variational problem, how they are calculated and the physical/geometrical intuition behind them.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> > The problem with a quantum version of general relativity is that the > calculations that would describe interactions of very energetic gravitons — > the quantized units of gravity — would have infinitely many infinite terms. > You would need to add infinitely many counterterms in a never-ending > process. Renormalization would fail. Because of this, a quantum version of > Einstein's general relativity is not a good description of gravity at very > high energies. It must be missing some of gravity's key features and > ingredients.

Is there a proof backing up the claim that " Renormalization would fail"? I can see why people would jump to that conclusion but that doesn't mean it's true.

</comment><comment><USER32> >Gravity Breeds Singularities

Gravity or GR? Is there even any reason to take singularities seriously? Aren't singularities simply places where GR as a theory falls flat on its face and therefore singularities don't actually describe any physical phenomena?

<comment><USER20> The short answer to your question is: We don't know.

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> Theoretical physics is sporadically coming back into my mind again after a lot of time learning CS and Stats.

I'm wondering now, is the goal of theoretical physics sort of like the goal of topological data analysis[0]? Reading about things like how Max Planck came up with quantum theory to explain the measurements of black body radiation reminded me a lot of the ML task trying to fit a model to data.

My bias is definitely showing here but is this a useful framework to be able to think about these things?

[0]: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topological_data_analysis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topological_data_analysis)

</comment><comment><USER34> I've long thought gravity is more likely to be the product of space between masses, not something that alters it. My thinking is the "alteration" of we perceive as gravity is lopsided entropy due to a field with a gradient of space.

I wrote this thought experiment years ago, which was the start of this way of thinking: [http://corpusdord.blogspot.com/2006/02/matter-space-and- time...](http://corpusdord.blogspot.com/2006/02/matter-space-and- time.html?m=1)

<comment><USER35> Maybe gravity is just diffusion of energy as it tries to smooth the tremendous discontinuities between its condensed form (mass) and free (?) form (vacuum).

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> Can someone explain Why there is gravity without drawing on math?

<comment><USER37> Imagine that you are standing on the equator of Earth, facing North. Now imagine a friend is also standing somewhere on the equator -- not too far away, but a fair distance -- also facing North. Now, if you both start walking you'll find that you begin to move closer together. The distance between you shrinks as you walk, until eventually you meet at the North Pole. The "force" that is pulling you together is like gravity in that it is caused by the curvature of the Earth's surface as you travel across it.

With gravity the curvature is intrinsic to space-time itself and is affected by mass. Generally more mass means more curvature. So if you sit two objects in space, at rest with respect to one-another (but still travelling forwards in time), you will find they are pulled together and eventually meet in the same way you and your friend were pulled together and met at the North Pole.

You might ask why mass affects the curvature of space-time? That I don't know the answer to.

<comment><USER38> Im fine with curvature analogy but why things "move"?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> When thinking about gravity versus other forces, consider how weak it is. Under you you have Earth weighing 6.6 sextillion tons (5.97 x 10^24 kg). It is 260 billion cubic miles (1 trillion cubic km). All that generates 1g of gravity.

A basic fridge magnet (not even neodymium) easily generates a magnetic force that can lift several times its own weight. It overpowers the sextillion tons 3:1, no contest.

</comment><comment><USER40> I always find it interesting we have the photon for light, electron for electricity, but no particle for gravity.

<comment><USER41> Technically, the photon is also the particle for electricity, not the electron.

<comment><USER42> What? Give me a link so I can learn.

<comment><USER43> Trick question (or trick answer): depends what you mean by "electricity", which is one of those questions that's simple to ask but collapses into a pile of details on closer inspection.

The electric field and magnetic field are tied together in the manner described by Maxwell's equations. This results in "electromagnetic waves", which are indeed carried by photons in free space.

It is often helpful to look at the fields as being the real "electricity", or at least use the lumped approximation we call "current", and this brings various charge carriers along with it. Electrons are the common charge carrier, but ions can carry charge (e.g. in batteries), and in semiconductors we use "holes", which are the absence of an electron. Not an anti-electron, just the space where it's supposed to be.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> Maybe gravity is not a force in a quantum sense, but just geometry of spacetime in the presence of mass? Maybe there is no graviton and no quantum theory is needed to explain gravity.

Is there any strong evidence that gravity is following quantum mechanics? Maybe a real theoretical physicist can explain.

<comment><USER45> Considering that gravity is produced by particles who's behavior is quantized, there is essentially no other option than to assume gravity must be as well.

<comment><USER44> Do we know for sure? I mean I don't think the graviton has been observed in action yet. Let me ask another question: is space quantized?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> I could be totally wrong, but as a lay person I had the impression that gravity wasn't actually force.

So the apple did not fall because it was attracted to the Earth but rather it fell because of the curvature of spacetime.

</comment><comment><USER47> ... and then there are the neutron stars, exquisite perversions of physics where atom cores are packed so densely that the electrons have to form a cloud layer around the star.

<comment><USER18> Not around but _inside_ the star: collapse to degeneracy doesn't mean that the whole star behaves like a giant atom with electron cloud around it. Most of the electrons are captured by inverse beta decay, anyhow.

</comment></comment><comment><USER48> What does gravity have to do with energy levels? I thought it was a side effect of motion in curved spacetime (einstein theory)?

<comment><USER27> Curvature of spacetime is an effect of energy. Check out the Einstein field equations, specifically the stress-energy tensor.

</comment></comment><comment><USER49> Well, some people say so, others say different [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropic_gravity](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropic_gravity)

</comment><comment><USER50> Ahh, a primary favorite. "Gravity is the grand leviathan of forces". It is my personal belief that, as light and energy were shown equivalent, the third leg of the stool will emerge; that gravity and mass are equivalent. Not as we understand them now; but as mc^2 understood light/energy equivalence.

Final thought exercise: is it possible, that gravity does not exhibit the same behavior everywhere in the universe? That gravity may have states.

<comment><USER51> Man ... I remember when HN wasn't filled with crackpots. Sigh.

<comment><USER50> Ha, yeah.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER52> Disclaimer: Zero formal background in Physics, but I want to learn.

It has always felt like gravity is the result of some other "thing" going on. There are two reasons for why I believe this:

1\. Gravitational waves are weird, the idea that the resulting force of gravity can travel away from where it was created. I can't think of any other examples where something similar happens with another force without something "carrying" it.

2\. At lot of the issues we have with our current models come from gravity. If it be on the quantum or Universe scale, our picture of what we believe gravity to be seems to be limited to our localized experience of it.

I sometimes try to run through a thought experiment where I try to imagine how gravity, space and time may behave at the very edge of the Universe, because things there surely must seem weird. If space and time cannot be created or destroyed, what is being "traded" to expand the Universe?

An alternate idea I've had is that the Universe is not expanding outwards, but expanding inwards, where galaxies roughly stay where there are and the properties of space-time between them changes. We always imagine the Universe in the three dimensional space we experience it in when thinking about gravity, but the quantum scale seems to suggest there must exist other spatial dimensions.

Just some brain farts anyway, any reading material people can point me towards I would be highly appreciative :)

<comment><USER32> >Gravitational waves are weird

Are they though? I know there is a lot of math behind how exactly gravitational waves behave making specific predictions that stem from GR, but even in the Newtonian sense, something like gravitational waves would necessarily exist. That is, even under Newtonian laws, if a body emits a force like gravity which drops in strength with distance, and if that body moves back and forth in relation to you, you would necessarily experience waves of force.

<comment><USER20> > That is, even under Newtonian laws, if a body emits a force like gravity > which drops in strength with distance, and if that body moves back and forth > in relation to you, you would necessarily experience waves of force.

Not if you take the term "wave" literally. Any action in Newtonian gravity is assumed to occur _instantaneously_ , so while an observer far away from that body would certainly see the gravitational pull varying in time, this would not be the same as a wave traveling through space.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER53> This guy who wrote a book on Magnetism says that Einstein has it wrong and that only by starting over at Tesla's model and moving forward can the physics of the universe be predicted well.

According to the Tesla inspired model of the ELECTRIC universe, gravity is not a fundament field itself, but an emergent characteristic of "incoherent dia- electric acceleration". The guy who said this is Ken Wheeler.

Whats also interesting is that this opinion is shared by pioneer of "Low- Energy Nuclear Reaction" Randal Mills. I've been told by the people in this space that the Mills paper provides a comprehensive model that is MUCH better at predicting certain binding energy states of nuclei. In comparison to the standard models all-over the place. It also solves problem of all the dark matter in the universe, which is simply an abundance of tiny hydrogens called hydrino's which contain an electron that has lost momentum and is zipping closer to the nucleus, thus making a more elctro-neutral particle that weakly interacts with other particles (WIMPS).

If anyone has doubts on the standard model, I suggest checking out "Ken Wheeler" and Randal Mills. Fascinating and deep look at a minority consensus of the universe that appears to be MUCH simpler.

<comment><USER54> Simpler, but not supported by any evidence. Nobody's ever seen a hydrino.

<comment><USER55> Thank you for sending me down a rabbit hole. Quite interesting to read the two incomprehensible (to me) and incompatible worlds represented by the believers and the critics on Reddit.

[https://www.reddit.com/r/BrilliantLightPower/](https://www.reddit.com/r/BrilliantLightPower/)</comment></comment></comment>