The approach with thermodynamics should be an alternative way to the attempt to model gravitation through an energetic/quantum background which decreases its strength in presence of masses, and fades away in presence of high concentration of masses (black holes).

Very interesting the possibility that gravitation can alter the entaglement.

At the moment Verlinde's paper has 1193 citations.

Christopher Duchs is quoting it in his paper

QBism, the perimeter of quantum Bayesianism

Article QBism, the Perimeter of Quantum Bayesianism

"It means that despite its humble roots in nonrelativis-

tic quantum mechanics, there is something already cos-

mological about QBism. It tinkers with spacetime, say-

ing that in every “hole” (every bounded region) there is

an interiority not given by the rest of the universe and

common quality called dimension. It says that there is

probably something right about the holographic princi-

ples arising from other reaches of physics [95]. But also

Quantum Bayesianism, recognizing entropy as a personal

concept (entropy is a function of probability), would sus-

pect that it is not an entropy bound that arises from these

principles. Would it be a dimension bound? And why

so, if there were not a new equivalence principle lurking

around the corner [78,96]."

I don't know how much your approach is closed to this idea.

Fuchs is interested by SIC-POVMs in relation to his 'quantum bayesianism'.

I would say that it would be good to couple concepts from gravitation theories to concepts developed in quantum information theory (QIT).

You are right, but generally the the problems are no physical, no mathematical, no metrological, these are computational problems of inverse functional analysis. My definition "Quantum phantoms of virtual reality". See Facebook, Eugene Machusky "Demystification of quantum physics".You are right, but generally the the problems are no physical, no mathematical, no metrological, these are computational problems of inverse functional analysis. My definition "Quantum phantoms of virtual reality". See Facebook, Eugene Machusky "Demystification of quantum physics".

Michel Planat "I would say that it would be good to couple concepts from gravitation theories to concepts developed in quantum information theory (QIT)."

This is the goal set. Indeed, many articles deal with an equivalence between shannon entropy (information theory) and Von Neumann theory (quantum cryptography, quantum information theory).

See this article: http://rickbradford.co.uk/QM6Entropy.pdf

We can formalize a Boltzmann-Neumann type entropy, combining the physics of thermodynamics (via the Boltzmann constant) and Neumann's purely quantum entropy.

Now, it turns out that there is a link between the Newtonian force (Newton's law of universal gravitation) and entropy: the entropy gradient * temperature = Force.

Remember my answer in this discussion topic you posted:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_there_a_convincing_relationship_between_mathematics_and_quantum_information_theory

Eugene A. Machusky "these are computational problems of inverse functional analysis"

I think you're right somewhere, without having to be totally right. I think that the main problem of physics is certainly the analysis, but also the interpretation that we give to the equations, and also the way scientists want their equations to go in their direction.

Stefano Quattrini "Very interesting the possibility that gravitation can alter the entaglement."

Thank you very much ! I think this is an important track to explain.

This article is only a kind of "introduction", a quick, clear, concise presentation with a simple proposition to modify the laws of gravitation.

The most difficult thing is to incorporate the geometric side of the Ricci tensor with the thermodynamic entropy, the most complicated being to transform the entropy a sort of thermodynamic tensor.

>

you have to rewrite gravitation on a different basis in order to merge it with QM. Although you have to find the results given by the Schw solution which is a good and verified steady state solution.

Thanks for your help Stefano Quattrini :)

Interesting question

I find it is great work! Stéphane Schmutz

The so-called "entropy " doesn't exist at all.

During the process of deriving the so-called entropy, in fact, ΔQ/T can not be turned into dQ/T. That is, the so-called "entropy " doesn't exist at all.

The so-called entropy was such a concept that was derived by mistake in history.

It is well known that calculus has a definition,

any theory should follow the same principle of calculus; thermodynamics, of course, is no exception, for there's no other calculus at all, this is common sense.

Based on the definition of calculus, we know:

to the definite integral ∫T f(T)dQ, only when Q=F(T), ∫T f(T)dQ=∫T f(T)dF(T) is meaningful.

As long as Q is not a single-valued function of T, namely, Q=F( T, X, …), then,

∫T f(T)dQ=∫T f(T)dF(T, X, …) is meaningless.

1) Now, on the one hand, we all know that Q is not a single-valued function of T, this alone is enough to determine that the definite integral ∫T f(T)dQ=∫T 1/TdQ is meaningless.

2) On the other hand, In fact, Q=f(P, V, T), then

∫T 1/TdQ = ∫T 1/Tdf(T, V, P)= ∫T dF(T, V, P) is certainly meaningless. ( in ∫T , T is subscript ).

We know that dQ/T is used for the definite integral ∫T 1/TdQ, while ∫T 1/TdQ is meaningless, so, ΔQ/T can not be turned into dQ/T at all.

that is, the so-called "entropy " doesn't exist at all.