The paper proposes a hypothesis unifying various gravity theories, suggesting they describe the same reality at different scales, encouraging future exploration.
This paper proposes a hypothesis according to which existing theories of gravity beyond General Relativity — quantum gravity, modified gravity, emergent gravity, and the Infinite-Dimensional Multiverse Model — are not competing but rather describe the same physical reality at different levels of description G . The concept of G (degree of coarse-graining), borrowed from statistical physics, denotes the observer’s choice: which degrees of freedom are considered essential and which are coarse-grained into macrostates. Entropy depends not only on the number of microstates Ω but also on the chosen G . In the same way, different gravity theories may be simultaneously valid, each at its own scale. The hypothesis comprises three theses: ontological (a single reality exists), methodological (no single theory is ultimate), and practical (the task is to describe transitions between levels). A comparison is made with other unification attempts (emergent modified gravity by Bojowald, SSUT by Sohail, CODES by Bostick, and hydrodynamics on superspace). The proposed approach is shown to be unique: it introduces an explicit meta-principle of level choice, includes infinite-dimensional geometry, and uses attractors to explain the fine-tuning of constants. However, this work is purely conceptual. It does not offer a mathematical formalisation of transitions between G , contains no direct experimental predictions, and describes no applied technologies. All ontological statements should be regarded as working hypotheses. The main value is a methodological framework that provides a fresh perspective on the relationships between gravity theories and encourages their further development and empirical testing.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Alexander Yourievitch Kotelnikov (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: