The Curvature of Spacetime Prevents Most Collisions

These past weeks I’ve been suffering from a sort of a writer’s block. For three and a half years I had been working on the theory of everything, but now that I have the manuscript one the “Theory of Everything -lite” submitted and (soon) being peer reviewed, I no longer need to think about the mathematics behind it. Or rather, I decided that it was okay for me to ignore the elementary particle of energy for a while and just focus on supramolecular motion. And I don’t have the energy to start thinking about the elementary particle of energy just yet. Rather, I should continue exploring supramolecular motion on a deeper level, but I just don’t feel like starting something completely new.

The reason for this reluctance to switch focus is that I feel that I somehow haven’t been able to explain what people believe in now, if they don’t believe in my theory. Or, to be more honest, I still have a hard time understanding how anyone can believe in the kinetic theory of gases, at least as explained in the Wikipedia article.

So, what does the theory say that I find so baffling? There is a specific sentence:

Interactions (i.e. collisions) between particles are strictly binary and uncorrelated, meaning that there are no three-body (or higher) interactions, and the particles have no memory.

It seems to be a rather harmless one, but with disastrous consequences. However, if the sentence exists, there surely has to be experimental evidence to back it up. Or is there?

I asked ChatGPT:

In the kinetic theory to ideal gases there is an assumption that Interactions (i.e. collisions) between particles are strictly binary and uncorrelated, meaning that there are no three-body (or higher) interactions, and the particles have no memory. Are there any experiments unequivocally backing this assumption?

This is what ChatGPT answered:

Begin quote:

Short answer: No single experiment directly “proves” that gas particles only collide in isolated binary interactions—because it is an idealization, not a literal statement about reality. However, many experimental results show that the ideal‐gas predictions work extremely well in regimes where three-body correlations are negligible, which indirectly but strongly supports the assumption.

Why the assumption exists

The kinetic theory simplifies the picture of a gas by assuming:

1. Collisions are instantaneous and binary.

2. Collisions are uncorrelated ("molecular chaos" or Stosszahlansatz).

3. Between collisions particles move freely.

Real gases can have three-body collisions, but the probability of three particles meeting simultaneously is proportional to the square of the density—so at low densities, such events are extremely rare. Thus, the theory predicts that deviations from ideal behavior increase with pressure and density, which is exactly what experiments observe.

What experimental evidence exists?

There are several experimental domains that indirectly support binary, uncorrelated collisions:

1. Agreement of the ideal gas law with measurements

At low density, matches experimental data with remarkable accuracy.

If three-body interactions mattered, the equation of state would deviate even at low pressures. Instead, deviations appear only when gas becomes dense enough that multi-body interactions become non-negligible. The second and third virial coefficients quantify this departure.

2. Maxwell–Boltzmann distribution verified experimentally

The kinetic theory predicts a specific velocity distribution assuming random, binary collisions.

Experiments confirm this distribution for dilute gases via:

• molecular beam scattering

• time-of-flight spectroscopy

• Doppler broadening of spectral lines

Agreement would break down if collisions had strong correlations or memory effects.

3. Mean free path measurements

Independent measurements of mean free path from viscosity/thermal conductivity/diffusion match predictions using binary collision models:

If multi-particle collisions were common, mean free paths would be shorter than observed.

4. Molecular beam scattering experiments

In ultra-high vacuum, gases can be made dilute enough that individual collision events are observable. Results show:

• mostly binary collisions

• scattering cross-sections match two-body interaction potentials

Three-body events only show up intentionally at high densities.

5. Transport coefficients (viscosity, diffusion)

Measurements match theoretical predictions made assuming the Boltzmann equation, which itself relies on binary collisions and the molecular chaos assumption. Deviations appear only where expected (high density, strong interactions, near critical point).

So, do we have direct proof of the assumption?

Not really. Instead we have:

✔ Strong experimental validation of theories that depend on it✔ Quantitative agreement in dilute gases✔ Controlled experiments observing binary collisions✖ No absolute experimental proof that three-body interactions never occur✖ At high density, the assumption clearly breaks down

The assumption is best viewed as:

A limiting approximation valid when the gas is dilute and interactions are weak, strongly supported by indirect experimental confirmation.

Final summary

There is no single experiment that declares "gas collisions are always binary and uncorrelated." Instead, the success of the kinetic theory predictions—in velocity distributions, transport properties, and the ideal gas law—is itself experimental evidence that the binary-collision, memoryless assumption is highly accurate under appropriate conditions. When those conditions fail, so does the ideal gas model, exactly as expected.

End quote.

The above answer seems to indicate that there is sufficient experimental data to warrant the assumption of uncorrelated collisions. However, if you dig just a bit deeper. The theories relate to the interpretation of events. And the experimental data is on with particles in ultrahigh vacuum, where

gases can be made dilute enough that individual collision events are observable.

This means that when collisions are observed, they obey the assumption that collisions are strictly binary.

Thinking about the topic a bit more, perhaps the problem isn’t about refuting the assumption that collisions are binary. Perhaps the problem is in assuming that when not observed, molecules must move in linear free paths.

While accurate observations can be made in ultra-high vacuum, most molecules don’t exist in ultrahigh vacuums. On earth usually the pressure is at least one atmosphere, or more. So, the assumption that the observations made in ultra-high vacuum would apply to more regular conditions, seems quite a stretch. In regular conditions molecules don’t have the freedom to move independently of each other. Rather, in terrestrial conditions water is regularly hovering between solid, liquid and gaseous states

And here’s the rub. Once you transition from ideal gases to non-ideal gases (and liquids), you need to introduce extra terms, such as the Van der Waals equation. But you keep on assuming that the assumption of the ultra-high vacuum state is somehow more true.

But here we step from a nice mathematical environment to a more complex philosophical environment. For me, the environment where you can most likely observe water should be the normal ‘equilibrium’ state and any condition that requires human intervention to observe should be understood as inherently prone to artefacts generated by human intervention.

This is why I changed the title of today’s post from “Does Anyone Really Believe in Random Motion?” to the final title “The Curvature of Spacetime Prevents Most Collisions”. So, what does that statement mean? It means that I’m not sure the kinetic theory of gases necessarily needs to be changed. Rather the steric effects that I talk about in my manuscript on quantum gravity cause molecules in liquid state (and gases at atmospheric pressure) to move in curved trajectories before eventually colliding. However, the curved motion is the standard state of affairs and collisions are the exception. Not a very rare exception, but an exception nevertheless.

So, what does the curvature of spacetime mean in this case? Well, the mass (at least indirectly) of the surrounding molecules in liquids causes their motion to curve in such a way that they begin to orbit a circular center of mass. The molecules along a share orbit do not collide with each other. Collisions occur between molecules of neighboring orbital, or between “neighboring quantum droplets.”

I’m not sure whether what I’m saying is at all clear to anyone else, apart from me. However, for me, it became clear upon writing this post that my theory is completely compatible with the kinetic theory of gases, because it assumes no collisions for quantum droplets

Except there is another statement in the theory:

Except during collisions, the interactions among molecules are negligible. They exert no other forces on one another.

But this assumption is only related to the ideal gas law. However, I think this is an assumption that has to be rejected, even in ideal gases. For non-ideal gases and liquids this last statement isn’t even assumed to hold true.

And the AI illustration this time comes from DeepAI, because ChatGPT refused to generate an image with a prompt. The illustration below is comically bad, but at least it’s comical. You’ll have to guess what the prompt was.