How does the runaway expansion of the universe follow the laws

"Recent theoretical progress indicates that spacetime and gravity emerge together from the entanglement structure of an underlying microscopic theory. These ideas are best understood in Anti-de Sitter space, where they rely on the area law for entanglement entropy. The extension to de Sitter space requires taking into account the entropy and temperature associated with the cosmological horizon. Using insights from string theory, black hole physics and quantum information theory we argue that the positive dark energy leads to a thermal volume law contribution to the entropy that overtakes the area law precisely at the cosmological horizon. Due to the competition between area and volume law entanglement the microscopic de Sitter states do not thermalise at sub-Hubble scales: they exhibit memory effects in the form of an entropy displacement caused by matter. The emergent laws of gravity contain an additional `dark' gravitational force describing the `elastic' response due to the entropy displacement. We derive an estimate of the strength of this extra force in terms of the baryonic mass, Newton's constant and the Hubble acceleration scale a_0 =cH_0, and provide evidence for the fact that this additional `dark gravity~force' explains the observed phenomena in galaxies and clusters currently attributed to dark matter."

https://arxiv.org/abs/1611.02269

>>8939180
>that
>my head

I know not everything can get condensed to brainlets food.
What I think this means is
>the effects that result in net expansion only occurs at sizes too large to feasibly use.
Is that anywhere near correct?

>>8939175
You're wrong but it would take too long to explain so I'll just call it you a brainlet instead

>>8939175
The universe is far larger than anyone can comprehend without using the word "infinite". Our area of the universe is expanding. Other sections are contracting. This is part of a cycle so large and complex that we will probably never be able to confirm it. Thus, we infer it. If something is expanding, something else needs to be contracting.

>>8939350
How do we know other areas are contracting?

>>8939197
So you expect to bee spoonfed string theory? Just get a textbook already and in 2 years, you will be able to read that paper. Every popsci description of AdS/CFT is bound to be overly simplistic

>>8939180
woah, I had heard about entanglement-gravity stuff before but never really read anything about it. Is this popular in theory at the moment?

And is this entanglement the same that I would know as non-separable quantum states?

>>8939175
You can move something an infinite distance with a finite force.

Expansion of the universe doesn't need to be a force in the first place since "empty space" has no properties.

>>8940773
How?

>>8940839
Take a ball in space and thow it. There's an initial force and then it moves with constant speed no forces for all time.

Spacetime itself doesn't have any substance. Its expansion is metric, it's not physical expansion

>>8940888
But the ball wouldn't be able to accelerate without added energy; the fact it is accelerating (supposedly) infinitely is what makes it seem like there's some manner of perpetual energy at work.

I'm not sure if that makes the metric/physical part relevant.

File: physics-doingitwrong.png (57KB, 540x480px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 540x480px

>>8939175
>expansion of the universe follow the laws of physics

>>8940888
I never said it accelerated infinitely. I hope this is bait.