Physics Musings: Creating the (Universe) Rules

[RJSV]

Hello:
   Main concern here right now is questions around nuclear fusion, under gravitational pressures.
My thoughts were started while contemplating Einstein's statements concerning SPACE-TIME being affected (or dilated) by mass.
This has some interesting reversals of point of view, where each little individual particle of mass experts it's own field(s), over the whole extent of the universe.   This is in replacement of some more conventional or classical / historic models, where particles attract each other (somehow), gravitationally interacting.

   The arrival of Einstein's alternative frees up the various efforts to explain gravitational field effects, as particle to particle interactive forces.
Rather, the problem becomes separable, being one of relating each individual (particle or fragment) to s space-time frame.   Thus, each particle is essentially alone and interacting with a 'Universe', almost 'privately' (lol).
It's kind of mind-boggling when considering that each tiny piece of matter is capable of exerting forces that extend infinitely in all directions.   Of course that brings up questions relating to just 'infinite', or simply very very large.

   Now, I'm not sure how the same gravity dynamics would apply, in electric field cases, mainly due to 'repulsion' effects, along with attraction effects.
   Suppose I was tasked to explain.   My difficulty here comes when attempting to explain how gravitational pressures cause nuclear FUSION to occur.   Understanding that it's potential energy at first, that gets converted into heat, at the mass being squeezed, but I'm not sure how I would describe, or teach, how that becomes heat...
   Apparently related to the properties of the nuclear particles themselves.   I sometimes like to challenge myself, in how to explain or teach these concepts, to a beginner.

[RJSV]

   Once I started thinking, in terms of myself being 'The Creator', or 'A Creator', I thought:
Supposing there was some kind of super-intelligent universe 'creator', faced with task of getting the universe going, needing fusion, etc
Let's suppose (I) need to get the mass to 'clump' together, eventually producing the bodies; stars and gas/dust clouds, and especially, Suppose initial efforts settled on having each little portion of mass relating to the whole universe, as I've alluded to, and the other stuff is derivative from that.   That approach would be somewhat like starting out with Einstein, skipping the 'Newtonian' theories altogether....or deriving those mechanics later.

   It's an interesting approach, when you manage to explain whole sets of interactions (cosmically), but by keeping each member isolated and 'separate' from every other!

Radical Cosmology ?    At least it's a fun and fresh approach, thanks to Einstein and his 'Thought Experiments'!

[Andy Chee]

My difficulty here comes when attempting to explain how gravitational pressures cause nuclear FUSION to occur.   

Understanding how fusion works, might require an understanding of probability.

Essentially, a highly dense compact mass gives a greater chance for atoms to collide and fuse, compared with a low density gas.  And gravity is very good at compacting things into a highly dense compact mass!

The more interesting gravitational effects are when fusion is no longer possible, and you end up with; degenerate white dwarf star, neutron star, and black holes.

[RJSV]

   I did not know that, thanks.   Didn't know that fusion can't happen at some point in increasing density!

   My thoughts start at the definition of HEAT, what it really is.   Molecular speeds and collisions is my guess, as to what the term means.

   I've been thinking;   you've got potential energy, in a diffuse cloud of dust (hydrogen).
So, as the cloud shrinks down, somehow the heat goes up, but now you've alluded to probability of collision going up.   That seems more intuitive, as I can visualize 'density'.

   Hard, I guess, to visualize individual particles hearing up, or acquiring movement speed.  Although it's pretty easy to accept that things could start out with lots of potential energy, in a spread-out cloud.

   I suppose the probability you mention also involves wave functions, in 3-D space....but I might be just blathering at this point.
Thank you for explanation.

[Rick Law]

I have my reservation about adding to this discussion because the discussion would be deep and answers would be shallow.  Your point that gravity for a small particle can extends infinitely made me feel I should poke in... (Because observed fact is more interesting than that...)

Physicist really don't have all the answers.  Our brain equipped us well to deal with the everyday thing, like "lion chasing us".  Our brain also is well developed evaluations of information our brain received, such as catching a ball thrown at us.  We could catch a falling apple long before we understood gravity, parabolic equations, or laws of motions.  We can evaluated the intercept point almost like it is done by magic.  That is because our brains are developed to do that.  Physics now dives into things that our naturally developed brain doesn't really equip us to deal with -- because it was not essential to our survival, our brain doesn't need to develop ways to deal with it for our species to survive to present day.

Physicist develop models to deal with it.  A model can help explain it, but it doesn't mean that "it is actually that way".  Further, the model could be only applicable under limited condition.  Newtonian mechanics for example, the model it describes works well for magnitudes of properties we typically deal with.  Such as an apple falling from the tree.  The magnitude of it mass and speed are "typical of what we can deal with" because that was what we were able to see, measure, and test.  The model so developed are applicable within those limitations but may not function beyond that.  When that apple is traveling near the speed of light, that is not of the magnitude we are accustomed - it has not been seen or measured or experimented.  So new models may have to be developed.  As it turn out, F may still equal MA, but M doesn't stay the same -- the apple becomes more massive.

I would think gravity doesn't extend infinitely.  Gravity should be quantized and doesn't exist below a certain point.  But, observation is more interesting than that...

Why quantized?  There is a limit to how small "length" can be.  "Length" is not meaningful below a Planck Length (1.6x10^-35 meter).  How long does it take for a particle of light to travel it?  A Plank Time.  Below that (shorter period than that) time is not meaningful.  So if the gravitational force on this particle (A) of a far enough away particle (B) can only move A&B together almost one Planck Length but it take many times more than projected live of the universe, so is it moving at all?  Force equation is F=MA, A is acceleration, Time and Length are variables in acceleration.  Thus, if Time and Length are quantized, F must be quantized as well.

Observed fact got in the way.  That a particle can have gravity and that gravity is proportional to the inverse of R² is another model that fails when beyond it's limit.  As R (ie: distance) increase to galactic scale, it is unclear that it follows the classical equation F=G*M₁*M₂/R².  In fact, the observed speed of the outer stars of galaxies are traveling faster than can be explained with above stated equation, gravity seem bigger than the equation says what it should be -- hence "dark matter" (missing mass you can't see) is proposed as a model to explain this observed phenomenon and movements of galaxies.  Dark matter is not the only model.  A competing model is "Modify Gravity" theory that gravity doesn't decrease by R² but instead it changes some other ways.  Some physicist would consider them both (dark matter / modify gravity) the same thing.  This "same thing or not" is instructive.  Whether you modify gravity by changing the equation or you modify gravity by inserted some free-variable (dark matter) is irrelevant - either way you are changing the model.  How this will settle is at yet unclear.  So, may be it does extend infinitely, or may be it is quantized that below a certain minimum level it cannot exit.

If you study more Physics, the world will be more interesting to you.  But you likely will die someday not understanding the world you are in still.  There is a lot more than a few life times of learning and discoveries yet to be done.

Go study, read more, learn more.  The universe is one interesting place.  I am not sure us humans will exist long enough to fully understand how the universe works, but it would be an interesting journey.

EDIT:
Moved paragraph "Why Quantized" up (was in the wrong place) and a typo correction.  Removed an unnecessary (and repeated) comment about human's ability to understand.

[Andy Chee]

A competing model is "Modify Gravity" theory that gravity doesn't decrease by R² but instead it changes some other ways.  Some physicist would consider them both (dark matter / modify gravity) the same thing.  This "same thing or not" is instructive.  Whether you modify gravity by changing the equation or you modify gravity by inserted some free-variable (dark matter) is irrelevant - either way you are changing the model.  How this will settle is at yet unclear.  So, may be it does extend infinitely, or may be it is quantized that below a certain minimum level it cannot exit.

If you study more Physics, the world will be more interesting to you.  But you likely will die someday not understanding the world you are in still.  There is a lot more than a few life times of learning and discoveries yet to be done.

Go study, read more, learn more.  The universe is one interesting place.  I am not sure us humans will exist long enough to fully understand how the universe works, but it would be an interesting journey.

The question that always seems to be asked when someone announces they're studying astronomy, gravity, or the universe, is, "but how does that help cure cancer?" (or some other practical human lifetime application).

[Nominal Animal]

I don't mind those questions, because for example the low-dose digital x-ray sensors we use nowadays for x-ray imaging for stuff like cancer and tumors were only made possible by the particle detector work done at CERN and elsewhere.

The research itself is rarely directly applicable to helping human lives, but the research, development, and engineering needed to do the research very often does; and it would not have been done at all without the research.

This is very much related to synthesist vs. narrow-field specialist.  A narrow field specialist has a high probability of discovering related useful things, but a synthesis has a low probability of discovering unrelated useful things.  Those who demand everyone focus on things that can directly help humans are those who only trust narrow field specialists and ignore synthesists, and thus ignore the possibility of discoveries helping humans when working on completely unrelated research.  The balance in numbers between the two is a societal, cultural question with no right or wrong answers, except that completely ignoring one or the other is definitely un-optimal, as easily observed in practice.

One closely related software method is called simulated annealing.  It initially began from materials physics simulations, and is still used to model e.g. annealing effects in metals.  However, it also turns out to be quite efficient at finding global maxima instead of local maxima, in all sorts of multidimensional problems with a "noisy" or "undulating" parameter space with many local maxima; like in a mountain range for example.  Nowadays, it is used in a lot of different "fuzzy" algorithms and even in exact algorithms as a way to obtain good initial guesses for further iterative refinement.  For example, genetic algorithms picking the survivors often use a variant of annealing, to enhance the rate at which they converge to a solution without limiting the solution range too much.

I could delve deeper into the interconnections between the sciences, especially how medicine and physics and chemistry and biology are nowadays intricately intertwined and at the University level, are already melding together in materials physics simulations, but I'll spare you.

[Rick Law]

[... ...]

The question that always seems to be asked when someone announces they're studying astronomy, gravity, or the universe, is, "but how does that help cure cancer?" (or some other practical human lifetime application).

Physics is the science of how nature works.  It is the foundation for many other things.  Stuff like EE, medical, molecular chemistry, genetics, all build on understanding the fundamentals of how nature works.  Imagine how far you can go in electronics without Ohm's Law.

In fact, it (fundamental knowledge in Physics) is helping researchers in understanding cancer: that it is an error in DNA.  Be it damaged by external events _{(such as UV ray hitting a DNA molecule)}, or external environmental factors _{(such as contact with certain chemicals resulting in DNA molecular damage)}, or just age _{(repeating an action of >0% failure rate too many times)}.  One even needs to understand mathematics to understand cancer.  Cancer is a probabilistic event -- if you live long enough, you will get it.  Even the cure -- almost every cancer drugs study out there uses probability to describe it's effectiveness.   Without understanding of mathematics, for example what does 30% 5yr probability of recurrence means?   Then the fine prints of 80% 10yr recurrence ... one cannot understand treatment.    It is building that foundation of knowledge that allows us to create current treatment methods and how newer methods may be feasible.  Recent treatment methods such as radiation therapy would not exist if there wasn't the understanding of foundational physics.  Studying protons or hydrogen atom nuclear properties may seem irrelevant to most people alive, but it should be of great concern to a cancer patient.  Many receives treatments of: Proton beam therapy (as targeted as rifle) we get today.  Then the general radiation treatment (shot-gun), and chemotherapy (carpet bombing).

It is with that understanding of basic (ie:DNA error) that one can easily see, in theory, cancer can be cured easily if we directly deal with DNA to fix the wrong part, or, create another molecule that attacks cells with that specific damage.  How to do that in practice at large scale (of say merely >0.1%) of cancer patients and accomplish it before the patient dies is something we don't (yet?) know how to do.  The mechanisms of Cancer is well understood.  It is how to deal with it that we don't have a handle on.

No physics = no molecular chemistry = no knowledge of DNA = no understanding of cancer at all.

Quantum Mechanics seemed very far for EE merely a few decades ago.  But as we shrink our transistors to increase our processing power, now we are nearing that scale. 1nm is only 10 atoms (in the order of magnitude of 10 atoms).   Now we are dealing 7nm transistors on silicon. 7nm, this is in the magnitude where Quantum Mechanics is starting to play a part.

What made the world for us today was by the few individuals with curiosities of seemingly irrelevant phenomenons.

EDIT: slight wording change for clarity and typo correction.

[Nominal Animal]

Each cubic nanometer of crystalline silicon (face-centered cubic lattice with lattice constant 0.543nm) contains only about 25 silicon atoms at room temperature. If you have a detail only 7nm wide, it's only 12 or 13 lattice cells across!

[Rick Law]

Each cubic nanometer of crystalline silicon (face-centered cubic lattice with lattice constant 0.543nm) contains only about 25 silicon atoms at room temperature. If you have a detail only 7nm wide, it's only 12 or 13 lattice cells across!

I am not sure if 1.4nm process is already now or future, I am not interested enough to keep myself day-to-day informed.  But I am seeing talks of 1nm processes as well.  Intel 20A (20 Ångström = 2nm) is suppose to be this year by their roadmap^[1] published in 2021.

Thinking more about it, semi-conductors needs 3 layers as well as doping of the material.  Even in 3d with layers on top of each other, each/some layer(s) need(s) at least room for a few atoms more for the doping elements.  At 0.542nm lattice constant, 2nm doesn't even have much room for that...

Creative minds at work.  Modern technology is like magic.  "Standing on the shoulder of giants, you can see far."  The giants here are those foundational research -- doing those seemingly irrelevant research that allow us to understand DNA and cancer, to understand how to manipulate atoms into being the heart of a smart phone, to enable us to engineer a machine creating a proton beam to kill cancerous cells and likely many more applications that we are not aware of.  1869 identification of the cell "nuclein", and DNA molecule was identified in 1953^[2].  They must have seem so irrelevant to average individuals then.

The foundational knowledge may indeed one day cure cancer (elimination rather than just therapy after it occurred).  With our recent world-wide large scale mRNA experiment, now creating specific protein in our body (and by our body) is reality be it an imperfect reality.  Gene editing is yet far off but near enough to be a very likely reality.  Young folks today will be entering a world that us older folks would find vary alien and perhaps even scary.

Article reference(s);
[1] https://www.anandtech.com/show/16823/intel-accelerated-offensive-process-roadmap-updates-to-10nm-7nm-4nm-3nm-20a-18a-packaging-foundry-emib-foveros
[2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7268995/

EDIT:
Added the missing word "enable" in the "Creative mind..." paragraph.

[Nominal Animal]

Thinking more about it, semi-conductors needs 3 layers as well as doping of the material.  Even in 3d with layers on top of each other, each/some layer(s) need(s) at least room for a few atoms more for the doping elements.  At 0.542nm lattice constant, 2nm doesn't even have much room for that...

And think of the precision and accuracy needed to insert the dopant atoms!

At nanometer scales, especially when in more than one dimension is at that scale, we really are controlling individual atom positions like they were LEGOs: nanotech.  No wonder the exact raw material "recipes" are such carefully guarded secrets!

Gene editing is yet far off but near enough to be a very likely reality.

It is already being done in vitro and in mice, even here in Finland.  (They took stem cells from newborns suffering from a hereditary metabolic disease, edited the DNA sequences causing it out using CRISPR-Cas9, and then differentiated those edited stem cells into liver cells that were cultivated successfully in vitro, with much improved metabolism.)

So, let's say it will be expensive and rare for quite a while (I'd say for a decade at least), but near enough to be a future career in medicine and biology at some point for some of today's youngsters.

[Rick Law]

...

Gene editing is yet far off but near enough to be a very likely reality.

It is already being done in vitro and in mice, even here in Finland.  (They took stem cells from newborns suffering from a hereditary metabolic disease, edited the DNA sequences causing it out using CRISPR-Cas9, and then differentiated those edited stem cells into liver cells that were cultivated successfully in vitro, with much improved metabolism.)

So, let's say it will be expensive and rare for quite a while (I'd say for a decade at least), but near enough to be a future career in medicine and biology at some point for some of today's youngsters.

I did not know doing it for human is being done already.  Thanks for that info., I leaned something new.

It is a good thing to use that knowledge to cure a disease.  But knowing human nature, we will likely engage in "improvement" like we have done to make gene-modified crops.  Engineered human, that would be the scary part.

[AVGresponding]

That's already been done,  in China,  and it hasn't gone well.

[RJSV]

   My take-away from discussion here lately is the properties that become non-useful when you do the mind-excercise, of gravity extending infinitely, and that coming up against 'Planke'.

It's hard to wrap mind around some of those explanations, when part of it is that 'time' as a physics variable can become irrelevant.

   And, Rick Law, you intimated (twice), that '
   Observed fact is more interesting', but somehow I missed the conclusion, (after the tease).

[Rick Law]

   My take-away from discussion here lately is the properties that become non-useful when you do the mind-excercise, of gravity extending infinitely, and that coming up against 'Planke'.

It's hard to wrap mind around some of those explanations, when part of it is that 'time' as a physics variable can become irrelevant.

   And, Rick Law, you intimated (twice), that '
   Observed fact is more interesting', but somehow I missed the conclusion, (after the tease).

Let's go back to what I say, and I will add additional comment to it...

... (Because observed fact is more interesting than that...)
...
I would think gravity doesn't extend infinitely.  Gravity should be quantized and doesn't exist below a certain point.  But, observation is more interesting than that...
...
Observed fact got in the way.
...
In fact, the observed speed of the outer stars of galaxies are traveling faster than can be explained with above stated equation, gravity seem bigger than the equation says what it should be -- hence "dark matter"...
...

Skipping some of the detail, you see the trail towards "we don't understand gravity yet".  Outer stars in a galaxy is going faster as if there is more gravity there than can be explained.  So we just make it up...  dark matter...  There is more gravity generating matter as can be seen.

You made a point that each of those little particles create effects to infinite distance, but quantization suggests that doesn't happen.  Real world observation say "no it doesn't get smaller, it got bigger!"  So that is interesting.

Your original question (as stated in the OP):My difficulty here comes when attempting to explain how gravitational pressures cause nuclear FUSION to occur.   Understanding that it's potential energy at first, that gets converted into heat, at the mass being squeezed, but I'm not sure how I would describe, or teach, how that becomes heat..

Subsequent reply by you: My thoughts start at the definition of HEAT, what it really is.   Molecular speeds and collisions is my guess

Your replies show you are already on the right track -- molecular speed and collision.  But your assumptions that there is a deeper answer assumed that we have more knowledge than we currently have.  I don't think we can go much deeper than that. .  Thus, those interesting facts/hypothesis are at times in conflict with each other and they were lay here to point out: we got a lot more questions than we have (uncontested) answers.

This is my unstated implied conclusion: We don't have a better deeper answer, we can answer deeper only in "dark matter" style -- i.e. just make it up.  Using "dark" in "dark matter" as a place holder for an unknown phenomenon is a valid way to approach solving a problem, just means we have not fully explain it yet.

[Rick Law]

If you want to know what is going to happen tomorrow, read EEVBlog today <== a bit of click bate there.  But we just discuss if fundamental science helping cure cancer, or not... merely days later, here is what we got:

Article: "UPMC breast cancer vaccine study begins with first patient"
“Today, more than 30 years of research has brought us to the first of its kind clinical trial vaccine that could significantly change a breast cancer diagnosis,” said Elizabeth Wild, president of UPMC Hillman Cancer Center, at the press conference at UPMC Magee-Womens Hospital.
^{https://www.post-gazette.com/news/health/2024/06/20/upmc-breast-cancer-vaccine-study/stories/202406200098}

(First Published: June 20, 2024, 3:00 p.m. Updated: June 21, 2024, 6:10 a.m.)

[RJSV]

   So, Nominal Animal was saying:
   "...synthesis vs. Narrow Field Specialist"

   I did look up some definitions, and today's question is about Einstein and whether or not his work, in cosmic or metaphoric physics stayed within the bounds, of the physics known in 1920, or did (his) work stray into absolutely new concepts ?

   Via the mind game exercises, he was putting pieces together, and perhaps re-interpreting portions, OR, did he sometimes stray outside those bounds ?

   For example, the classic (and delightful) twisting of the gravity concept, between two mass objects, into totally separate relations, each particle mass relating to a universe 'grid' that warps, (space-time).

(Battery low,...continued...)

[RJSV]

   (Focussing on the definition of 'synthesis'.)
   It seems like synthesis means taking existing items, like Heisenburg's uncertainty theorm, and recombining things in a novel way...but still with each item already known, out there in world of science.
   Because, in my example of SPACE-TIME dilation, there is pretty convincing 'feeling' that the concept is novel...but on the other hand, Einstein DID use existing language, like 'dialation' but just in novel combinations.

   Part of what I'm getting at, is question about novelty, as some process like 'dialation' already existed.  In fact, does the lack of need for a newly defined word keep the speculation within the bounds of 'synthesis' ?

   Did someone like Einstein ever make up a new word or term ?  Like 'Zigafrizt' a word I just made up, to mean 'Spooky action at a distance'.
   I would think that, maybe, would not stand the test, meaning that 'spooky' and the other words already existed, before, so....  (Physics is confusing, often!)

   But, I do like the fact that Einstein's rubber 'clock' face, illustrating the Space-Time malability comes as a package (Quantum Theory)  that also includes discreet levels, along with seemingly 'analog' Space-Time warping.
....or is it ?   Perhaps the S-T warping also has discreet 'levels',   I probably need to do more study, on that.
   Local library is open again!   (Hated the COVID shut-downs).
- Rick

[Rick Law]

...
....or is it ?   Perhaps the S-T warping also has discreet 'levels',   I probably need to do more study, on that.
   Local library is open again!   (Hated the COVID shut-downs).
- Rick

I suggested in prior reply that current thinking is Space and Time are both quantized.  Length under 1 planck length is not meaningful, and time under 1 planck time is not meaningful.  Thus, warping of a quantized property will necessarily be quantized.  Our universe is pixelated.  You can't go below one pixel.

As to your points about Einstein, it would be more opinion of his science than about the science itself.  You should check out the wikipedia page on him.  It may answer a lot of your questions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein

[Nominal Animal]

   (Focussing on the definition of 'synthesis'.)
   It seems like synthesis means taking existing items, like Heisenburg's uncertainty theorem, and recombining things in a novel way...but still with each item already known, out there in world of science.

Well, yes.. but I personally believe even a synthesist is able to think outside the box, and discover or invent something completely new, especially when tickled by the process of recombining things in a novel way.

That is, I don't think a narrow field specialist is one that invents, and a synthesist one that combines, only.  To me, they are fuzzy categories, like "berry" and "fruit".  Technically, tomato is a berry, and strawberry is a fruit, but we don't usually let such small details bother us.

[RJSV]

   OK, but what I'm thinking is what the difference could be, between a human that has been considered as highly creative, vs. an AI that uses enormous computing power, to synthesize something or theory.
That has implications for future progress.

   Or, restated, do us humans possess some 'mysterious' power to create new things...exclusively.  Not an idea to let interfere with daily pursuits, but something that educators might be interested in.

   How to 'pump' up some creativity, or how to create an environment (for oneself or organization).   Lol, could try putting posters up, everywhere, announcing:
   'RELAX,  CREATE,  ...HURRY...'

(Maybe not too inspiring).  But many inventors have mentioned that some key things came into play, when they relaxed, and put whatever project aside for a moment.  Newton's apple falling, and all...
   If I told the story, the apple would fall on Newton's head.   ....or maybe Newton made up that apple falling story...

   Obviously, though, a good look at creativity process is meant to have payoffs.

[Nominal Animal]

   OK, but what I'm thinking is what the difference could be, between a human that has been considered as highly creative, vs. an AI that uses enormous computing power, to synthesize something or theory.
That has implications for future progress.

I do believe being creative is at least as important to synthesists as it is to narrow-field specialists.

At the core, it is not just about combining known things in an useful manner.  It is about connecting different fields in a creative manner, often via an intuitive leap (and a buttload of hard work verifying that leap works).  In my own case, I often have such leaps, and while some of them leap into the Grand Canyon to splat at the bottom face first, some of them I can only explain in hindsight.  I only come up with the analogs that describe the leap afterwards.

It is also the reason why I have tried in a few physics-related threads to steer towards an approximate but useful intuitive understanding.  For me, that is the Leap Fuel.

Thinking outside the box is hard.  Synthesists have a much wider box, but not as much detailed domain expertise: leaping from one mountain to another is easier when you are not at the very top, because the very peaks tend to be much further apart.  There are exceptions, of course, for example atom and quantum-scale physics, chemistry and biology merging together.

Anyway, this is just my understanding and opinion, and should not be taken as a fact!

[Nominal Animal]

But many inventors have mentioned that some key things came into play, when they relaxed, and put whatever project aside for a moment.

This is definitely true for me, too.  I often have new insight after a good nights sleep, sometimes days later.  I like to think my subconscious slowly chews and mulls things out, until something pops out, or I lose interest.

Obviously, though, a good look at creativity process is meant to have payoffs.

Agreed.

In relation to computing, AI and other transformers: We do not yet know what creativity actually is, and are horribly bad at measuring it.  All the approaches I know for quantifying "creativity" simplify to quantifying the amount of incompressible information, and equating that to "creativity"...

For example, it turns out our brains process deepfake voices differently than natural voices, even when we don't consciously know we are hearing a deepfaked voice.

[RJSV]

My examples often circle back to creativity in the entertainment industry.   Probably, also, to lesser extent, to sports (Evel Connevel, famed performance stunts).

   B.B.King, and Bert Bacharach present 'more' than just sound, and people instinctively resonate with the  whole performance.