Curiel's 2019 gravitational non-existence theorem has documented contact with the Jacobson-Padmanabhan thermodynamic-gravity program, not with Wheeler's informational ontology or the holographic principle

physicsphilosophy-of-physicsgeneral-relativitysemiclassical-gravitythermodynamic-gravityentropic-gravityhist-pharxiv

Curiel's 2019 paper — the classical non-existence/uniqueness theorem that Ferreiro & Cavallaro's 2026 semiclassical argument answers — closes with a direct interpretive claim about T. Padmanabhan's 2010 "gravity as thermodynamics" program, the branch of thermodynamic/entropic-gravity descended from Ted Jacobson's 1995 derivation of the Einstein equation from horizon thermodynamics. Curiel argues Padmanabhan's thermodynamic derivation of the Einstein field equation is not an independent route to general relativity but a disguised special case of his own uniqueness theorem — a deflationary move, not a synthesis. Separately, Curiel's acknowledgments record that Jacobson himself reviewed an earlier draft of the paper and caught an error in it: a direct, if informal, line of contact between the non-existence-theorem literature and the thermodynamic-gravity program, predating Ferreiro & Cavallaro's 2026 semiclassical extension by seven years.

This contact is specific, not general. "Entropic/holographic gravity" names several distinct programs — Jacobson-Padmanabhan thermodynamic derivation, Erik Verlinde's entropic force, and John Wheeler's informational ontology ("it from bit") chief among them — and only the first has any documented citation-level link to this literature. Curiel's paper contains no reference to Wheeler's informational ontology, Verlinde's entropic-force derivation, the Bekenstein bound, or the holographic principle under any name.