### Archives For Front Page

Posts that can go on the front page.

I have made a simple calculator to calculate the flux in watts per square metre of gravitational waves given a frequency and a strain. The idea is to show how easy it would be to hide cosmologically important amounts of energy in high frequency gravitational waves.

If we take values of a strain of 15 orders of magnitude lower than LIGOs sensitivity, and a frequency of the Compton frequency, we get levels of energy flux and density that are very surprising. No one talks about this, though, since HFGWs are ‘known’ not to exist. I posit that we should not assume anything about gravitational waves at this point. Its an obvious place for experimentalists to work in. Are there any experiments that can detect gravitational radiation at millions of watts per square meter and nuclear frequencies? This is something that experiments should decide.

The accepted spectrum of gravitational waves does not include the possibility of high-frequency waves.

Just think about it – there is no way we can tell – there may be billions of watts of gravitational wave energy passing through your body right now. They may be there, waiting for us to find them.

The comments on dark energy and dark matter in the calculator are to be interpreted as follows:

### How can ‘dark matter’ be gravitational wave energy?

Dark Matter is measured as an excess of mass/energy – as it’s presence is determined by gravitational effects on regular matter. In fact- experimentally, dark matter is too tied to matter – one can predict the amount of dark matter in a galaxy or galaxy cluster, etc by simply writing down the total mass distribution of baryons! What we know of dark matter is that it’s weakly coupled to matter and that it’s much denser than the level of dark energy that is spread throughout the universe.

#### A possible scenario:

Dark Matter is gravitational waves associated with matter. Call it DarkGW. It looks like the presence of matter controls the amount of dark matter present and DarkGW interacts very weakly with matter (perhaps not in a linear fashion?), perhaps even violatiing the rules of quantum mechanics – after all there is no quantum theory of gravity yet.

In this scenario, dark energy is the ‘leaking’ of this DarkGW into intergalactic space. Thus there is a source for DE and it does not have to have a transcendental source. Its ‘just’ regular radiation – radiation that does not redshift as the Universe ages, as the redshifted bits are replaced on a continual basis by the DarkGW.

This tells us why the amount of DarkGW is related to the amount of Dark Energy (why are they within a factor of two of each other?). As the DarkGW has leaked out, the Universe has expanded. Once the galaxies start to get cold and far apart (say in 200billion years) – the dark energy would start to redshift, and the Universe would approach a ‘balance point’ universe instead of a runaway expansion as in modern LCDM.

### Something is definitely wrong with dark energy:

Riess says that it could be caused by hypothetical “sterile neutrinos”, interactions with dark matter, or a strengthening over time of dark energy (which accelerates the universe’s expansion).

Sterile Neutrinos are a last ditch effort to keep dark energy as a parameter (Lambda) in Einstein’s equations. Its clear to me that the best answer is that dark energy is getting stronger over time. Dark Energy is on the right side of the Einstein equations, not the left. Lambda was a mistake. Its zero.

#### New Parallaxes of Galactic Cepheids from Spatially Scanning the Hubble Space Telescope: Implications for the Hubble Constant

The problem with dark matter in galaxies is that it’s just too organized. Dark matter seems to correlate too well with matter distributions.

What about a field associated with every nucleon that saturates at some level, called S here. (its saturated near dense matter like here on Earth or in the Milky Way plane, while when protons/neutrons get below a certain density, the field then eventually drops as the density of matter drops.

This solves the cuspy galaxy core problem, it also makes the BTFR (Baryonic Tully Fisher Relation) work, it also seems it would work on the bullet cluster, galactic clusters, etc.

### BTFR – explained

The  Baryonic Tully Fisher Relation is one of the most accurate relations in cosmology. It’s a huge thorn in the side of LCDM cosmology, since dark matter and regular matter are not supposed to be in lockstep with one another. See Stacy McGaugh

THE SMALL SCATTER OF THE BARYONIC TULLY–FISHER RELATION

With the S field presented here, there is a saturable field associated with every nucleon. When nucleons are about a mm apart or less on average, the field is at some standard strength, then as the density lowers more, the S field maintains its density (or slowly loses density) until at some limiting low matter density this saturable field starts to drop. By the point this happens there is ~100x more energy in the saturable field than the baryonic density.

This effect can explain the BTFR as dark matter is present in quantities as a function of baryonic mass in some fashion.

### Bullet Cluster

The bullet cluster poses a problem for MOND like theories – there seems to be excess dark matter causing lensing. So dark matter really exists, it seems. The field solves this nicely. No one thinks that the lensing areas of the Bullet cluster are completely free of matter, it’s just that the dark matter is not located where the bulk of the matter is.

The contours show the density (line of sight) of dark matter, while the X-Ray image in orange – purple shows the colliding dense regular matter.

### Galactic Clusters

Clusters of galaxies would not hold together without about 5 times the mass of the individual galaxies available between the galaxies to hold the galaxies together. See Galaxy clusters prove dark matter’s existence as an intro by  Ethan Siegel .

The mechanism is clear – the intergalactic dust and gas provide the framework to energize a large S field which keeps the cluster gravitationally bound.

### Properties of the S field

The S field is associated with matter and has a limiting high density. At low densities (ie halo galactic densities) the field has a mass of up to about 10 (or 100?) times the mass of a nucleon, per nucleon.

Where does the energy come from? It’s dark energy – just clumped. So S is dark energy. There is always a flow of it running around, and its pulled from dark energy as needed to saturate around matter.

What is the form of the field?

What is the minimum energy density in say GeV/m3  ? Dark Energy has an energy density of about 0.5 GeV/m3 .

The max is determined by the maximum density measured for dark matter which is about 0.5 GeV/cm3 (note the centimeter scale used by astronomers when dealing with matter clouds) see my earlier related post  Is Dark Matter merely Inactive Matter?  so about 1003 or a million times the density of dark energy.

Thus the S field saturates at a density of ~ 5e5 GeV/m3 and is present all around us.

The S field density is then some function of the matter density. It turns out that it’s a cumulative effect from all matter enclosed inside ‘R’.

Stacy S. McGaugh and Federico Lelli

Consequently, the dark matter contribution is fully specified by that of the baryons. The observed scatter is small and largely dominated by observational uncertainties. This radial acceleration relation is tantamount to a natural law for rotating galaxy.

From http://stacks.iop.org/0004-637X/836/i=2/a=152?key=crossref.21cde6b778a1e42d6160598a6ba24e03

Start at Equation 22:

Then use $g_{bar} =\frac{GM_{bar}}{R^2}$ and simplify to

$M_{DM} = \frac{M_{bar}}{e^{\sqrt{\frac{GM_{bar}}{R^2 g_{\dagger}}}} \ - 1}$

Thus the quantity of DM inside a certain radius is wholly dependent on the amount of baryonic matter inside that radius. The S field is a cumulative effect of density of regular baryons.

When I use this on density I get

$\rho_{DM} (< R) = \frac{\rho_{bar}}{e^{\sqrt{\frac{4/3 \pi GR\rho_{bar} }{g_{\dagger}}}} \ - 1}$

This equation states that the density of dark matter depends only on the enclosed average density of baryonic matter.

Calculating the acceleration at R , given a 35kPc distance R, and a density of baryons of 1GeV per cm3 gives $4/3 \pi GR\rho_{bar}$  = 1.2×10-10 m/s2 – ie $g_{\dagger}$ which is the Milgrom acceleration. So that’s the cut where dark matter starts to be apparent, as the denominator starts to take off.

Of course, this density equation has limits on both ends. The dark matter S field has a maximum density of about a GeV per cm3 and once the density goes down to about dark energy levels one no longer calls it dark matter. Don’t forget my density version of the equation requires the average density inside R for the galaxy/gas cloud/cluster.

In my mind this S field is HFGW, but it’s not important what is the nature of the field, vs the mass of the field.

It seems to me that battling it out as MOND vs LCDM is perhaps not the best way to approach the problem as there are obviously more models around that might work. One just has to throw out some part of standard model physics!

Looking at the above more, I’m not convinced that sticking exactly to the MOND formula for mass and density is the way to go with this S field idea. I’m hoping there is a function where the density of DM is only given by the local density of matter, but perhaps that will not work. Perhaps there is something happening where DM depends on the total SUM of all all the matter interior to the radius R.

The Tully-Fisher relation (aka Baryonic TFR) is remarkable. As the diagram below shows, the relationship between Vand the baryonic mass of galaxies is just too finely tuned to be caused by dark matter. Something is up. Vis the stellar orbit velocity in the galactic halo. For more details see the paper by Lelli, McGaugh and Schombert .

MOND (MOdified Newtonian Dynamics) is one explanation for the Tully-Fisher relation. It posits that the force towards the centre of a galaxy at large distances is not simply that of Newton, but is modified with the a0 of  1.2×10-10m/s2 in all galaxies in addition to the usual force predicted by standard Newton or General Relativity’s gravity. LCDM Dark matter is a clumsy explanation for the BTFR, as it needs fine tuning for every galaxy (or every galaxy type) in order to make that straight line be so, well, straight.

There is another way to generate an inward acceleration.

We need a force on each nucleon that changes with how much matter is inside the radius where the particle is. It somehow ‘knows’ the gravitational potential at R, and has a force that depends on that!

What I have so far on this is something to do with dark energy being more concentrated in galaxy cores, so the particle feels this dark energy slope and responds to it.

NOTE: This needs to include a dependence on the enclosed M (ie enclosed Dark Energy inside R).  I call this emission based acceleration ‘Anomalous radial nucleonic radiation’  (ARNR). MOND tells us that particles in the galactic halo can ‘weigh’ the galaxy. They have that information. So there must/might be something like dark energy concentrated in the galaxy and the particles react to this, pushing radiation outward and reacting inward. Note in the galactic core the divergence of the DE is 0 – so no extra force on the particle in the middle of the galaxy.

It might seem strange to have this concerted outward radiation pattern though! Here are some possible explanations for an outward constant radiation by the halo constituents.

• I’m a fan of super high (nuclear and above) frequency gravitational wave (HFGW) emission/absorption in atoms and nuclei. So we might have some sort of stimulated emission from nucleons based on the outward flow of HFGW out of a galaxy.
• Dark Energy has a value of about 1GeV/m3 . If this energy is concentrated by the galactic core, then maybe some the nucleon has a force toward the centre of the galaxy in response to the divergence of the DE field.  (i.e. lower radiation resistance in the outward direction). This Dark Energy may be some new field, (or HFGW).
• Some other mechanism. We don’t have to know the mechanism to predict some consequences.

People don’t generally like the MOND theories because general relativity (GR) in its usual form is so well tested and accurate. LCDM is disliked by many because of the fine-tuning required in order to get everything to match observations.  ‘Anomalous radial nucleonic radiation’  (ARNR) allows GR to exist as is.

### Consequences of ARNR

If nuclei really do radiate continuously, (perhaps in violation of quantum – mechanics) then there will be experimental consequences. These consequences may be largely hidden from earth-based experiments, as the emission would be isotropic and take place in some field (such as gravitational waves)  that is hard to detect with current instruments.

There may be other places where cosmological or galactic cluster observations might note this energy output.

In other posts, I have wondered if dark matter is ‘sleeping regular matter‘ and I still think that it may be a viable option, but it seems like any explanation in terms of dark matter may need to be fine-tuned to match observations.

Also, see:

https://tritonstation.wordpress.com/2016/09/26/the-third-law-of-galactic-rotation/

I’m headed to London for the EmQM 2017 conference Oct 26 – 28 2017, which will I am looking forward to.

I attended in 2015. The event has the byline – the 4th International Symposium about Quantum Mechanics based on a »Deeper Level Theory«. Its mission this year is

Towards Ontology of Quantum Mechanics and the Conscious Agent
David Bohm Centennial Symposium

When I first really understood what quantum mechanics really was – in second-year undergrad at the University of Toronto, I immediately read all sorts of books and papers by and about Bohm’s theories. He made quite a change in my outlook of physics in general. I became convinced in 1985 that quantum mechanics was incomplete and that something along the lines of Bohm’s theory was the way to go. That makes the conference more special for me, and I’m sure many other attendees share the same view.

I am presenting a poster which I’m still polishing that up right now (the abstract at least was well received!). Its based on a paper called ‘Fully Classical Quantum Gravity (see link)‘. I have renamed the poster to Stochastic Gravity and Ontological Quantum Mechanics and rewritten most of it.

The poster describes the results of a paper by Vinante et al. :

Improved noninterferometric test of collapse models using ultracold cantilevers . If the results hold up, they are quite breathtaking as they state:



The finite intercept, clearly visible in the inset of Fig. 3 implies that the data are not compatible with a pure thermal noise behavior, and a nonthermal ex-cess noise is present.

The paper details the careful procedures followed to chase down possible experimental problems. The analysis is carefully thought out. The paper claims the results show a possible signature of Adler’s Continuous Spontaneous Localization (CSL), but to me it seems like if the results hold up that its simply a great puzzle to solve! My take (in line with the ‘Fully Classical Quantum Gravity‘ paper) is that this noise is caused by the continuous emission and/or absorption of gravitational waves at nuclear frequencies.

Gravitational waves are notoriously hard to see, and these high-frequency ones (HFGWs) even more so. Indeed, since gravitational wave power goes with the square of frequency, truly tiny values of the gravitational wave strain ‘h’ (h == 0 in flat space and h < 1) make for large energy fluxes. The LIGO observations saw gravitational waves with $h \sim 10 ^{-2}$ . The formula for the flux of a gravitational wave is:

So LIGO can see gravitational waves with a flux of about $1^{-3} watts/m^2$, while at nuclear frequencies like $10^{15} Hz$, the same formula yields an incredible $10^{19} watts/m^2$ – another way to look at that flux is that it represents 400+ kg! of mass per square meter per second! I propose that results like this suggest that matter itself can be made of nothing but elaborate patterns of gravitational structures. Clearly, high-frequency gravitational structures can hold an incredible amount of energy.

Another way of thinking about this result is that anytime a better telescope is built, or one is built that looks at a new wavelength, field or pattern of signals, those signals are not only discovered, they produce deep new insights about our universe. The fact that HFGWs are hard to detect does not mean that they are not there! Indeed, instead of calculating what the flux of HFGWs might be around us, we should instead admit our ignorance and calculate what we don’t know. Huge amounts of gravitational wave energy could be whipping by everything right now and we would not know a thing about it.

It’s going to be a quick few days in London!

–Tom

So Leonard Susskind publishes a paper on arXiv

# Dear Qubitzers, GR=QM

Which of course is what I have been saying all along. Of course Susskind’s paper is actually ‘of course’ not about QM emerging from GR, which is what I believe, and have good reason to follow up on.

Instead Susskind says:

Dear Qubitzers,
GR=QM? Well why not? Some of us already accept ER=EPR [1], so why not follow it to
its logical conclusion? It is said that general relativity and quantum mechanics are separate subjects that don’t fit together comfortably. There is a tension, even a contradiction between them—or so one often hears. I take exception to this view. I think that exactly the opposite is true. It may be too strong to say that gravity and quantum mechanics are exactly the same thing, but those of us who are paying attention, may already sense that the two are inseparable, and that neither makes sense without the other.

The ‘paper’ (perhaps letter is a better name), has made the rounds/  Not Even Wrong,

Instead of that happening, it seems that the field is moving ever forward in a post-modern direction I can’t follow. Tonight the arXiv has something new from Susskind about this, where he argues that one should go beyond “ER=EPR”, to “GR=QM”. While the 2013 paper had very few equations, this one has none at all, and is actually written in the form not of a scientific paper, but of a letter to fellow “Qubitzers”. On some sort of spectrum of precision of statements, with Bourbaki near one end, this paper is way at the other end.

While Woit’s nemesis Lubos Motl,

Susskind also says lots of his usual wrong statements resulting from a deep misunderstanding of quantum mechanics – e.g. that "quantum mechanics is the same as a classical simulation of it". A classical system, a simulation or otherwise, can never be equivalent to a quantum mechanical theory. The former really doesn't obey the uncertainty principle, allows objective facts; the latter requires an observer and is a framework to calculate probabilities of statements that are only meaningful relatively to a chosen observer's observations.

Sabine Hossenfelder put it visually on Twitter:

My take is about the same as these popular bloggers. Don’t really think much of it.

Except the title. QM can, I believe, emerge from Einstein’s General Relativity, in much the same way that Bush and Couder’s bouncing drops can display quantum behaviour.

Its ridiculous that 11 dimensions and sparticles have hundreds of times more study than fundamental emergent phenomena. Emergence is the way to go forward. You don’t need a new force/particle/dimension/brane to make fundamentally new physics from what we already have in electromagnetism and general relativity.

See the search links on the side of this blog for some recent papers in these areas.

I have been reading up on the trans-Planckian problem with the black hole evaporation process. (See the end for an update in March 2018)

##### Here is the problem.

An observer far away from a black hole sees photons of normal infared or radio wave energies coming from a black hole (i.e. << 1eV). If one calculates the energies that these photons should have once they are in the vicinity of the black hole horizon, the energy is becomes high – higher than the Planck energy, exponentially so. Of course if we ride with the photon down to the horizon, the photon blue shifts like mad, going ‘trans-Planckian’ – i.e. having more energy than the Planck energy.

Looked at another way: if a photon starts out at the horizon, then we won’t ever see it as a distant observer. So it needs to start out just above the horizon where the distance from the horizon is given by the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, and propagate to us. The problem is that the energy of these evaporating photons must be enormous at this quantum distance from the horizon – not merely enormous, but exponentially enormous. A proper analysis actually starts the photon off in the formation of the black hole, but the physics is the same.

Adam Helfer puts it well in his paper. Great clear writing and thinking.

#### Trans–Planckian modes, back–reaction, and the Hawking process

Helfer, A. D. (2000). Trans–Planckian modes, back–reaction, and the Hawking process. Retrieved from https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0008016.pdf See also See Helfer, A. D. (2005). Quantum Character of Black Holes. Retrieved from https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0503053.pdf

My take is simple. After reading Hefler’s paper plus others on the subject, I’m fairly convinced that black holes of astrophysical size (or even down to trillions of tons) do not evaporate.

### The math is good. The physics isn’t

Let’s get things straight here: the math behind Hawking evaporation is good: Hawking’s math for black hole evaporation is not in question.

It should be emphasized that the problems uncovered here are entirely physical, not mathematical. While there are some technical mathematical concerns with details of Hawking’s computation, we do not anticipate any real difficulty in resolving these (cf. Fredenhagen and Haag 1990). The issues are whether the physical assumptions underlying the mathematics are correct, and whether the correct physical lessons are being drawn from the calculations.

Yet Hawking’s prediction of black hole evaporation is one of the great predictions of late 20th century physics.

Whether black holes turn out to radiate or not, it would be hard to overstate the significance of these papers. Hawking had found one of those key physical systems which at once bring vexing foundational issues to a point, are accessible to analytic techniques, and suggest deep connections between disparate areas of physics. (Helfer, A. D. (2003). Do black holes radiate? Retrieved from https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0304042.pdf)

So it’s an important concept. In fact it so important that much of not only black hole physics but quantum gravity and cosmology all use or even depend on black hole evaporation. Papers with titles like “Avoiding the Trans-Planckian Problem in Black Hole Physics” abound.

### The trans-Planckian problem is indicative of the state of modern physics.

There are so many theories in physics today that rely on an unreasonable extrapolation of the efficacy of quantum mechanics at energies and scales that are not merely larger than experimental data, but exponentially larger than we have experimental evidence for. Its like that old joke about putting a dollar into a bank account and waiting a million years – even at a few per cent interest your money will be worth more than the planet. A straightforward look at history shows that currency and banks live for hundreds of years – not millions. The same thing happens in physics – you can’t connect two reasonable physical states through an unphysical one and expect it to work.

The trans-Planckian problem is replicated perfectly in inflationary big bang theory.

The trans-Planckian problem seems like a circle the wagons type of situation in physics. Black hole evaporation now has too many careers built on it to be easily torn down.

Torn down:

To emphasize the essential way these high–frequency modes enter, suppose we had initially imposed an ultraviolet cut–off Λ on the in–modes. Then we should have found no Hawking quanta at late times, for the out–modes’ maximum frequency would be ∼ v′(u)Λ, which goes to zero rapidly. (It is worth pointing out that this procedure is within what may be fairly described as text–book quantum field theory: start with a cut–off, do the calculation, and at the very end take the cut–off to infinity. That this results in no Hawking quanta emphasizes the delicacy of the issues. In this sense, the trans–Planckian problem may be thought of as a renormalization–ambiguity problem.)

Some may argue that other researchers have solved the trans-Planckian problem, but its just too simple a problem to get around.

One way around it – which I assume is what many researchers think – is that quantum mechanics is somehow different than every other physical theory ever found, in that it has no UV, IR, no limits at all. In my view that is extremely unlikely. Quantum mechanics has limits, like every other theory.

##### Possible limits of quantum mechanics:
• Zero point: Perhaps there is a UV cut – ( Λ ) . The quantum vacuum cannot create particles of arbitrarily large energies.
• Instant collapse. While its an experimental fact that QM has non-local connections, the actual speed of these connections is only tested to a few times the speed of light.
• Quantum measurement – Schrödinger’s cat is as Schrödinger initially intended it to be seen – as an illustration of the absurdity of QM in macroscopic systems.

If there is a limit on quantum mechanics – that QM is like any other theory – a tool that works very well in some domain of physical problems, then many many pillars of theoretical physics will have to tumble, black hole evaporation being one of them.

### The other argument – Unruh saves evaporation?

March 2018 update: Ok – upon reading this paper by Steven B. Giddings

Where does Hawking radiation originate? A common picture is that it arises from excitations very near or at the horizon, and this viewpoint has supported the “firewall” argument and arguments for a key role for the UV-dependent entanglement entropy in describing the quantum mechanics of black holes. However, closer investigation of both the total emission rate and the stress tensor of Hawking radiation supports the statement that its source is a near-horizon quantum region, or “atmosphere,” whose radial extent is set by the horizon radius scale.

So after I wrote this I am not convinced that holes don’t radiate.

Adam’s argument is below. Basically in order for Unruh’s/Giddings ‘saving’ of black hole radiation to work, there has to be enough ‘source space’ around the black hole to generate the Hawking radiation. There might be.

##### Qingdi Wang, Zhen Zhu, and William G. Unruh

How the huge energy of quantum vacuum gravitates to drive the slow accelerating expansion of the Universe

It (I will call the paper WZU) has been discussed at several places:

Phys.org,

Sabine Hossenfelder at the Backreaction blog,

So why talk about it more here?

Well because its an interesting paper, and I think that many of the most interesting bits have been ignored or misunderstood (I’m talking here about actual physicists not the popular press articles).

For instance here are two paragraphs from Sabine Hossenfelder

Another troublesome feature of their idea is that the scale-factor of the oscillating space-time crosses zero in each cycle so that the space-time volume also goes to zero and the metric structure breaks down. I have no idea what that even means. I’d be willing to ignore this issue if the rest was working fine, but seeing that it doesn’t, it just adds to my misgivings.


So with the first paragraph, Sabine is talking about the a(t, x) factor in the metric (see equation 23 in the paper). I think that she could be a little more up front here: a(t, x) goes to zero alright, but only in very small regions of space for very short times (I’ll come back to that later). So in reality the average of the a(t,x) over any distance/time Planck scale or larger determines an almost flat, almost Lambda free universe -> average(a(t,x)) –> the a(t) as per a FLRW metric. I guess Sabine is worried about those instants when there are singularities in the solution. I agree with the answer to this supplied in the paper:

It is natural for a harmonic os- cillator to pass its equilibrium point a(t,x) = 0 at maximum speed without stopping. So in our solution, the singularity immediately disappears after it forms and the spacetime continues to evolve without stopping. Singularities just serve as the turning points at which the space switches.

...(technical argument which is not all that complicated)...

In this sense, we argue that our spacetime with singularities due to the metric becoming degenerate (a = 0) is a legitimate solution of GR.

As I said, more on that below when we get to my take on this paper.

The second paragraph above from the Backreaction blog concerns the fact that the paper authors used semi classical gravity to derive this result.

The other major problem with their approach is that the limit they work in doesn’t make sense to begin with. They are using classical gravity coupled to the expectation values of the quantum field theory, a mixture known as ‘semi-classical gravity’ in which gravity is not quantized. This approximation, however, is known to break down when the fluctuations in the energy-momentum tensor get large compared to its absolute value, which is the very case they study.

They are NOT using a classical gravity coupled to the expectation values of the quantum field theory. Indeed, according to WZU and the mathematics of the paper they say:

In this paper, we are not trying to quantize gravity. Instead, we are still keeping the spacetime metric a(t, x) as classical, but quantizing the fields propagating on it. The key difference from the usual semiclassical gravity is that we go one more step—instead of assuming the semiclassical Einstein equation, where the curvature of the spacetime is sourced by the expectation value of the quantum field stress energy tensor, we also take the huge fluctuations of the stress energy tensor into account. In our method, the sources of gravity are stochastic classical fields whose stochastic properties are determined by their quantum fluctuations.

So I think that she has it wrong. In her reply to my comment on here blog she states that its still semiclassical gravity as they use the expectation values of the fluctuations (they don’t as you can see by the quote above or better by looking at the paper. See how the equation 29 talks about expectation values, but the actual solution does not use them ). She concludes her comment: “Either way you put it, gravity isn’t quantized.” I think that’s also fair appraisal of  the attitude of many people on reading this paper many people don’t like it because gravity is treated classically.

## Why I think the paper is interesting.

#### Gravity is not quantized: get over it

I think its interesting as their approach to connecting gravity to the quantum world is basically identical to my Fully Classical Quantum Gravity experimental proposal – namely that gravity is not quantized at all and that gravity couples directly to the sub-quantum fluctuations. Wang and co-authors apologize for the lack of a quantum theory of gravity, but that appears to me anyway as more of a consensus-towing statement than physics. Indeed, the way its shoved in at the start of section C seems like it is an afterthought.

#### (Gravitational) Singularities are no big deal

Singularities are predicted by many or (even all?) field theories in physics. In QED the technique of renormalization works to remove singularities (which are the same as infinities). In the rest of modern QFT singularities are only perhaps removed by renormalization. In other words quantum field theory blows up all by itself, without any help from other theories. Its naturally bad.

The Einstein equations have a different behaviour under singular conditions. They are completely well behaved. Its only when other fields are brought in, such as electromagnetism or quantum field theory that trouble starts. But all on their own singularities are no big deal in gravity.

So I don’t worry about the microscopic, extremely short lived singularities in WZU at all.

#### Why it’s exciting

We have WZU metric equation 23

ds2 = −dt2 +a2(t,x)(dx2 +dy2 +dz2)

a(t,x) oscillates THROUGH zero to negative, but the metric depend on a^2, so we have a positive definite metric that has some zeros. These zeros are spread out quasi periodically in space and time. If one takes two points on the manifold (Alice and Bob denoted A & B), then the distance between A and B will be equivalent to the flat space measure (I am not looking at the A and B being cosmic scale distances apart in time or space, so its almost Minkowski). Thus imagine A and B being 1 thousand km apart. The scale factor a(t, x) averages to 1.

Here is the exciting bit. While an arbitrary line (or the average of an ensemble of routes) from A -> B is measured as a thousand km, there are shorter routes through the metric. Much shorter routes. How short? Perhaps arbitrarily short. It may be that there is a vanishingly small set of paths with length ds = 0, and some number of paths with ds just greater than 0, all the way up to ‘slow paths’ that spend more time in a > 1 areas.

Imagine a thread like singularity (like a cosmic string – or better a singularity not unlike a Kerr singularity where a >> m). In general relativity such a thread is of thickness 0, and the ergo region around it also tends to zero volume. One calculation of the tension on such a gravitational singularity ‘thread’ (I use the term thread as to not get confused with string theory) come out to a value of about 0.1 Newtons. A Newton of tension on something so thin is incredible. Such a thread immersed in the WZU background will find shorter paths – paths that spend more time in areas where a << 1, these paths being much more energetically favoured. There are also very interesting effects when such gravitational thread singularities are dragged through the WZU background. I think that this might be the mechanism that creates enough action to generate electromagnetism from pure general relativity only.

A 2D slice at some time through ordinary WZU vacuum. The spots are places where a~2. The straight line from A to B has an average scale factor a of 1, while the wiggly path follows a ~ 0 and hence has an average scale factor of << 1. Note that these short paths are not unique, and there is little constraint for them to be even approximately straight.

So these thread singularities thread their way through the frothy WZU metric and as such the distance a single such thread may measure between Alice and Bob may be far far less than the flat space equivalent.

It seems to me that one could integrate the metric as given in WZU equation 23 with a shortest path condition and come up with something. Here is one possible numerical way: start out with a straight thread from A to B. Then relax the straight line constraint, assign a tension to the thread, and see what the length of the thread after a few thousand iterations, where at each iteration, each segment allows itself to move toward a lower energy state (i.e. thread contraction).

This opens up:

##### Quantum non-locality

Realist, local quantum mechanics is usually thought of requiring  on having some dependency on non-local connections, as quantum experiments have shown. This shortcut path may be an answer to the need for non-local connections between particles, i.e. a mechanism for entaglement, a mechanism for Einstein’s “spooky action at a distance”.

##### Faster than light communication.

Its always fun to see if there are realistic methods where one might beat the speed limit on light. It seems that worm hole traversal has been one of the favourites to date. I think that the WZU paper points at another mechanism – the fact that there exist shorter paths through the sub-quantum general relativistic froth of WZU. How might one construct a radio to do this? Entangled particles, particles that follow the zeros of a(t, x) preferentially, etc etc. One could imagine a brute force method to test this where huge pulses of energy are transmitted through space at random intervals. Perhaps a precursor signal could be measured at the detector, where some of the energy takes a short path through the WZU metric.

Emergent quantum mechanics comes in many forms: stochastic electrodynamics ( Ana María Cetto) , de Broglie – Bohmian mechanics (John W M Bush) , thermal models ( Gerhard Groessing ) etc. In many of these forms of emergent quantum mechanics, particles have a physical existence and experience sub quantal movement. The paper I have just posted looks at the gravitational consequences of this sub quantal motion. An interesting finding is that while a classical Bohr hydrogen atom has a lifetime of about 10^-11 seconds, it would take that same atom 10^40 seconds or so to radiate away a few eV of energy. This indicates that the stability of the atoms is not an indication that gravity needs to be quantized, which is antithetical to Einstein in 1916:
• “…Nevertheless, due to the inner-atomic movement of electrons, atoms would have to radiate not only electro-magnetic but also gravitational energy, if only in tiny amounts. As this is hardly true in Nature, it appears that quantum theory would have to modify not only Maxwellian electrodynamics, but also the new theory of gravitation.” – Einstein, 1916
Einstein it would seem was wrong on the gravtitational side of this.
The paper looks at possible ways to see these tiny emissions (nuclear scale emissions are higher) and thus lays out a quantum gravity experiment achievable with today’s technology.

The experimental parameter space. Most important thing to note is that this is a quantum gravity experiment with an achievable parameter space!

Here is the paper…

Also see these references…

In this two page paper, I look at how the relationship between the dimensions of a Kerr singularity and the strength of the electric Coulomb effect compare.

Continue Reading...

#### Dark Matter – cuspy core problem.

Proposed solution is that dark matter wakes up, turns into matter and then self repels/forms stars, etc.This means no cusp is found.

Note how in the most tenuous gas clouds (well cold ones – the hot tenuous galactic halo does not count as its a supernova effect), the density is the exact same as the dark matter density?

From https://arxiv.org/pdf/1404.1938.pdf – note how dark matter is about about 0.2 protons per cm^3 (BR 13 measurement) . One would think that in the disk of the milky way, this close to the galactic core that the DM density is about as large as it gets. Which seems right:

The Dark Matter Halo of the Milky Way, AD 2013 – https://arxiv.org/pdf/1304.5127v2.pdf

We find that the cored profile is the preferred one, with a shallow central density of ρH ∼ 4 × 107M⊙/kpc3 and a large core radius RH ∼ 10kpc, as observed in external spirals and in agreement with the mass model underlying the Universal Rotation Curve of spirals.

From wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstellar_medium

Note how the lowest density clouds are 0.2 – 0.5 protons/cm^3

Why is this the same density? Answer: The dark matter has a maximum density, if density gets higher it lights up and turns into protons/electrons/H – which results in WIM and WNM clouds. Dark matter might be sleeping matter.

#### There is a problem – what heats the Warm Ionized Medium?

Journal, T. A. (2000). EVIDENCE FOR AN ADDITIONAL HEAT SOURCE IN THE WARM IONIZED MEDIUM OF GALAXIES, (Rand 1998), 1997–2000.

Dark Matter waking up might naturally result in WIM over WNM.

Update:

You can see a clear (well kinda clear -its astronomy data…) cut at 0.04 electrons (ie protons too) per cm3. http://www.astro.wisc.edu/wham/papers-dir/hill_sins.pdf

To me this is exciting. WIM has a density wall at about 0.02 particles / cm3 – while dark matter has a density of about the same number (within a factor of 10).

The maximum density of dark matter is about equal to the low-density wall of WIM.

Dark matter does not exist at high densities. So on a galaxy rotation curve, ie

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742-6596/566/1/012008/pdf

ie – right at about the 15 kPc mark. Dark matter really not needed much below 10 kPc at all. Dark matter turns into regular matter at about these distances. Clumps of regular matter (which is how they get the rotation curves) are centers for DM – regular matter promotion. This promotion results in anomalous heating of the WIM.

Also see: – the ionizing problem is still around. The O star theory seems kinda weak…

http://w.astro.berkeley.edu/~ay216/08/NOTES/Lecture08-08.pdf

Thus O stars are able to ionize the WIM (other obvious sources of Ionizing radiation are weaker), but how do the ionizing photons get from the location of these stars in the thin disk of the Milky Way to far above the mid-plane?

The Li^7 problem ( https://arxiv.org/pdf/1203.3551.pdf ) might be solved if Li 7 somehow does not sleep. Then there would be more of it. Or more likely its all the same but the heavier stuff is easier to re-activate and thus collapses into star-forming more often than H or He.
Update:  remarks on the ‘Superfluid’ solution to dark matter.
Sabine:
Their new calculations take into account that in general the dark matter will be a mixture of superfluid and normal fluid, and both phases will make a contribution to the gravitational pull. Just what the composition is depends on the gravitational potential (caused by all types of matter) and the equation of state of the superfluid. In the new paper, the authors parameterize the general effects and then constrain the parameters so that they fit observations.
The gravitational potential is not even supposed to be detectable! In Physics, potentials are not gravitationally even locally detectable – which is why a bird can sit on a high voltage wire.
There are other problems with the superfluid:
From Uncle Al:
1) Why isn't the condensate irreversibly scavenged by the central black hole, and others, over redshift? Black holes should be visibly snacking between meals.
... 2) Added thermodynamic degrees of freedom are spectroscopically invisible?
... 3) The condensate remains unperturbed by compact-body mergers, not perturbing LIGO waveforms?

Yet the theory does solve the cuspy core problem, etc – and you can see why…

The main reason I find this idea convincing is that it explains why some observations are easier to account for with dark matter and others with modified gravity: It’s because dark matter has phase transitions! It behaves differently at different temperatures and densities.

In solar systems, for example, the density of (normal) matter is strongly peaked and the gradient of the gravitational field near a sun is much larger than in a galaxy on the average. In this case, the coherence in the dark matter fluid is destroyed, which is why we do not observe effects of modified gravity in our solar system. And in the early universe, the temperature is too high and dark matter just behaves like a normal fluid.
They are scratching all around it. Dark Matter does change phase – into ordinary matter. There is a phase of ordinary matter that does not have the energy to engage with photons – its darkened matter.

–Tom

Read the following with the these two thoughts in your head first:

a) Quantum Mechanics emerges from General Relativity.

b) The Cosmic Censorship Conjecture is wrong.

Since the physical behavior of singularities is unknown, if singularities can be observed from the rest of spacetime, causality may break down, and physics may lose its predictive power. The issue cannot be avoided, since according to the Penrose-Hawking singularity theorems, singularities are inevitable in physically reasonable situations. Still, in the absence of naked singularities, the universe, as described by the general theory of relativity, is deterministic [1] —it is possible to predict the entire evolution of the universe (possibly excluding some finite regions of space hidden inside event horizons of singularities), knowing only its condition at a certain moment of time (more precisely, everywhere on a spacelike three-dimensional hypersurface, called the Cauchy surface). Failure of the cosmic censorship hypothesis leads to the failure of determinism, because it is yet impossible to predict the behavior of spacetime in the causal future of a singularity. Cosmic censorship is not merely a problem of formal interest; some form of it is assumed whenever black hole event horizons are mentioned.

The above description is more or less the way that its viewed today.

If like me, you think that Cosmic Censorship is false, then the above reads as to how fundamentally acausal – ‘truly random’ events can emerge from a purely geometric universe. This does not sound like a catastrophe at all. It sounds like nature.

The Kerr solution plainly admits a > m . The number of papers trying to figure out how a > m cannot exist far surpasses the ones that simply explore the consequences of a > m naked singularities. These over spinning Kerr singularities are in fact fairly benign it turns out as they are impossible to hit unless one shoots a test particle along the exact equator – a set of measure zero. (Carter 1968).

Many of the papers concerning the non existence of a > m use a thought experiment along the lines of ‘starting with a ~= m, toss in a rock so that it looks like a > m will be the result’. They then go to great lengths to show that back reaction, etc will keep a <= m.  That misses the point. There are also ways to construct a naked Kerr ring using wholistic methods like collapsing rings of matter, or colliding gravitational waves. Thus a > m can happen. See https://arxiv.org/abs/1509.05174 for example.

Get over it. Kerr spinning a > m solutions likely exist in nature.

Hawking and Ellis, in The LargeScale Structure of Space-Time (Cambridge 1973)

#### Abstract

A proton model is presented where a mechanism for charge, electromagnetic and quantum effects are generated from pilot wave phenomena. The pilot waves are constructed from nothing more than gravitational effects. First a simple model of a proton is discussed. The physical consequences of such a model are explored, showing that this model can generate large proton – proton forces, which are then identified with the Coulomb force. Further, quantum mechanical effects are also shown to emerge from this model. Using canonical untuned parameters, the model generates a Coulomb strength force between two protons that is within a factor of 5 of the actual force, thus bridging the 1036 force strength gap that separates gravity vs electromagnetism using only general relativity.

#### Introduction

General relativity is often thought of as the smallest force – a perturbation on the quantum field theory that can safely be ignored on the microscopic scales of elementary particles. The most recognized illustration of this ‘fact’ is given by the ratio of the gravitational to Coulomb force between two elementary charged particles. For protons:

$R_{(Proton EM/Gravity)} = \frac{k_{e}e^2}{Gm_{p}^2} = 1.236\times10^{36}$

Yet gravity is also in many ways thought of as the strongest force, as for instance when the nuclear strong force keeping a large neutron star from collapsing is overwhelmed by some additional mass and gravity takes over, forming a black hole. Another very recent display of the ultimate strength of general relativity is the observation of gravitational waves from 1.3 billion light years away – the gravitational wave event GW150914. In the GW150914 gravitational wave production zone, the peak energy density of the wave energy was about 15 orders of magnitude stronger than the strongest electromagnetic field possible via the Schwinger limit. General Relativity can dwarf all known fields in strength.

General Relativity – “Einstein’s aether”  – is very stiff and has a huge range of linear behaviour, far outstripping electromagnetism in terms of maximum power it can push through a square metre of space, along with a much larger linear range of behaviour. It has been verified to work over a very large parameter space. Its also inviscid in that it allows objects to pass through it almost unhindered: no one talks about friction in empty space.

With the huge energy densities and extremely large linear range of gravitational wave phenomena, one is led to investigate gravitational waves and interaction strengths of smaller entities such as those that are the mass of the proton and other elementary particles. For a compact gravitational entity of the mass of a proton, one would expect that gravitational waves at a frequency dictated by the size of the entity might come into play.

#### Proton model:

An proton is modelled as a small region of space which has a varying mass. The origin of this varying mass is energy exchange with other protons (or other charged particles). The mass of the proton is given by the following ansatz:
$m_{p}(t) = m_{p}((1 - \alpha) + \alpha sin(\nu t))$
where 𝛎 is some frequency, and is the proportion of mass that is varying, so is in the range 0 –> 1. The cause of this varying mass is in this model due to the emission and absorption of large amounts of gravitational wave energy, as in the phenomenon of $\alpha \sim 1$ tuned superradiance/absorption. The exact geometric/topological structure of this proton model is not known or modelled, but could be a naked Kerr like ring ‘almost singularity’ undergoing deformations from the gravitational wave background. The singularity in the Kerr solution is known to be unstable – this means that when a ring singularity exists in a natural, noisy environment, that the structure of the singularity is wildly varying, likely negating many of the concerns that led to Hawking and Penrose’s singularity conjecture. One more point on the ring singularity’s innocuous effects is the fact that only a set of geodesics of measure zero will hit (those geodesics coming in on the equator). If one looks at the paper here: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1509.05174.pdf you can see that running time backwards – turning figure 1 in that paper upside down.

#### Coulomb Attraction

First recall that we are dealing only with classical general relativity. Electromagnetic effects are generated using general relativity.

So how would two of these time varying mass protons interact?

Call the two protons A and B, and calculate the force that B feels from A at a distance r apart . Proton A exchanges mass at a rate peaking per cycle

$\frac{ d m_{p}(t) }{ dt }|_{max} = \nu \alpha m_{p}$

which at the location of B will represent a mass flow per unit area of ⍺𝛎mp/(4πr2) . Proton B with radius $r_p$ will absorb this mass flow at a rate controlled by its area (the cross section for gravitational wave absorption at a resonant frequency is very high) of (4πrp2)c. This results in a (peak per cycle) force felt by B of:

$dp/dt = (4 \pi r_{p}^2) c * \alpha \nu m_{p}/(4 \pi r^2) = \alpha c \nu r_{p}^2 m_{p} / r^2$

This force scales with the frequency 𝛎.  Evaluate this equation by equating it with the electromagnetic force for two protons at a distance r, assume that the fraction  = 1/137, and solve for the remaining free parameter – the frequency of the mass exchange effect 𝛎. This gives a frequency that corresponds to about the light travel time across the proton, and is closer still to the nuclear strong force interaction time (~1×1023 Hz).

$\alpha c \nu m_{p} r_{p}^2/r^2 = k_{e}q^2/r^2 => \nu = 8 \times 10 ^ {22} \text{Hz}$ [calculation]

The force in this simple model as it stands at this point does not (yet) represent a Coulomb force, as this generated force, while large varies between a push and a pull, averaging to zero. The magnitude looks very tantalizing however as this shows that a purely geometric model can produce forces equivalent in magnitude to electrostatic forces. Various pilot wave theories come to mind, such as de Broglie – Bohm Mechanics or even the macroscopic hydrodynamic quantum analog experiments of John W Bush. And yes this means that I think that quantum mechanics and electromagnetism are closely related.

So we assume that there is some mechanism holding the protons in a phase such that the force is purely repulsive. (AKA surfing, John Bush math on walkers, etc)

#### The de Broglie frequency of the proton

The proton de Broglie frequency is almost the same frequency  as the calculated frequency above which was not used to get the frequency correct for the electromagnetic force. Yet the de Broglie wavelength is a quantum notion, and so should not be related to an electromagnetic field strength effect.

Proton de Broglie frequency = $2.3 x 10^{23} Hz$

John W Bush on de Broglie:

“He asserted that quantum mechanics was intrinsically relativistic and proposed that the pilot wave originates in internal particle oscillations at the Compton frequency, $\omega _{c} = m c^{2}/{\hbar}$, at which rest mass energy is exchanged with wave energy. He proposed that the guiding wave field evolves according to the Klein-Gordon equation and consists of a monochromatic wave field in the particle’s frame of reference. The de Broglie relation, $p = \hbar k$, then relates the particle momentum to the de Broglie wavelength, $\lambda_{dB} = 2\pi/k$ . Finally, he stressed the importance of the harmony of phases, by which the particle’s internal vibration, seen as that of a clock, stays in phase with its guiding wave (de Broglie 1930, 1987). Thus, according to his conception, the wave and particle maintain a state of resonance.” [reference]

#### Discussion

If the proton is indeed some sort of geometric  object operating in a gravitational superradiant regime, then delicate phase considerations come into play, reminiscent of bouncer – walker systems (and QED).  See for example Bush 2016 for terminology and background.

In the language of bouncer walkers, this system exhibits incredibly high memory (but not infinite!) and thus various QM like effects could emerge from these interactions. The electromagnetic effects are then ‘side effects’ of the gravitational pilot wave interaction.

One is then left with a geometric unification plan where gravitation is the ultimate base interaction with electromagnetic, quantum and other force effects resulting from the small scale interaction of high frequency gravitational waves with the particles that produce and interact with them.

Thus the various forces and QM may be found to emerge from purely classical geometric effects.

#### Conclusion

Protons made with nothing more than classical general relativity thus exhibit the expected forces of electromagnetism, without introducing a separate electric field. Electrical behaviour is then seen as a phenomena of Gravity, rather than its own field.
These protons also behave according to the laws of QM, all by generating QM effects using pilot wave mechanics.

This I believe shows a possible way to unify Electromagnetism, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics.

–Tom Andersen
July 1 , 2016

Addendum: Nov 20 2016.

I am working on a computer program to model a positron – electron hydrogen like system starting with only equation on varying mass, and the laws of motion for the electron – which sees not only the waves from the positron – but also waves from itself – the memory effect. (indeed how would an electron tell waves from itself apart from those of others?). The memory effect is limited for positronium to the volume of space  that an atom takes up. I think that the solution to the non-local Bell’s theorem type of things is retarded and advanced fields – re (Wheeler’s delayed choice or Wheeler Feynman advanced/retarded fields). All or nothing G = T, but T is all GR, so really G = 0. Look at Grossing as well, some math might be handy from him and also John Bush.

See also the boxed quote in https://gravityphysics.com/2016/07/25/the-physics-behind-de-broglie-waves/ – the reference to http://www.calphysics.org/mass.html

https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9906084

kerr ring weith lartge blobs weill rsadiate using eddington blob formula like bar or blob. has to.

ring is unstable . Blobs appear . must radiate . Radiation wil bring back ring so its a feedback processs

#### Appendix

Oza, Harris, Rosales & Bush (2014), Pilot-wave dynamics in a rotating frame
MIT site: John W.M. Bush
Is quantum mechanics just a special case of classical mechanics?
Monopole GR waves
Other posts on this site as well..

A few times in Alexander Unzicker’s books he mentions the following coincidence:cmprp ≈ hA quick trip to Wolfram shows  cmprp/h = 0.6 , so the correspondence is quite close. Plancks constant is of course the ‘quantum of action’ – so it should show no relation at all to the lowly proton – as the proton is ‘merely’ a composite particle, its mass or radius should have nothing to do with quantum mechanics. Unzicker’s coincidence will be revisited at the end of this work. In a past 2014 post I discussed an electron model in terms of ‘purely classical GR’.

A couple of months ago I read Jim Baggot’s Farwell to Reality. I was very impressed. I won’t go into details, but the book takes the eminently reasonable suggestion that 11 dimensions, uncountable infinities of universes and other mainstream theoretical physics subjects are “fairy tale physics”.  Physics really needs people like Jim Baggot,  Peter Woit, and Lee Smolin  to show that the emperor has no clothes. But what if things are far worse than these authors report?

So I went looking for other writing critical of modern physics. Did I find it.  I read two of Alexander Unzicker’s books. The Higgs Fake and Bankrupting Physics. They are a great read, whether you agree with him or not(caution – unintended hilarity). As if to underline the mindset of the physics community at large, after writing these two books Unzicker had trouble with arXiv, and has several more stories about the negative reaction of this closely knit society to outside criticism. One fact about criticism is that people get most upset when the criticism strikes close to the truth.  Peter Woit’s criticism of Bankrupting Physics revolves around trying to classify Unzicker  as ‘a garden-variety crank’ – which of course then makes Woit’s job easy as it automatically discounts everything he says (unless he is in agreement with Woit of course). My take is simpler: Woit’s book and blog regularly complains about string theory and the multiverse being bunk, which in my opinion is something like 99.9999% likely to be true, while Unzicker’s assertions are ‘only’ 10 – 99.9999% likely to be true. Contrast that with the 50,000 papers on supersymmetry – each one of which is a 100% waste of time according to both Woit and Unzicker. Peter Woit can be wrong too. There are other areas of physics that smell as bad as String Theory.

Physics is broken. Worse than we think.

# Eureka!

The Ligo measurement is the greatest thing to happen in Physics and Astronomy for decades. Amazing work. It was about 50 years ago that the first gravitational wave detector was built by Weber. It took 50 years of refinement, many PhDs postdocs and full careers, but the LIGO team did. it.

I will assume that you have already read the paper and other popular sources on this observation, so I will jump into what excites me about this observation:

### The enormous gravitational wave energy emitted.

How much energy? Three solar masses worth of gravitational waves were emitted over just a few tenths of a second. The paper reports a peak gravitational energy emission of 200 solar masses per second! See the paper for errors on this estimate but its accurate to within 20%. The really amazing thing though is that this emission took place from a region only about 200 km across. The frequency of the waves at peak emission is (from the paper fig 1 – bottom row) 120 Hz or so.

Lets look at that amount of energy in terms of another form of energy that we are more comfortable with – electromagnetic waves – light. I want to compare this to the “Schwinger limit” – which is the maximum electromagnetic field that can occur before quantum pair creation effects take over. The Schwinger limit controls the maximum power that a region of space can transmit through itself (via opposing overlapping lasers say).

Say we had standing radio waves at 120Hz in a 200km on a side box, how much power could such an area radiate if it were only limited by the Schwinger limit? (i.e. ignore the mechanism by which such spectacular amounts of energy could be turned into radio waves).

The formula for energy density given an electric wave is quite simple: See for instance this hyper physics page:

Total Energy density = ε*E2 So at the Schwinger limit of 1.3×1018 V/m and with the constant ε being 8.854187817620… × 10-12 Farads/m, we get 1.5×1025 kg/m/s2. We have 200,000 metres per side, so there are 1.2×1041 J (joules) in a 200km on a side box at the Schwinger limit.

How many joules of gravitational wave energy were held in a 200km box around GW150914? Well at 200 solar masses per second emitted, we need to take the size of the box and use light travel time to determine the amount of energy in the box at any one time: So 200 solar masses per second. Light travel time is 200km/(3e8m/s) = 6.7×10-4 seconds. So if that volume emits 200 solar masses of energy per second, then that is 0.13 solar masses worth of energy at any one time in that volume, or 2.3×1046 Joules! This is some 5 orders of magnitude above what can be emitted by this same region using electromagnetic means!

### Discussion

The mechanism by which one arrives at the Schwinger limit is conceptually simple – ‘QED non linear photon – photon scattering’ involving electron – positron pair creation. (See the wikipedia article for a start).

Is there a corresponding quantum ‘Schwinger limit’ for gravitational waves (gravitons)? Well there is of course a limit in place due to classical general relativity, which is well known. In this case we are close (gravitational h is about 0.001 or so?) of the classical limit, which is basically that you can’t pile anything up so that the density would cause a black hole to form.  But is there a feynman diagram for graviton – graviton scattering – well of course there is – it should behave like real classical gravity! I guess what I am wondering – is there another pathway where graviton scattering would take place and according to QM make the GW150914 ‘impossible’?

Does the observation of gravitational waves 5 orders of magnitude stronger than the strongest possible electromagnetic wave mean that we can finally stop calling gravity the weakest force? Yes to that!

My take as anyone who reads any of this site will know is that electromagnetism, quantum mechanics and the nuclear forces are all emergent phenomena from classical general relativity (see my poster). To me this observation is another hint at what general relativity can do.

As a further note, this corresponds to 0.018 watts per square metre at the 1.3 billion LY distance of the earth! That means that the earth had 2.3 Terawatts of gravitational energy passing through it on Sept 14 2015, just from this one event. Yet this massive amount of power is barely within observational limits of LIGO. LIGO sees only nice correlated bumps (with only 2 detectors its not really built to look at the background of gravitational wave energy), so we could easily have this much energy passing through the earth in the form of these stochastic low frequency gravitational waves all the time, and LIGO would not be able to detect it.

Gravitational waves make the perfect sub-quantum excitation – they can carry very large amounts of energy without anything but a carefully designed detector being able to pick them up.

### What would be an ideal detector for LIGO frequency waves?

Other than the actual LIGO observatory of course (which I argue below may not be the ideal gravitational wave detector).

A nice isolated black hole maximally spinning at near a = 1, and of the same approximate mass as the GW150914 emitter would exchange a substantial amount of the incoming wave energy into motion – and it would pick up something like 0.2 GW of power for a fraction of a second, which would likely be observable since this hypothetical black hole is sitting so nice and quiet, a GJ of energy exchange would cause small (since the thing is so heavy) but measurable effects.

Say we don’t have a nearby system (we would need varying sizes to couple to the frequencies we wish to monitor) of quiet black holes to listen to. What else could we build? The ideas opens up if one assumes that matter and light are both gravitational phenomena. What would be ideal is something that mimics a tuned superradiant like interaction with gravitational waves, but it trillions of times lighter and made of ‘ordinary matter’. What makes super radiance work?

Superradiance in Ultracold Molecular Samples

“What happened is that because this Rydberg atom stayed very high excited, but up there the energy levels are very-very close together. What does that mean? The transitions have very long wavelengths. So basically every sample that you can have is very small compared to these long wavelengths. And so superradiance is actually quite likely in these cases. And this is actually exactly what happened. As I said, it was an accident, I don’t think it could have been done such an ideal experiment on purpose in this case.”

### Can a sub-quantum medium be provided by General Relativity?

Thomas C Andersen, PhD
As a personal note of celebration, Art McDonald, the director of the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory has won the Nobel Prize in Physics. I worked on SNO for 8 years for my masters and PhD. The Sudbury Neutrino Observatory also shared the Breakthrough prize in Fundamental Physics! The breakthrough prize is awarded to the whole collaboration (26o or so of us). It was a real treat to work on the neutrino observatory.
In PDF as a paper, or in as a poster I presented at EmQM15 in Vienna, published in IOP physics. http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742-6596/701/1/012023

tom@palmerandersen.com, Ontario, Canada. (Dated: October 19, 2015)

Emergent Quantum Mechanics (EmQM) seeks to construct quantum mechanical theory and behaviour from classical underpinnings. In some formulations of EmQM a bouncer- walker system is used to describe particle behaviour, known as sub-quantum mechanics. This paper explores the possibility that the field of classical general relativity (GR) could supply a sub-quantum medium for these sub-quantum mechanics. Firstly, I present arguments which show that GR satisfies many of the a priori requirements for a sub-quantum medium. Secondly, some potential obstacles to using GR as the underlying field are noted, for example field strength (isn’t gravity a very weak force?) and spin 2. Thirdly, the ability of dynamical exchange processes to create very strong effective fields is demonstrated through the use of a simple particle model, which solves many of the issues raised in the second section. I conclude that there appears to be enough evidence to pursue this direction of study further, particularly as this line of research also has the possibility to help unify quantum mechanics and general relativity.

### The Sub-quantum Medium

In emergent QM the sub-quantum medium is the field out of which quantum behaviour emerges. Most, if not all EmQM theories published to date do not explicitly define the nature of the sub- quantum medium, instead quite reasonably they only assume that some underlying field exists, having some minimum set of required properties, for instance some sort of zero point field interac- tion.

There have of course been investigations into the physical make up of a sub-quantum medium. Perhaps the most investigated possible source is stochastic electrodynamics (SED)[5]. Investigated on and off since the 1960s, SED posits the existence of a noisy isotropic classical radiation field as the zero point field (ZPF). stochastic electrodynamics as a sub-quantum media has many desirable properties. As an example of progress in stochastic electrodynamics Nieuwenhuizen and Liska[12] have recently used computer simulation techniques to build an almost stable hydrogen atom.

Yet classical electrodynamics has a few problems as the sub-quantum medium. Davidson points out that

”A particle in SED gains or loses energy due to interaction with the zero point field. Atoms tend to spontaneously ionize in SED as a consequence. … The spectral absorp- tion and emission lines are too broad in simple calculations published so far to come anywhere close to fitting the myriad of atomic spectral data.”[4].

Other sub-quantum medium proposals include Brady’s compressible inviscid fluid – an entirely new classical field that is posited to underpin quantum mechanics and electromagnetism.[1]

This paper proposes a sub-quantum medium that is already experimentally confirmed and is somewhat surprisingly stronger and more flexible than usually thought – general relativity (GR). Using GR as the sub-quantum medium as presented here assumes only classical GR. Other pro- posals that are similar in some ways are Wheeler’s geons of 1957 – constructed of source free electromagnetic fields and gravity under the laws of standard QM[11] and Hadley’s 4-geons[8]. Hadley’s proposal is perhaps the most similar to that here, but Hadley assumes the independent reality of an electromagnetic field. This paper instead uses only GR as the fundamental field.

General relativity has some qualities that lend itself to consideration as a sub-quantum medium:

1. Frictionless (inviscid):

The movement of objects through empty space is observed to be frictionless, as waves and objects can travel long distances without measurable hindrance. GR’s ether (such that it is) behaves as an inviscid media in its linear regime, allowing for this. Importantly, there is friction in situations such as Kerr hole frame dragging.

2. Covariant: Manifestly so.

3. Non Linear:

This non – linearity allows for a rich variety of behaviour at small scales – a minimally explored, flexible platform to construct particles.

4. Coupling:
General relativity couples to all material, uncharged or charged.

#### Potential Problems

How can general relativity form a basis for quantum mechanics, given the following: 1. Gravity is weak.

GR is often thought of as a weak force, after all the electromagnetic force between two electrons is some 1042 times that of their gravitational attraction! But for the purposes of a sub-quantum media we are interested in large energy transfers (e.g. Grssing’s[7] thermal ZPE environment), not the weak effects of gravitational at- traction. Instead of 0Hz attraction effects, consider gravitational waves. Looking at optical frequencies (1014Hz), for GR the maximum energy transfer rate be- fore non linear effects start to dominate is tremendously high – about 1065<sup>W/m2. Compare that to electromagnetism, where we have to appeal to something like the Schwinger limit which is only 1030W/m2. Thus GR has plenty of room to host strong effects.

2. Gravity has a weak coupling.

In order to model a quantum system (say a hydrogen atom), we require the quantum forces to be much stronger than the electromagnetic forces. Yet the coupling of gravity to the electron is much weaker than even the electromagnetic force. The solution to this problem lies in realizing that gravity can couple not only through ’0Hz’ effects but also through the exchange of wave energy. The Possible Mechanisms section below outlines how this could happen.

3. Gravity is quadrupole (spin 2).

If we are to also generate EM from GR, we require a spin 1 field to emerge. Emergence is the key – underlying fields can give rise to apparent net fields of different spin. E.g. Monopole gravitational waves[9].

4. Bell’s theorem and hidden variables.

Using GR as the underlying medium to emerge quantum mechanics from would seem to have to satisfy Bell’s inequalities – and thus disagree with current QM theory. Maldacena and Susskind’s EP = EPR paper[10] is an example of a solution to this.

#### Possible Mechanisms

Here I investigate some consequences of purely classical geometric particle models that are the mass of the electron in a universe where the only field is classical general relativity. The exact micro structure of a particle is not of concern here, instead I look at some tools and building blocks with which to build elementary particles from nothing more than classical GR.

An electron like particle is modelled as a small region of space which has some geometric microstructure that results in a particle with the correct mass and spin. I will point out here that a Kerr solution with the mass and spin of an electron happens to have a (naked) singularity at virtually the Compton radius (1/13 the Compton wavelength).

Whatever the exact microstructure of an elementary particle, there is certainly extensive frame dragging occurring. Frame dragging is the ’handle’ to which gravitational wave energy exchange can grip. As Brito et al. start their comprehensive ’Superradiance’ paper:

”Superradiance is a radiation enhancement process that involves dissipative systems”[3].

Superradiance in GR was introduced by Press and Teukolsky’s 1972 paper Floating Orbits, Super- radiant Scattering and the Black-hole Bomb[13].

This paper posits that EmQM’s sub-quantum ZPF might be a run away superradiance effect (limited by non linear mechanics). Is the universe a black hole bomb?

This superradiant (and highly absorbing – see figure 1) energy exchange of the particle with its surroundings causes the particle to be subjected to huge forces – superradiance for example allows for a substantial fraction of the mass of a rotating black hole to change over time scales a few times the light travel time across the of the hole. The recent paper by East et al. studies black holes undergoing superradiance using a numerical method.[6]. It seems that the superradiance is on a knife edge with absorption – these effects happen at only slightly different frequencies.

While the time scale for a black hole with the mass of an electron is a tiny 10−65s, it seems reasonable to assume that the frequency for superradiance is tied to the distance scales involved in the particles structure, so there could be superradiant effects happing on different timescales. For instance, an effect at 10−65s could be holding the particle together, while the forces of EM and the actions of QM might take place using waves closer to the electron Compton frequency.

Look now at a Compton frequency superradiant process. We have an energy exchange of some fraction of the mass of the electron happening at 1.2×1020Hz. The maximum force an effect like this can produce on an electron mass particle is of order 0.01 Newtons! Forces like this are surely strong enough to control the movement of the electron and phase lock it, giving rise to the sub-quantum force.

#### FIG. 1: From East[6]: Top: mass change over time, for incident gravitational waves with three different frequencies. ω0M = 0.75 is superradiant, while ω0M = 1 shows complete absorption. Bottom – shows the effect of the wave on the shape of the horizon – so the entire wave packet can be visualized.

There is also a mechanism by which electromagnetic effects can emerge from such energy ex- change. See Brady[2] section 4 for one simple method of calculating an electromagnetic force from mass exchange.

### Discussion

The sub-quantum medium, whatever it is, has to behave so that quantum mechanics can arise from it. I hope that this paper has shown that General relativity covers at least some of the requirements for a sub-quantum medium. In order to fully test this idea, there might likely need to be an actual geometrical model of the electron found. The techniques of numerical general relativity could be the best tool to study these interactions in detail.

If the pursuit of an emergent quantum mechanics is to prove fruitful, then the idea that a field like general relativity does not hold on the microscale may have to be re-considered, as with EmQM there is no overarching ’quantum regime’. With general relativity still on the stage at 10−17m, Occam’s razor perhaps suggests that we prove that general relativity is not the sub-quantum medium before a new field is invented.

1. [1]  Robert Brady. The irrotational motion of a compressible inviscid fluid. page 8, jan 2013.
2. [2]  Robert Brady and Ross Anderson. Why bouncing droplets are a pretty good model of quantummechanics. jan 2014.
3. [3]  Richard Brito, Vitor Cardoso, and Paolo Pani. Superradiance, volume 906 of Lecture Notes in Physics.Springer International Publishing, Cham, jan 2015.
4. [4]  Mark P. Davidson. Stochastic Models of Quantum Mechanics A Perspective. In AIP ConferenceProceedings, volume 889, pages 106–119. AIP, oct 2007.
5. [5]  L. de la Pena and A. M. Cetto. Contribution from stochastic electrodynamics to the understanding ofquantum mechanics. page 34, jan 2005.
6. [6]  William E. East, Fethi M. Ramazanolu, and Frans Pretorius. Black hole superradiance in dynamicalspacetime. Physical Review D, 89(6):061503, mar 2014.
7. [7]  G. Gr ̈ossing, S. Fussy, J. Mesa Pascasio, and H. Schwabl. Implications of a deeper level explanation ofthe deBroglieBohm version of quantum mechanics. Quantum Studies: Mathematics and Foundations,2(1):133–140, feb 2015.
8. [8]  Mark J. Hadley. A gravitational explanation for quantum theory non-time-orientable manifolds. InAIP Conference Proceedings, volume 905, pages 146–152. AIP, mar 2007.
9. [9]  M. Kutschera. Monopole gravitational waves from relativistic fireballs driving gamma-ray bursts.Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 345(1):L1–L5, oct 2003.
10. [10]  J. Maldacena and L. Susskind. Cool horizons for entangled black holes. Fortschritte der Physik,61(9):781–811, sep 2013.
11. [11]  CharlesWMisnerandJohnAWheeler.Classicalphysicsasgeometry.AnnalsofPhysics,2(6):525–603,dec 1957.
12. [12]  TheoM.NieuwenhuizenandMatthewT.P.Liska.SimulationofthehydrogengroundstateinStochasticElectrodynamics. page 20, feb 2015.
13. [13]  WILLIAM H. PRESS and SAUL A. TEUKOLSKY. Floating Orbits, Superradiant Scattering and theBlack-hole Bomb. Nature, 238(5361):211–212, jul 1972.

For my Masters and PhD I worked on the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory, where I worked on the water purification team and also the computer simulation of the detector. It was a great time and I learned a lot from my Supervisor John Simpson at the University of Guelph in Canada.

The papers below are SNO collaboration papers, in addition to papers in journals like NIM, where our lab published the details of our ultra low level radon counting experiments.

I maintain a list on Research Gate of my publications.

##### Mar 2016 · Journal of Physics Conference Series
Jul 2009 · Physical review D: Particles and fields
Jan 2009
##### Article:Determination of the νe and total 8B solar neutrino fluxes using the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory Phase I data set
Apr 2007 · Physical Review C
##### Article:Measurement of the nue and Total 8B Solar Neutrino Fluxes with theSudbury Neutrino Observatory Phase I Data Set
Feb 2007 · Physical Review C
##### Article:A radium assay technique using hydrous titanium oxide adsorbent for the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory
Apr 2003 · Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A Accelerators Spectrometers Detectors and Associated Equipment
##### Article:Measurement of radium concentration in water with Mn-coated beads at the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory
Apr 2003 · Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A Accelerators Spectrometers Detectors and Associated Equipment
##### Article:Measurement of day and night neutrino energy spectra at SNO and constraints on neutrino mixing parameters
Full-text Article · Aug 2002 · Physical Review Letters
##### Article:Direct evidence for neutrino flavor transformation from neutral-current interactions in the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory
Aug 2002 · Physical Review Letters
##### Article:Measurement of Day and Night Neutrino Energy Spectra at SNO and Constraints on Neutrino Mixing Parameters
May 2002 · Physical Review Letters
##### Article:Direct Evidence for Neutrino Flavor Transformation from Neutral-Current Interactions in the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory
Apr 2002 · Physical Review Letters
##### Article:Measurement of the rate of nu(e) + d –> p + p + e(-) interactions produced by (8)B solar neutrinos at the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory.
Sep 2001 · Physical Review Letters
##### Article:Measurement of the Rate of {nu}{sub e} + d {yields} p + p + e{sup -} Interactions Produced by B
Aug 2001 · Physical Review Letters
##### Article:First neutrino observations from the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory
Jan 2001 · Nuclear Physics B – Proceedings Supplements
##### Article:Measurement of the Rate of nue + d –> p + p + e Interactions Produced by 8B Solar Neutrinos at the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory
Jan 2001 · Physical Review Letters
##### Article:The Sudbury Neutrino Observatory
Nov 1999 · Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A Accelerators Spectrometers Detectors and Associated Equipment
##### Article:An electrostatic radon detector designed for water radioactivity measurements
Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A Accelerators Spectrometers Detectors and Associated Equipment
Jan 1997
##### Article:Direct evidence for neutrino flavor transformation from neutral-current interactions in SNO
SNO Collaboration · AB McDonald · QR Ahmad · […] · M Yeh

#### The Speed of Light

The speed of light limit is at this point a postulate of physics, which is necessary as:

• Electromagnetic Radiation travels at c.
• Maximum speed of particles is c. (Lorentz equation).
• Relativistic QM – depends on c as a postulate.
• Strong force.
• more…

These are in the Standard Model disparate fields and laws. Why do they all share the same speed ‘c’? The only real answer right now is ‘because’. Hence the speed of light is a postulate.  In modern physics this fact is acknowledged by saying that its not the ‘speed of light’ but rather the ‘fundamental speed’.

Postulates are never a good thing. Much of our understanding of the physical world comes from explaining away what we thought were arbitrary rules using more fundamental principles.  We do need postulates, but its a good thing when we can lower the count. The Standard Model + QM have many tens of postulates (rules, particle masses, coupling constants, etc etc).

Now look again at a universe made of only GR. The speed of light becomes the speed of gravity – a ‘mere’ bulk propagation constant – the speed of Einstein’s Aether.

If one were to then build out other fields and physical effects (e.g. emergent quantum mechanics) using GR as a base, the speed of light is not needed as a postulate. It then becomes transparent as to why the speed of light is the same as the speed of gravity, and why the equations of relativistic QM are littered with the symbol ‘c’. Some ideas of how to build todays physics from GR are outlined in other posts on this site, but also see Brady and Anderon’s paper.

#### Lorentz Transformation

The behaviour of particles and clocks at velocity is dealt with using Lorentz transformations. These same transformations arise when looking at emergent phenomena such as Brady’s sonons travelling through an inviscid medium with a sound velocity. Thus Lorentz contraction can be thought of as arising from the bulk properties of the GR field.

#### Consequences

Removing the speed of light as a postulate would be a good thing, but are there any measurable consequences? In other words, if there is some truth to this theory is there any experiment that might be done to show that the speed of light is merely a bulk property of an all encompassing field that creates all matter, fields and forces?

Look at the speed of sound on Earth. This speed forms a barrier to objects moving faster than sound. But jets and asteroids can move faster than sound. So maybe analogously we can find a way to break the light speed barrier? Its not as simple as breaking the sound barrier though, as GR is an extremely strong field with a truly huge range of perfectly linear behaviour. To get an idea of its strength, consider that a mass of the Earth formed into a black hole is only about a cm in size, and so GR behaves linearly up to within a metre or so of that incredible field strength.  But experimenters have access to extremely accurate clocks, huge collision energies and lots of computational power.

Once its accepted that the the speed of light might not a postulate, experiments are possible. There are actually quite a few people already measuring the constancy of the speed of light.

#### Conclusion

The fact that the speed ‘c’ is ingrained in all of physics and that General Relativity has this speed built in at a fundamental level is a huge clue as to the underlying makeup of the world around us.

My take: Its all GR.

–Tom Andersen, July 1 2015

Yves Couder’s (and others) experiments with small (in the human sense) and absolutely huge (in the quantum sense)  silicon oil droplets and baths have proven to be a wonderful analog for quantum mechanics.

There are many researchers who think that these experiments show something much more – they hint at what the microscopic quantum world is really like. The quantum like effects occur when the driving force and frequency of the system are carefully tuned. When the conditions are right, the drops interact with their own waves – long after the waves have been emitted. Couder calls this behaviour the ‘high memory regime’ – its where all the quantum like behaviour emerges.

So the question becomes – what is the memory of a real quantum system? The answer to that question is surprisingly simple. Its infinite. Quantum states can entangle and ‘live’ forever. This fact is the foundation of Quantum Computing, the Many Worlds Theory and many other absurdities (Schrödinger’s cat…). Indeed the only point in QM where memory is not complete and infinite is at the point of measurement. But measurement is in the eye of beholder, and thus we need not worry about the measurement problem here. Or rather we will attempt to solve the measurement problem with a new hypothesis – that the memory of real quantum systems are limited, and that this limit is responsible for the collapse of the wave function.

This of course could kill or seriously limit the reach of quantum computing, and would provide a quick end to the Many Worlds Theory, and many many other consequences of quantum mechanics. Indeed Hilbert Space itself would lose its ‘reality’ – becoming nothing more than a mere mathematical trick for ‘memory intact’  (AKA pre-collapse) states.

What is the form of the memory? In Couder’s experiments its simply the range of an emitted wave in meters. Since his test trays are small, this means that the waves can bounce off the walls and interact with the emitter again.

We can look at such a system as a particle in a well. In Couder’s experiments you can see excited states decay after a time, and this time is increased as the memory of the system is increased.

So if we look at the simplest physical analog of this – a particle in a well that can quantum tunnel out – we have  Alpha – emission. These particles are trapped in the nucleus, but sooner or later they tunnel out.

Thus tunnelling is a collapse of the wave function – these alpha particles leave fossil traces in rocks for instance, so they have been emitted in a very real sense.

Of course the pure QM follower will tell you that each emitted alpha is just another cat in a box - and that the entire history of the world hinges on you (or is that any smart person?) looking at the actual billion year old track - only then does the linear superposition of uncountable 10Millions of state vectors collapse. Kind of hilarious, but that is what a truly linear system will do to you if you push it!

What causes the emission? The wave function has presence inside and outside of the barrier, so it can ‘feel’ that there is a lower energy state out there waiting for it. In a real pilot wave sense the pilot wave extends into the region beyond the barrier. We have a series of waves inside a femto metre sphere or so, and they bounce around for a few years (or 1024) years, or 10-6 seconds.

So a large variation of lifetimes – yet the playground is almost the same size, its the energy levels that are different, but only by a small factor. The greater amount of the wave function that is outside the nucleus, the shorter half life.

What really happens? Is it that the particle keeps inside the nucleus, and as soon as it randomly happens to walk out it is released? In ‘real QM’ the wave function only gives a probability for finding the alpha outside the nucleus, so in some sense its ‘constantly’ out there. But in a realist theory the alpha has a real velocity inside and around the nucleus. This could perhaps be a real difference – perhaps if we postulate a fixed speed of the alpha on a random walk through the probability field, we can connect the lifetime to the percentage of the wave function that is outside the nucleus. See

Unpredictable Tunneling of a Classical Wave-Particle Association

So if a certain percentage of paths is outside, and the particle covers … do the calculation – random walk – step length is some distance much less than the nucleus size, speed v, then typical time to get out would be defined.  perhaps with the speed held constant, we can determine step length by looking at the size of the region of probability outside the nucleus, we can determine the speed/step length that is implied. Someone must have done this?

http://demonstrations.wolfram.com/GamowModelForAlphaDecayTheGeigerNuttallLaw/

So in the playtime circa 1900 flat spacetime where QM currently works, there are no non – local effects and QM makes sense. This is why most theorists like the quantization of gravitation program – it would bury the annoying real 4D version of spacetime underneath many levels of obscure mathematics.

## The Aether

#### Einstein:

We may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an aether. According to the general theory of relativity space without aether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense. But this aether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it. [1]

#### Brady:

Brady, in the paper “The irrotational motion of a compressible inviscid fluid” hypothesizes something different – that the universe is made of a non – relativistic compressible fluid, and that this fluid generates General Relativity.

Einstein’s inertial medium behaves as a nonrelativistic barotropically compressible inviscid fluid.[2]

Although my model of the electron and quantum effects is very similar to Brady’s, I diverge with him on the essence of the aether. I hypothesize that Brady and Einstein’s ether are the same thing, so that instead of Brady’s concept of generating GR from aether, we instead start with Classical General Relativity (with ‘no matter’, so the stress tensor T = 0), and then  create Sonons as solutions of GR. The aether is that of Einstein’s GR.

## Einstein’s Aether in Fluid Dynamics terms

Einstein’s aether is inviscid – which means it has no viscosity (rocks travelling through empty space experience no drag…). Is it compressible? Certainly – this is what constructs such as black holes are. Is it irrotational? – that is a not a property that we need to determine, since without viscosity, an irrotational flow will stay that way.

#### Truly Inviscid?

No. GR is non-linear, which makes the inviscid property only an approximation – it’s a good approximation, though! Waves generated on an ocean or an oil puddle in a lab travel a limited distance, while the waves of GR can easily travel the universe. But they don’t travel ‘forever’.

Consider now the construction of a Brady like sonon out of pure GR. We follow Brady’s paper until section 1.1, where he states:

When an ordinary vortex is curved into a smoke ring, this force is balanced by Magnus forces (like the lift of an aircraft wing) as the structure moves forward through the fluid [10]. However a sonon cannot experience Magnus forces because it is irrotational, and consequently its radius will shrink, causing the amplitude A in (5) to grow due to the conservation of fluid energy. Nonlinear effects will halt the shrinking before A reaches about 1 since the density cannot become negative.[3]

Intriguing. Look now at a completely classical general relativistic object – a spinning  Kerr solution. We have a tightly spinning GR object that can shrink no further.  Since we are trying to model an electron here, we use the standard black hole values (for an electron model this is a ‘naked’ a > m Kerr solution [6])

Brady’s sonons interact with the surrounding aether – how would that work in GR? We are after all taught that all GR objects like black holes have no hair. But of course they can have hair, its just that it will not last long. That’s the point here. Sonons can and will stop interacting if the background incoming waves die down below a certain point. But above a certain point black holes become perturbed, and things like ‘superradiance’  as Teukolsky and others discovered come into play.

Indeed, as long as there are incoming waves, it seems that objects made of GR are highly reactive, and not boring at all.[4][5]

So pure GR has at least the ability to interact in interesting ways, but are the numbers there? What frequencies do we need for Brady like Sonons constructed from GR (I’ll call them geons from now on) to get to the point where there are electromagnetic strength interactions are taking place?

Bradys interactions occur with mass transfer – the compressible fluid carries away mass to and from each Sonon in a repeating manner. Not a problem for any GR ‘blob – geon’.  If they interact, then energy must be flowing in and out – that’s the definition of interaction.

#### An Electron Model

A previous post here – An Electron Model from Gravitational Pilot Waves  outlines the process.

We take a small region of space (e.g.  containing a Kerr solution) and assume that this region of space is exchanging gravitational energy with its surroundings.  Call it an geon-electron.

Assuming that the exchange takes place in a periodic fashion, the mass of this geon-electron (energy contained inside of the small region of space) is given as

me(t) = me*((1 – f) + f*sin(vt))

where v is some frequency, and f is the proportion of mass that is varying, so f is from 0 –> 1.

This varying mass will give rise to changes in the gravitational potential outside the region.  But gravitational effects do not depend on the potential, rather they depend on the rate of change of the potential over spacetime intervals.   So it’s not the potential from this tiny mass that is relevant, it is the time derivative of the potential that matters.

Potential = -G*me(t)/r

Look at the time derivative of the potential

dP/dt = -G*me*f*v*cos(vt)/r

This gradient is what one can think of as the force of gravity. This force rises linearly with the frequency of the mass oscillation.

The EM force is some 10^40 times that of gravity, so we just need to use this factor to figure out an order of magnitude estimate of the frequency of this geon mass exchange rate.

This is detailed in the ‘Coulomb Attraction’ section of an earlier post.

Using de Broglie’s frequency – he considered the Compton value of 1.2356×1020 Hz as the rest frequency of the internal clock of the electron, one arrives at an electron model with these properties:

• Entirely constructed from classical General Relativity
• Frequency of mass exchange is the Compton frequency
• Electromagnetic effects are a result of GR phenomenology
• Quantum effects such as orbitals and energy levels are a natural result of these geons interacting with their own waves, so QM emerges as a phenomenon too.

#### Einstein’s Vision:

“I published the paper on the relativistic dynamics of the singular point indeed a long time ago. But the dynamical case still has not been taken care of correctly. I have now come to the point where I believe that results emerge here that deviate from the classical laws of motion. The method has also become clear and certain. If only I would calculate better! . . . It would be wonderful if the accustomed differential equations would lead to quantum mechanics; and I do not regard it as being at all out of the question” (Ref: Miller, 62 years of uncertainty)

The State of Physics today ————————– Obviously a sea change in fundamental physics would be needed to allow for anything like these ideas to be considered. In fact its not that the ideas here might be correct – but rather that Brady and others who toil on actual progress in physics are sidelined by the current ‘complexity is king’ clique that is the physics community today. The physics community is more than it ever has been in the past, a tightly knit clique. This may be the fault of the internet and the lock in group think that instant communication can provide. This clique gives rise to ideas like ‘quantum mechanics is right‘ and other absurdities, such as the millions of hours spent on String Theory, when it’s ‘not even wrong‘.

#### Tests and Simulations

Given the entrenched frown on the subject of alternative bases for the underpinnings of our physical world, we need to look for experimental evidence to support these kinds of theories.

The work of Yves Couder and his lab in one kind of essential experiment. They have shown conclusively that quantum like behaviour can emerge from classical systems.

Another path – one that in my opinion has been somewhat neglected in this field is that of numerical techniques.

Here I outline some steps that might be taken to construct a GR based model of an electron. Excuse the more colloquial manner, I am making notes for a future project here!

#### Numerical Plans

There are only about 22 Compton wavelengths within the Bohr radius. So if one goes to a 100 Compton wavelength simulation zone, with 1000 grid points on a side, thats 1e9 grid points, and each point needs only four 8 byte doubles, so 32 bytes, so 32 GB.

The equations to solve on this simple grid are those of fluid dynamics: Compressible Isothermal Inviscid  Euler equations.  : As from I do like CFD.

With a 32GB data set, 1e9 data points, and about 1000 computer FLOPs per visit, we have 1e12 FLOPs per time step, and an algorithm that gets 10GFlops, I get about a minute per time step.  Each time step needs to cover about 1/100th of the Compton time, or about 1e-22 secs, and we need to let light cross the atom (3e-19 secs) hundred times to get things to converge, or about 3e-17secs, so 300,000 time steps. (Better speed up the algorithm! Should be easy to get 20GFlops over 8 processors, and perhaps cut Flops/grid point down, which could mean a day or so on a 8 core Intel).

#### Computer Model:

Note on the Fine Structure Constant (useful in a numerical model)

The quantity  was introduced into physics by A. Sommerfeld in 1916 and in the past has often been referred to as the Sommerfeld fine-structure constant. In order to explain the observed splitting or fine structure of the energy levels of the hydrogen atom, Sommerfeld extended the Bohr theory to include elliptical orbits and the relativistic dependence of mass on velocity. The quantity , which is equal to the ratio v1/c where v1 is the velocity of the electron in the first circular Bohr orbit and cis the speed of light in vacuum, appeared naturally in Sommerfeld’s analysis and determined the size of the splitting or fine-structure of the hydrogenic spectral lines. [*]

See also the Wikipedia physical interpretation section.

#### Cosmic Censorship:

Weak or strong, the cosmic censorship conjecture states that naked singularities can’t be seen, otherwise everything will break down, it would be really bad and worst of all theorists would be confused.

Hawking and Ellis, in The LargeScale Structure of Space-Time (Cambridge 1973)

But it turns out that singularities very likely don’t actually exist in a real universe governed by GR. Any lumpy, non symmetric space time can have all the spinning black holes it wants – at any angular momentum, even with   a > m (angular momentum greater than the mass in suitable units), as the Kerr solution + bumps (bumps are incoming GR full bandwidth noise), will have no paths leading to any singularity! So the curtain can be lifted, the horizon is not needed to protect us.

#### Cosmic Serendipity Conjecture:

In any sufficiently complex solution of GR, there exists no singularities. I am not talking about naked singularities here, I mean any and all singularities.

The complex nature of the interaction of GR at the tiny scales where the singularity would start to form stop that very formation. In other words, the singularity fails to form as the infalling energy always has some angular momentum in a random direction, and ruins the formation of a singularity.

In all likelihood actual physical spinning black holes in a turbulent environment (normal space) will have no singularity.

I will let Brandon Carter speak now:

“Thus we reach the conclusion that at timeline or null geodesic or orbit cannot reach the singularity under any circumstances except in the case where it is confined to the equator, cos() = 0…..Thus as symmetry is progressively reduced, starting from the Schwarchild solution, the extent of the class of geodesics reaching the singularity is steadily reduced likewise, … which suggests that after further reduction in symmetry, incomplete geodesics may cease to exist altogether”

Not cosmic censorship, but almost the opposite – singularities can’t exist in an GR universe (one with bumps) because there are no paths to them.

We have all been taught that singularities form quickly – that when a non – spherical mass is collapsing, GR quickly smooths the collapse, generating a singularity, neatly behind a horizon. Of course that notion is correct, but what it fails to take into account is that in a real situation, there is always more in falling energy, and that new infalling energy messes up the formation of the singularity.

While there may be solutions to Einstein’s equations that show a singularity (naked or not), these solutions are unphysical, in that the real universe is bumpy and lumpy. So while the equations hold ‘far’ away from the singularity, the detailed Gravity in the high curvature region keeps it just that – high curvature as opposed to a singularity.

The papers of A.Burinskii  come to mind, e.g.:

Kerr Geometry as Space-Time Structure of the Dirac Electron

#### Conclusion

I am willing to bet that this conjecture is experimentally sound, in that there are no experiments that have been done to refute it. (that’s a joke I think).

On the theory side, one would have to prove that a singularity is stable against perturbation by incoming energy, which from my viewpoint seems unlikely, as the forming singularity would have diverging fields and diverging response to incoming energy, which would blow it apart. Like waves in the ocean that converge on a rocky point.

http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/193340/does-general-relativity-entail-singularities-if-theres-a-positive-cosmological

–Tom