### Archives For physics

I have written an app that detects cosmic rays on your iOS device. Its called Cosmic Ray App, its at http://cosmicrapapp.com and it actually seems to work! Get it at the app store.

Details on signal processing can be found here.     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.

An arXiv paper by M. Chiaberge, et al.   The puzzling radio-loud QSO 3C 186: a gravitational wave recoiling black hole in a young radio source? concludes that a 3e9 solar mass black hole was ejected at a speed of 2000km/sec by the action of gravitational waves.

The story was recently highlighted in the press:

Astronomers using the Hubble Space Telescope have spotted a supermassive black hole that has been propelled out of the centre of the galaxy where it formed. They reckon the huge object was created when two galaxies merged and was then ejected by gravitational waves.

The discovery centres on galaxy 3C186, which lies about eight billion light-years from Earth and contains an extremely bright object that astronomers believe is a black hole weighing about one billion Suns. Most large galaxies, including our own Milky Way, contain such supermassive black holes at their cores, with these huge, bright objects being powered by radiation given off by matter as it accelerates into the black hole.

#### A Maximal Gravitational Wave Effect

It looks like the ejected hole was quite efficiently ‘tractor beamed’ to its ejection velocity by the gravitational wave emission.

The calculations are quite simple here, at least to an first approximation. There is a black hole formed of total mass 3 billion solar masses (using the arXiv paper as a source for all calculations). Since a solar mass black hole has a Schwarzschild radius of 3 km, that makes for a object diameter of about 18 billion km, which is also of order of the wavelength of the waves involved in a gravitational merger.

The merger time when 80% of the energy is released is roughly 100 M for two holes of mass M merging, we have M = 1.5e9 solar masses, so the light travel time is about 1.5e9*3km/3e8meters/sec or 16,000 seconds is M in this case. 100 M is the time where all the energy comes out – AKA the chirp. So about 1,600,000 seconds is the relevant time. (For GW150914 that LIGO saw the same time would be 0.03 seconds – the holes were only 30 solar masses).

A total interaction time of 20 days. So the black hole is accelerated to a speed of 2000km/sec over 1,600,000 seconds. Thats an acceleration of 1 m/sec^2, or about 1/10 of earths gravity – funny how the numbers work out to be an acceleration that is an understandable number. The force is huge: F = ma  or 1 x10^40 newtons. The total kinetic energy is KE = 1/2 (3e9 solar masses)*(2000km/s)^2, 1.2×10^52 J.

From a conservation of momentum we can get the total momentum of the gw  E/c = (3e9 solar masses)*(2000km/s) –> 10^54 J of gw energy, this much energy was in a region about 18 billion km wide, say 1,600,000 seconds long, so an average of 1e13 J/metre^3, with a peak likely 5x that. We have an h for that from a typical expression for energy in a gravitational wave: so h = sqrt(32*pi*G*tGW/(w**2c**2)).

Wolfram shows h as 0.8 for these values (h can not be bigger than 1, anything over 0.1 means you need to use full non linear to get accurate results). In other words the math points to some sort of maximal connection – the gravitational waves must have been very connected to the structure. Gravitational waves while only weakly connected to something like LIGO are very strongly connected – a high coupling constant – to areas with large curvature.

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=sqrt(32*pi*G*(1.7e13J%2F(metre%5E3))%2F((1e-6%2Fsecond)%5E2*c%5E2)

This is already known in the land of GR. My idea is that particles expose areas of very large curvature (naked singularities) and hence also couple extremely well to gravitational waves. Well enough that we can construct electromagnetism as an emergent phenomena of GR.

Ian Sample has a 38 min talk with Gerard t’Hooft about a paper he presented at EmQM2011 in Vienna. The EmQM conference is held every two years, in 2015 I presented a poster called Can a sub-quantum medium be provided by General Relativity?. He also chats with Kings College London’s Dr Eleanor Knox, for some historical perspective, and Professor Carlo Rovelli for a bit about the, relational interpretation of quantum mechanics.

Ian writes The 20th century was a golden one for science. Big bang cosmology, the unravelling of the genetic code of life, and of course Einstein’s general theory of relativity. But it also saw the birth of quantum mechanics – a description of the world on a subatomic level – and unlike many of the other great achievements of the century, the weird world of quantum physics remains as mysterious today as it was a century ago. But what if strange quantum behaviour emerged from familiar, classical physics? How would this alter our view of the quantum world? And, more importantly, what would it tell us about the fundamental nature of reality?

Some notes while listening…

1min The Podcast starts off with Feynman’s guess snippet. Which is as funny as it is right.

2min That is followed by a very short well known (to quantum mechanics like us) intro to quantum mechanics.

4min Then – Ian actually uses the words ‘Emergent Quantum Mechanics’!

5-7min Gerard talks about the accuracy and weirdness of quantum mechanics.

8min Gerard  – “Classical Physics is an approximation.” – not incompatible.

8min Ian brings out ‘God does not play dice’.

9min Knox – talks about the measurement problem. The collapse. The Copenhagen Interpretation.

10min Knox talks about emergent theories – like biology, thermodynamics. So is quantum mechanics emergent? – Will EmQM help with the measurement problem?

13min Gerard – perhaps the randomness of QM does arise from stochastic classical actions. The answer is no – its not classical – “its different to its bones” from classical. Its a fundamental difference. (i.e. Bell).

15min Gerard talks about the Standard Model of Particle Physics. – Lots of people think that is all we need.

16min Gerard says the SM+QM does not feel right. It lacks a certain internal logic. Gerard thinks that the laws of QM are something of an optical illusion, ‘what is it actually that we are describing’.

17min Gerard does not want to change the equations of QM. He keeps the equations of QM. (Tom says this is at odds with most EmQM practitioners today).

18-22min Ian asks if EmQM is controversial. Gerard says yes its controversial. Bell proves that its impossible to have a classical computer reproduce QM. But Gerard has looked at the small print, and finds a way around the Bell theorem – by long range correlations – linked. This correlation is the heart of QM and is not weird – but needs a natural explanation.

22min Ian asks if this solves ‘Spooky action at a distance’. Gerard says yes it does these correlations can explain these peculiar correlations.

23min Ian says Knox calls Gerards plan ‘superdeterminism’.

25min Ian asks why do we need to change QM if it works so well? Gerard says the positive outlook on QM as being exactly correct is the Many World Interpretation. Gerard finds MWI ‘unsatisfactory’.

26min Ian points out that Gerard and EmQM are controversial.

27min Ian talks to Carlo Rovelli.

28min Carlo says we need to get used to QM – it will not be explained or overturned soon. The weakness in EmQM’s are that they do not lead to ‘new ways of thinking’ (Tom says what??). Then he talks about String theory and QM. We should just accept it as is.

30min Ian talks to Gerard about being comfortable with a theory that like QM. Gerard says that the present situation is bad with the MWI multiverse. Gerard thinks that while this works its ‘unsatisfactory’.

31min Gerard – the MWI shows that we are not there yet. We have not found the right description for our universe. All we have today are templates – that is our description, but its not what it actually is.

34min Carlo – his relational theory. Which is not MWI. Take QM seriously, relational QM takes QM at face value. The properties of objects are always measured with respect to something else. Velocity is the property of an object relative to something else.

36min Carlo starts talking about quantum gravity. We need to use relational QM to help us get to quantum gravity.

37min Science is a long sequence of us discovering that we were wrong. The world is different. If we end up agreeing on QM then this changes realism and philosophy – which Carlo thinks that will be the case. QM is the final theory for him.

#### 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

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  —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

We posit that the de Broglie wave as a real physical wave produced by interactions between any massive particle and the gravitational background zero point field.

de Broglie waves are tied to momentum. They are associated with any free particle. For instance an electron or a Buckyball.  In my view they are some sort of beat phenomenon – doppler effect.

There is a huge background of Gravitational waves at some very large frequency – (perhaps Planckian).

How physically would waves associate with every single mass ? The only possible coupling is through mass itself.  So what is the result of something the mass of an electron on a homogenous gravitational wave background?

The mass will distort the background wave pattern.

From this distortion would come some sort of interference pattern. Think of the rubber mat analogy. There would be a dent for the electron in a sea of waves. Would this effect a much much lower frequency effect – de Broglie waves -?

If we take the mass of the particle as m, and the frequency of the background waves as 1.85e43 Hz. Perhaps this gives us the ‘dark energy’, along with quantum guidance rules.

#### Introduction

The de Broglie wave is a wave that can be used to predict the quantum behaviour of particles. Its a wavelength that is tied to momentum.

The de Broglie wavelength is the wavelength, λ, associated with a massive particle and is related to its momentum, p, through the Planck constant, h: $\lambda ={\frac {h}{p}}.$

This wave seems puzzling. Its tied to momentum, so for an observers travelling with different velocities will measure different de Broglie wavelengths. This is often taken as an indication of the non – reality of these waves. But there is a simple explanation for this – and its based on special relativity.

#### de Broglie beats and the Compton frequency:

"de Broglie made a second, less well known conjecture. If you combine
the E=mc2 and the E=hf equations (where f is frequency), you arrive
at the Compton frequency. de Broglie's conjecture was that the
Compton frequency reflected, in the case of the electron (quarks
were not yet discovered), some kind of fundamental intrinsic
oscillation or circulation of charge associated with the electron.
However it is now known that this presumed oscillation can also be
interpreted instead as being externally driven by the zero-point
fluctuations of the quantum vacuum (see chap. 12 of the monograph
"The Quantum Dice" by de la Pena and Cetto).

Now comes a very intriguing result. One can easily show that if the
electron really does oscillate at the Compton frequency in its own rest
frame, when you view the electron from a moving frame a beat frequency
becomes superimposed on this oscillation due to a Doppler shift. It turns
out that this beat frequency proves to be exactly the de Broglie wavelength of a moving electron." http://www.calphysics.org/mass.html

There is still a problem though. The de Broglie relationship holds for any object, experimentally measured up to a Buckyball with hundreds of component particles. Thus the de Broglie wavelength is some effect of mass combined with motion. The only effect that mass has on a purely classical geometric world is the Schwarzschild ‘indent’ on the background space time.

So how can an indent give rise to a beat frequency?

This result may be generalized to include ZPF radiation from all other directions, as
may be found in the monograph of de la Pena and Cetto . They conclude by stating:
“The foregoing discussion assigns a physical meaning to de Broglie’s wave: it is the mod-ulation of the wave formed by the Lorentz-transformed, Doppler-shifted superposition of the whole set of random stationary electromagnetic waves of frequency ωC with which the electron interacts selectively.”

Assume some white noise like stochastic gravitational wave spectrum as a background on that exists everywhere in the universe (as it undoubtedly does, with only the amplitude unknown). What is the result of viewing a truncated Schwarzschild solution moving (say slowly to ease the math at first) through this background?

One would expect lensing of this stochastic field. The field will refract modes that match its characteristic size. This size scales to its mass. First consider a particle at rest with respect to the observer. With the dent this causes in space time we see a time dilation which affects the waves cumulatively, causing an internal Compton frequency – which is a result of the $\nu ={\frac {mc^2}{h}}.$

Another solution as explained by Rober Schuler

There is an obvious heuristic, however, which provides the needed frequency sum to a good
approximation. We need only assume that, like Schrödinger waves, de Broglie waves are related to the probability of finding a particle. Let p(A) be the probability of finding A, and p(B) the probability of finding B, and assume these meanings continue to hold if A and B are bound together. One of the interesting aspects of de Broglie’s paper (actually his thesis, which was printed in a journal), is a section treating bound particles where both are considered to be moving. [Ibid. 12] By contrast, when using Schrödinger’s analysis, stationary confinement boundaries and potentials are used (which would be associated with particles, e.g. a stationary nucleus, that have infinite de Broglie wavelength). Since we are only able to find the bound pair AB if we find both A and B, then the probability of finding AB must be p(AB) = p(A)p(B). If “p” is a sinusoidal function, then indeed the product of two such functions reduces by a common trig identity to a term involving the sum of the frequencies of p(A) and p(B), and a term involving their difference. The sum frequency corresponds perfectly to the frequency of the sum of the masses of A and B.
The only problem is what to do with the difference frequency? Wignall’s method was speculative, and we can’t use it anyway because he was not using probability, but complex valued functions. However, as an approximation we can observe two things. First, in the case of common nuclear particles, whether we treat them as hadrons (protons, neutrons), or quarks, the masses are approximately the same and the difference frequencies are therefore approximately zero. Second, in the case of the binding of electrons to a nucleus, the electron mass is to a good approximation negligible. It

Once this relationship is obtained, the de Broglie matter waves are a necessary conclusion, as the literature indicates.

So one is left with the task of showing that any truncated Schwarzschild solution will cause an internal frequency – a mode trap – when its sitting in a stochastic gravitational field.

The next step

Assume standing GR waves (in well defined the universal rest frame). 1.85e43 Hz. Then there is a Schwarzschild solution sitting in that standing wave bath.

Time dilation lapse function sqrt(1- 2M/r) becomes simply 1-M/r unless you are within 1e-30m of an electron. So that is the lapse function. What beat frequency does our planckian background generate ? – The compton frequency. Redshift.

Take equation for z (r -> inf) and mult by the huge planck frequency. You then get the compton frequency. Solve the equation for the radius of the electron and get the planck length. (But this requires that the electron is quite small and that the buckyball is even smaller! – also this calculation is for a monochromatic wave – not a stochastic background).  What about using the width of the

So that is the size of the electron. One planck size will give you a gravitational (blueshift from outside) of the compton electron frequency.

https://en.wikipedia.org/api/re
st_v1/media/math/render/svg/d50a640dc99823e7f650b0c2580ec3bc51ea7ddd

#### de Broglie

The proton de Broglie frequency is about the exact same number – $2.3 x 10^23 Hz$

“He asserted that quantum mechanics was intrinsically relativistic and proposed that the pilot wave originates in internal particle oscillations at the Compton frequency, ωc =mc2/h ̄, 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 = h ̄ k, then relates the particle momentum to the de Broglie wavelength, λdB = 2π/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]

and try to find your friend at the other end.” — Leonard Susskind

In this talk Leonard Susskind gives a convincing argument as to why he th inks that ER == EPR , where ER denotes an Einstein – Rosen Bridge (aka wormhole) and EPR is the Einstein Podolsky Rosen paper (essentially entanglement).

Leonard draws three entangled pairs of particles on the chalkboard, (image its not merely 3 by 3e40) and then collapse the left and right down to black holes, then the entaglement must continue, and thus ER == EPR

Take a ring of rotating matter.

No matter what frequency it rotates at, there is no General Relativistic waves emanating from it.

Now assume that the matter starts to clump up into two balls. NOW we have GR radiation.

Now run the camera in reverse.

What we have is an object that aggressively reflects (exchanges) GR radiation with other similar objects at the same frequency.

The rings I am talking about are the mass of an electron and very very small.

#### The classical gravitational radiation of Atoms:

Over the course of the lifetime of the universe, the Hydrogen atom releases 8 eV of energy as gravitational waves. So if its in a bath of these waves, then the loss would be much less – virtually zero.

For large atoms one would think that this energy exchange would be bigger. Of course ‘the actual path’ of the electron matters. The base energy level of an electron

Einstein in 1916 when wrote:

“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.”

Why did Einstein worry about something that would effect the lifetime of an atom on time scales of the universe vs the tiny amount of time that a classical hydrogen at radiates EM energy?

Possibility of measuring something here.

1. Get a lot of heavy atoms in ‘sync’ (NMR?)
2. Radiating some amount of GR away, perhaps measure that on another bunch of similarly prepared atoms?
3. ??? likely nothing…?

Also related — ? http://arxiv.org/abs/0708.3343 Thermal gravitational waves. 80 MW from the Sun, from atoms sliding near each other.

Its also easy to see that the resulting model is fully compatible with relativity and GR. Its after all made entirely out of gravity.

#### )

1. Use formula for watts emitted by a rod of mass m rotating at a frequency.
2. http://www.twinkletoesengineering.info/atoms.htm
3. So the uranium inner orbit has a velocity of 0.5c and a radius 1/8 that of hydrogen
5. So we have 7.3e18 Hz and a radiative power of 10^-23 watts

Take this radiated power, and assume that uranium is thus in a bath of GR waves at 10^19  hz, so that it emits on average the same amount that it absorbs, (like SEDs only a lot easier   to imagine).

Experiment: Now take a semi-sphere of uranium and put a test mass in the middle. If its uranium (i.e. tuned to the neighbouring shell) it will feel some force, but if its something with a different material and hence different frequency pattern of gravitational waves, it will not feel the force from the shell. Better experiment: Two massive plates, one uranium or lead, the other with a different material of same mass but different inner orbital frequencies. Then hook up one of those torsion threads to two balls on an arm, one of each material, and look for a rotational force. (Using some with force materials).

#### Classical Nucleus – nucleus GW interaction.

Iron nucleus – speed of nucleons is (20 MeV kinetic energy) and say one pair is radiating Gravitational waves: r = 1 fm, so

I get about 1e-25 watts or so. (using this) . Model is that nucleons are moving about in the nucleus, and at times have a quadrupole motion, which is on the order of a bar of mass 2 nucleons, spinning about a fm apart at the 10^23 hz of the nucleon rotational period in a fermi gas model nucleus. (Note that the Sivaram and Arun paper about thermal gravitational radiation from neutron stars shows about a billion times less than this.

Taking 1e-25 watts – which is 10e-7 eV/second I can calculate the pressure between two 10kg masses 0.1 metres apart, I get 10^-10 newtons. This is about the right amount of effect to mess up all the newtonian gravitational constant experiments.

Using Pressure = E/c , where E is in Watts/metres^2 and 1e-25 watts per nucleon emitted, assume complete absorption. (not cross section is assumed about the physical size of the nucleon, which is also the gravitational wavelength). Then we get the 10^-10 newtons.

Gravity force between 2 10kg masses at 0.1 apart is 6.7e-7 Newtons.

This force is not the nuclear strong force or the electromagnetic force, (which are stronger) but simply assuming that the nucleus can be treated classically for gravitational waves. The nucleons generate GWs which are can be absorbed by another nucleon of the same kind.

Cavendish Experiment

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

#### 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

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?

“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.”

Take a run of the mill graviton detector: (Not yet built, nor would they be easy to build!).

Put it on a table top, on this planet. Say its detecting 1,000 gravitons per second. Now pull the table out – quickly but smoothly. How may gravitons will it see on its 0.5 second trip to the floor?

According to the equivalence principle: When it drops off the shelf, it is supposed to stop seeing gravitons.

According to QFT – the device is still in a gravitational field, so it will see about 500 gravitons on its half second journey. Note that the speed of the detector has not changed appreciably when it first starts to fall. “All experimental quantities are unchanged”.

This simple thought experiment lies at the

Thoughts:

Turbulence in GR is linear and hence does not give rise to cumulative gravitational effects. Indeed, the power that can be transmitted using GR as a factor of the ‘gravity caused’ is immense. For instance: at the power transfer of energy at the Schwinger limit (here I assume 3×1029 watts/m2), the non linear effect – the gravity term is very low.

Say (see http://arxiv.org/pdf/1007.4306v3.pdf) 3×1029 watts/m2 (at optical freq).\

Consider a 1 metre3 box with perfect mirrors at the schwinger limit – how much does that much radiation weigh?

I get 1×1021 Joules per cubic metre at any one time, so that’s 11.1 tonnes. (http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=10%5E21Joules%2F%28c%5E2%29)

That seems like a lot of mass, but 11 tonnes in a cubic metre is not going to alter the static gravitational field much even in the low field limit like that of the earth.

That 11 tonne figure is interesting, as it is also the density of lead. Its strange (or not) that the Schwinger limit is also the density of normal matter.

From the book I am reading now: ( Fields of Color: The theory that escaped Einstein  — Rodney A. Brooks)

“… spin is an abstract mathematical concept that is related to the number of field components and how they change when viewed at from different angles. The more field components, the higher the spin.” 0  ,  1/2  ,  1  , 2  are the spin values so gravity has more field components. Can we mimic a field with a lower number of field components with one that has more field components? Yes. So we generate everything from gravity.

Einstein was of course worried about the electromagnetic radiation emitted from a classical Bohr atom. But I have also learned that he was worried about the GR radiation from that same atom that he claimed was ‘not observed’. I think that the waves would be of very low energy but I should work that out. (re – replenishment from the turbulent gravity).

Random Q: Were there about 5 times TOO MANY GALAXIES in the early universe – which would jive with my thought that dark matter is matter gone dark. In the early Universe matter was packed too tightly for there to be any dark stuff, so there was more galaxy formation. A: Possibly see for instance – http://astronomynow.com/2015/11/21/hubble-survey-reveals-early-galaxies-were-more-efficient-at-making-stars/

Random Q: Frame dragging. Would any other physics change over one of Tamjar’s rotating superconductors where he sees anomalous gravitational effects – i.e. look at decay rates of common isotopes, etc.

Random Q: There is the experiment in Italy where they see decay rates changing as the year advances, which is anomalous. Wonder if some frame dragging can take care of that.

### 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). 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 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.”.

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.

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 and Hadley’s 4-geons. 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 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.

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

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.. 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: 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 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.   Robert Brady. The irrotational motion of a compressible inviscid fluid. page 8, jan 2013.
2.   Robert Brady and Ross Anderson. Why bouncing droplets are a pretty good model of quantummechanics. jan 2014.
3.   Richard Brito, Vitor Cardoso, and Paolo Pani. Superradiance, volume 906 of Lecture Notes in Physics.Springer International Publishing, Cham, jan 2015.
4.   Mark P. Davidson. Stochastic Models of Quantum Mechanics A Perspective. In AIP ConferenceProceedings, volume 889, pages 106–119. AIP, oct 2007.
5.   L. de la Pena and A. M. Cetto. Contribution from stochastic electrodynamics to the understanding ofquantum mechanics. page 34, jan 2005.
6.   William E. East, Fethi M. Ramazanolu, and Frans Pretorius. Black hole superradiance in dynamicalspacetime. Physical Review D, 89(6):061503, mar 2014.
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.   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.   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.   J. Maldacena and L. Susskind. Cool horizons for entangled black holes. Fortschritte der Physik,61(9):781–811, sep 2013.
11.   CharlesWMisnerandJohnAWheeler.Classicalphysicsasgeometry.AnnalsofPhysics,2(6):525–603,dec 1957.
12.   TheoM.NieuwenhuizenandMatthewT.P.Liska.SimulationofthehydrogengroundstateinStochasticElectrodynamics. page 20, feb 2015.
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
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

EPR effects have been shown in the lab to agree with QM to a high degree – even when the events are space like separated.

But what if the ‘instant – non communication’ – the wave collapse – happens instantly only in the preferred rest frame of the Universe (the one we are going through at about 670km/sec)

Then experiments like Aspects would show agreement with QM, but a much more finely tuned experiment might get some sort of non QM effect happening if the two measurements are done such that in the hypothesized rest frame B is before A.

So instead of merely looking for B to be outside the light cone of A, we look for the EPR collapse effect to continue (or not) by looking at the rest frame of the universe.

Perhaps even reanalysing the data from some EPR experiments that have already been done might show something!

I have been thinking about frame dragging and faster than light travel for a few days, and then about the fact that quantum collapse seems to take place ‘instantly’ (faster than light).

So then I read about the photon size for a 1MHz radio wave which is 300 metres – quite large.

So this huge wave has to refract as a wave and yet somehow instantly collapse into a very small area to be absorbed? Instantly? Insanity!

Wild thought: Frame dragging faster than light and gravitational shock waves to the rescue!

Answer: Collapse is a shockwave that causes frame dragging, allowing for ‘instant’ effects to happen (also EPR).

Frame dragging can in principle be used to travel faster than the speed of light. This is a known scientific fact that is thought to be non possible in practice due to all sorts of limitations. Science fiction of course loves it.

So a soliton forms and sweeps energy out of the wave and into the reception antenna.

If we could control this soliton collapse – we could perhaps harness it to perform faster than light communication and travel.

The soliton ‘shock wave’ is composed of gravity (as is light and everything else). It would have to have some very specific configuration.

Frame Dragging

Frame dragging occurs with linear effects too. My thought experiment on this is through a Mach – like view point. If you are inside at the middle of a very long pipe, which starts to accelerate, you will be dragged along. If the pipe stops at some velocity, you will approach that velocity eventually.

So space couples not to mass but to matter. If it just coupled to mass, you would not be able to tell if your neutron rope was moving or not. It couples instead to the actual bits of matter.

What about circularly polarized gravitational waves – timed so that the squished part is always in front and the expansion is behind the particle? So that’s 90 degrees from direction of travel of the waves – but perhaps they can be entrained as a soliton solution. Soliton

#### 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