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.

]]>

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

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.**

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.

Also see https://gravityphysics.com/2013/10/20/how-to-make-dark-matter/

–Tom

]]>

Its quite reasonably done. Host Dr. Matt O’Dowd takes a 15 min tour through the history of the theory, mentioning John von Neumann, David Bohm, Einstein, Louis de Broglie, Niels Bohr and others. The basics are there and the level is a large step higher than TV, making it good to watch even if you know all the basics already. Since 90% of popular physics over the past decade has been on strings and the multiverse, I feel its great when a theory that actually has a possibility to be correct gets some air time, so that’s why I am mentioning it here.

Matt mentions this video by Veritasium which has 1.3 million views! I thought QM interpretations was a backwater in the physics backwater, but its seems not always.

Matt has an account at patreon here where you can catch up with other PBS video https://www.patreon.com/pbsspacetime , and Veritasium has one here https://www.patreon.com/veritasium .

]]>

In the approach used in the quantum vacuum plasma thruster (also known as a Q thruster) supporting physics models, the zero point field (ZPF) plays the role of the guiding wave in a similar manner to the vacuum-based pilot-wave theories. To be specific, the vacuum fluctuations (virtual fermions and virtual photons) serves as the dynamic medium that guides a real particle on its way. ...... If the vacuum is indeed mutable and degradable as was explored, then it might be possible to do/extract work on/from the vacuum, and thereby be possible to push off of the quantum vacuum and preserve the laws of conservation of energy and conservation of momentum.

This widely distributed paper puts the ideas of realist interpretations of QM in the news, as evidenced by articles here, here and here. That’s good in my opinion, as more eyes on the field, the better. Some may think that conflating the EM Drive with an emergent quantum mechanics will only harm the field once the EM Drive is put to rest in a few more years, but that’s not how publicity works.

There has been a lot of action about these drives over the past decade or two. I am totally open to new ‘unexplained’ physics, but one wonders why this phenomena has not been experimentally accepted after all this time and energy. For reference’s sake, a long awaited upheaval of physics may come from an unexplained yet established result along these lines, but Kuhn’s ideas suggest that well established theories can explain any result, and so we may instead have to look for theories that provide simpler explanations for established experimental results.

]]>

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.

]]>

(This article is a work in progress…)

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.

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:

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 made a second, less well known conjecture. If you combine the E=mc^{2}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 [5]. 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

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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_redshift – there are

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

The proton de Broglie frequency is about the exact same number –

“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]

]]>

In this talk Leonard Susskind gives a convincing argument as to why he thinks 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

]]>

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.

]]>

Is there experimental evidence that Einstein’s relationship holds for gravity? This paper explores the consequences of the non existence of the graviton – that classical gravitational radiation is emitted by all objects in quadrupole motion. The effects of this on the measured properties of the hydrogen atom, along with possibilities to experimentally measure the effects of atomic or nuclear scale gravitational radiation is explored. Experiments similar to those that are measuring ‘big G’ might be able to detect the presence of such stochastic compton – like frequency background gravitational waves. Experiments in this class look feasible with today’s technology, and are thus important tests of quantum gravity.

Planck’s constant is involved in all quantum mechanical interactions. Much of quantum mechanics can be derived from the relation of the energy of an electromagnetic interaction to its wavelength:

(1) .

This quantum of action, first derived from electromagnetic phenomena, is assumed to be ubiquitous in physics. Thus the strong and weak forces are also supposed to be governed by this quantum of action using force carriers that are not photons. Actual quantum experiments are harder to do on the weak and strong force, but things like the range of these forces and their overall behaovoir are modelled well using quantum physics. All is good so far.

One of the biggest problems in physics is the quantum gravity problem. There are many possible solutions proposed to this problem, but almost all of them suppose the existence of the graviton. The graviton should have the same energy relation as the photon:

(2)

This is an assumption. There not only exists no experimental confirmation of this relationship for gravity, its also widely known that an experiment to detect a single graviton is well beyond the capabilities of any present or future experimentalist.

Of course if then quantum mechanics is incomplete, as the quantization of a field requires that the quantum of action is described by energy relations similar to those above. Given the success of quantum mechanics, is assumed to hold.

Einstein in 1916 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 (gravitational waves from atoms) that would effect the lifetime of an atom on very long time scales (of order billions of times the age of the universe) vs the tiny amount of time that a classical hydrogen atom would radiate away its EM energy? Furthermore, many orbitals of the hydrogen atom have no quadrupole moment whatsoever. (The shape of the orbitals of the hydrogen atom were not known in 1916 though).

If we look at the energy loss rate of a 1916 style Bohr ‘planetary’ hydrogen atom in the ground state, using Eddington’s [ref 1] formula for the gravitational energy radiated by a two body system (in the approximation that one mass is much heavier):

(3)

Which even over the age of the universe amounts to an energy loss due to gravitational waves for a hydrogen atom of only . This calculation was available to Einstein – whether he performed it or not. Why was he worried about such as small rate of energy loss for a hydrogen atom? In contrast the classical electromagnetic lifetime of the classical hydrogen atom is about which of course helped lead to the discovery of quantum mechanics.

As a comparison to the above extremely simple estimate, a more formal measurement of the lifetime of the state lifetime for emitting a graviton is , which compares to within a few orders of magnitude with my estimate above converted to a lifetime of about . See the *Problem Book in Relativity and Gravitation*, problem 18.18. (Solutions given)

This is nevertheless some energy loss, and further gravitational radiation would be expected from the quarks confined to the proton in the hydrogen atom, where a similar calculation using proton dimension, mass and frequencies results in a energy rate of

(4)

Which is much higher, about an eV per week per proton. Furthermore this naïve calculation is only likely accurate to within a few orders of magnitude. The proton would not simply radiate energy however as protons tend to exist in the neighbourhood of other protons. Indeed since all protons are the same, the spectrums of these gravitational emissions would line up and protons would lie in a bath of stochastic gravitational radiation, picking up and losing energy via gravitational radiation, in much same manner as an atom in a gas neither gains nor loses energy on average.

If one supposes that protons have their own bath of stochastic gravitational waves to survive in, then experiments to detect the effects of this small amount of radiation might be difficult. If one looks instead at the gravitational radiation of high Z nuclei, then we can get different effects – each element would have its own characteristic spectrum of gravitational waves. Thus experiments similar to those done to look for ‘big G’ might be able to obtain different results by using dissimilar materials for the masses whose force of attraction is to be measured. It is notable that experiments to determine Newton’s constant G have had great difficulty of obtaining consistent results. Most measurements of G do not agree with each other to within the errors determined very carefully by the experimenters. (references on big G searches).

There might be shielding effects that could be measured.

Consider figure two. (iron is a bad example due to magnetic effects, so use lead instead).

The aluminum and lead ‘shielding panels’ would both be the same volume and mass (lots of holes drilled in the lead one). If the lead panel shields the lead more than the aluminum one, then a net torque would be seen. Similar to a fifth force experiment (Ref – in mendely – Search for an intermediate-range composition-dependent force coupling to N-Z).

The aluminum and lead plates in the experiment below might interact differently with the 4 lead test masses. The idea is that the stochastic gravitational radiation from the lead test masses will interact weakly with the plate, creating a small repulsive force that results in less attraction than in the case with the aluminum plate in experimental sketch below.

What is the expected value of the torque assuming that there exists a stochastic gravitational wave background idealized as being in two frequency bands? The stochastic gravitational frequencies of the aluminium nuclei are assumed to *not* match those of the lead. What is the power involved? Treat an lead nucleus as having several nuclei orbiting it at the radius of the nucleus at some internal velocity of an lead nucleus.

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

I get about or so. (using this) . The rough 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 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, since it deals with nuclei passing each other at relatively slow speeds and large distances).

Using Pressure = E/c , where E is in Watts/metres^2 and 1e-25 watts per nucleon emitted, with complete absorption. (the cross section is assumed about the physical size of the nucleon, which is also the gravitational wavelength). This comes out to 10^-10 newtons.

Taking 1e-25 watts – which is 10e-7 eV/second, calculate the pressure between two 10kg masses 0.1 metres apart – about 10^-10 newtons. So for the experiment outlined above, we get forces in the range of 10^-10 Newtons, and for the Aluminum side, a much smaller force – since there is no interaction with the plate. The difference is about equal to the last digit in ‘big G’ experiments. Thus current big G experiments may be effected by this effect, as they don’t setup the experiment in a neutral manner, but seek to measure the force. In other words the various vacuum chambers (some constructed of Aluminium, some from stainless steel) and other experimental details like the composition of the test masses may be affecting the outcome of these big G experiments.

In order to get an adequate cross section for these short wavelength gravity waves we need a thickness of material such that a nucleus is in any line of sight through the iron. Assuming that the cross section is about the physical size of the nucleus that works out to about 10cm requirement for the mass sizes. i.e. the effect will maximize when the masses are 10 cm in size and the plate is also about 10cm in size. (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nuclear/crosec.html#c1)

The normal attractive Gravitational force between 2 10kg masses at 0.1m apart is 6.7e-7 Newtons. So the size of the effect proposed here comes in at something like the uncertainty in Big G measurements.

This force created by 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.

Almost all quantum physics experiments done to date have used electromagnetic interactions.

http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10582/the-energy-of-a-graviton

Does that not prove the existence of gravitons?

On the electromagnetic side, classical physics predicts that hot objects will instantly radiate all their heat as electromagnetic waves. This is one way to appreciate the Ultraviolet Catastrophe. Yet even the accepted 1905 electromagnetic collapse of the hydrogen atom is in question as the field of Stochastic Electrodynamics has shown. (Timothy H. Boyer 2015 arXiv)

Since gravitational radiation is ‘the same as electromagnetic radiation’, a similar effect should happen for gravitational waves. But it does not in the model presented here. Look at the classical radiation of gravitational waves by a hydrogen atom – . Hardly a catastrophe. Even in the subatomic realm other physics gets in the way of having an ultraviolet catastrophe via gravitational wave radiation. One way to look at this avoidance is that the laws of quantum mechanics in the electromagnetic (and strong) structure of the micro-world physically save the ultraviolet catastrophe from happening in the GR world. So GR does not need quantization to avoid run away ultraviolet effects. See also a 1984 paper by Lee Smolin:

Another more speculative way of looking at this is that electromagnetism arose from GR as an emergent phenomena as run away ultraviolet effects tried to happen in the early universe. Its a case of electromagnetism arising as a defence mechanism against a ultraviolet catastrophe. Order from chaos and all that.

Classical physics predicted that hot objects would instantly radiate away all their heat into electromagnetic waves. The calculation, which was based on Maxwell’s equations and Statistical Mechanics, showed that the radiation rate went to infinity as the EM wavelength went to zero, “The Ultraviolet Catastrophe”. Plank solved the problem by postulating that EM energy was emitted in quanta

In many theories of emergent quantum mechanics, quantum behaviour emerges from an underlying media. {references}. *In other words the underlying media for quantum mechanics is not governed by quantum mechanics*. Since this author is proposing that quantum effects emerge from classical general relativity, gravity should not be quantized, , and any quadrupole motion should produce gravitational waves.

1. A.S. Eddington, Proceedings of the Royal Society (London) A 102, 268 (1923).

4.

]]>

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.

- Get a lot of heavy atoms in ‘sync’ (NMR?)
- Radiating some amount of GR away, perhaps measure that on another bunch of similarly prepared atoms?
- ??? 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.

- Use formula for watts emitted by a rod of mass m rotating at a frequency.
- http://www.twinkletoesengineering.info/atoms.htm
- So the uranium inner orbit has a velocity of 0.5c and a radius 1/8 that of hydrogen
- http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=(0.5*c)%2F(2*pi*(hydrogen+atom+radius)%2F8)
- 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).

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.

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

]]>