ENERGY IS EVERYTHING
Quantum
Explanation of Gravity and Inertia
David W. Talmage and Richard
J. Sanderson
Webb Waring Institute at the
University of Colorado
Health Sciences Center
Denver, CO 80262
This paper argues that the
infinities that have plagued previous attempts to quantize gravity can be
avoided by changing the causal sequence by which the quantum field produces the
attractive force. Instead of acting
directly on matter particles as with electromagnetism, we are proposing that in
the case of gravity the quantum field acts indirectly through a change in the
speed of light. This difference permits
us to use the same explanation for the inverse square laws that characterize
both forces, while giving unique explanations for the unique properties of the
gravitational field: its relative weakness, its non-absorbability and its
ability to produce a change in the clock rate of matter particles and a
curvature of light path. At the same
time, our proposal that the speed of light controls the energy content of
matter particles creates a central role for the isotropic light speed
frame. Although this frame cannot be
detected, the energy content of matter particles will be affected by their
motion relative to this frame. In this
way the equivalence of gravity and acceleration and the requirement for energy
exchange to produce the latter can be explained.
Introduction
In
the final issue of Scientific American
for the 20th Century, Sir John Maddox[1], former Editor of Nature,
asserted that “The central problem in fundamental physics is that quantum
mechanics and Einstein's theory of gravitation are incompatible.” This paper is
an effort to construct a causal model of gravity that will avoid this problem. It is a quantum process comprising two
elements: 1) a reduction in the speed of light by a quantum energy field that
surrounds all particles of energy, and 2)
the production of the force of gravity from the effect that a change in the
speed of light has on the energy content of matter particles. The proposal is
supported by Einstein’s initial interpretation of his General Theory of
Relativity (GR), which placed a limitation on his earlier theory’s (SR)
assumption that the speed of light was constant [2], and by our calculation
that the observed curvature of light around the sun is the least time path [3].
It consists of five postulates (highlighted in bold type), which form a logical
sequence and, while not proven, are compatible with all confirmed observations
1. The Universe consists only of energy.
Space and time are the dimensions within which energy moves.
Everything
we know is made of energy, in the form of matter or radiation. One of the most striking attributes of
energy is its strict conservation: the
creation or destruction of energy has never been observed. Thus, energy has the attributes needed in a
candidate fundamental building block of the Universe.
According to our hypothesis, therefore, energy [E] rather
than mass [M] is the third physical dimension in addition to space and time,
and all particles are naturally energy particles. Mass has the dimensions of [M] º [ET2/L2].
There appear to be two types
of energy particles, those that always travel at the speed of light and those
that never do so. The first type has
constant velocity and variable energy; the second type has a variable velocity
and a constant rest energy.. According
to our hypothesis mass is nothing more than a measurement of the quantity of
energy, and the equation, E = mc2 [4], applies to photons and
neutrinos as well as to electrons and protons.
But regardless of how one views the question of the photon's or
neutrino's rest mass, there is no evidence that mass exists separately from
energy, or that energy exists without mass.
This leads naturally to an explanation of the equivalence of
gravitational and inertial mass, on which Einstein founded his GR [5]. If matter particles consist only of energy
and nothing else, then it is their intrinsic energy content that determines
both their gravitational and inertial masses.
It follows that these two masses are identical.
Newton’s
universal law of gravitation raised the issue of action-at-a-distance. A quantity called the ether was proposed to fill all of space and serve as a reference
frame and a transmission medium for all actions between matter. The claim is often made that Einstein
abolished the ether [6] by the use
of a transformation of localized
coordinates of space and time. But this
does not mean that he proved that an ether does not exist.. In addition the inability to detect the
ether with laboratory experiments can
be explained by the predictions, confirmed by observation, that the motion of
matter particles in the ether produces changes in the clocks and measuring
sticks that exactly cancel the expected effects of such motion on the measured
speed of light. The result is that the
measured speed of light is the same in every inertial frame.
We believe that it is
appropriate to propose that an ether-like reference frame exists. We call it
the isotropic light speed frame (ILSF), and it serves as a substitute for the
standard space-time continuum. Our arguments
for an ILSF are based on the constancy of the speed of light and its
independence from the velocity of its source [7]. Energy is considered as radiation or matter operating within the
ILSF.
The ILSF postulate leaves
open the question of whether this frame is created by something that is
separate from energy or is in fact created by all the energy of the Universe,
since there is as yet no observational evidence to determine this conclusively..
The Stanford gravity probe [8], which has been in the planning stage now for
several decades, is designed to answer the question of whether the rotation of
the earth relative to the stars can produce a tiny dragging effect on the
framework of space. If this dragging
effect can be detected it would indicate that the framework of space (the ILSF)
is created by the matter or energy of the Universe and does not exist independently
of that energy.
One observation already made is the Shapiro time delay of a light beam that was bounced off of Venus, when the path of this light beam passed near to the sun [9] These observations were explained by Shapiro in terms of the curvature of space-time described by Einstein’s equations, according to which the gravitational field produces a reduction in both clock rate and ruler length. They may be explained equally well by a decrease in light speed as the gravitational field increases, as long as the units of time and distance used are those existing on the earth and not those that are presumed to exist at the surface of the sun. The amount of light speed reduction required to explain the observed time delay is twice the observed reduction in clock rate, a fact that reflects the equal fractional change in the units of time and length. This certainly suggests that the gravitational field determines the framework of space as measured by the speed of light.
As
a result of the above discussion and observations it would appear valid to say
that the Universe consists only of energy.
If there is only one substance in the Universe, namely energy, then our
speculations regarding causal relationships are greatly simplified. All
observed interactions must be between particles of energy, and must be a
reflection of the properties of energy.
Energy is everything.
2. The
gravitational field, like the electromagnetic field, is produced by the quantum
field of distributed energy.
If
the Universe consists only of energy then the gravitational field must also
consist of energy. Because of the
identical inverse square laws that are common to both the gravitational and
electromagnetic fields, we believe it is appropriate to propose that a similar
quantum mechanism is responsible for the production of both forces.
Quantum electrodynamics
(QED), though difficult to visualize, provides an accurate mathematical
description of the electromagnetic field.
According to QED a strange and important property of energy is the
uncertainty of its position, which seems to follow a probabilistic distribution
[10]. All forms of free energy and matter can behave simultaneously both as
particles and also as waves. As particles they are located in a
particular place and time, but as waves they spread out over space to
infinity. Energy appears to travel many
different paths simultaneously as demonstrated by the fact that a single photon
or a single electron will interfere with itself if two different paths differ
by half of its wavelength.
This uncertainty about paths reflects a more general ‘Uncertainty Principle’. This principle allows for the creation of particles of free energy (or matter) for periods of time equal to Planck's constant divided by the energy content of the particle. These ‘virtual’ particles have not been seen, but the accurate calculation of the electron's magnetic moment requires the assumption that the electron is surrounded by a cloud of virtual particles [11]. Because of the uncertainty principle, virtual particles with large amounts of energy (e.g. the gluons and mesons that hold the protons and neutrons in the nucleus) have a very short life span, and cannot be formed very far from the source particle. According to Gribbin (12) “The rule of thumb, from the uncertainty principle, is that such a virtual photon can only move half its own wavelength from the electron” or source particle.
This rule of thumb would
make the energy content of virtual particles inversely proportional to the
first power of the distance from the source particle. But in order to explain
the inverse square laws we believe that it is necessary to propose that the density
of this ‘distributed’ wave-like energy per unit volume of space is also
inversely proportional to the first power of the distance. And we also propose that it is this
distributed energy which creates the ILSF and the gravitational field in the
same way that the virtual particles of QED create the electromagnetic forces..
The
alternative to the quantum energy field as a source for the gravitational force
is that non-virtual or real particles of energy are radiated out from all
matter and produce the gravitational potential. The energy concentration of such a radiation would decrease as
the square of the distance, which should cause the force to decrease as the
cube of the distance. In addition, the
continuous radiation of energy, unlike the probabilistic distribution of
energy, would produce a continuous drain of energy from the source particles. And all known real particles of energy,
unlike virtual particles, can be absorbed.
3. The primary effect of the
quantum gravitational field is a reduction in the speed of light.
There are four observed effects of a gradient
in the gravitational field. Two of
these, the clock rate change and the attractive force of gravity affect matter
particles only and thus cannot be primary to the reduction in the speed of
light which can be demonstrated in the absence of responding matter. A third effect, the curvature of light, can
be explained as a secondary effect of the change in light speed (see [3]). The equations of GR describe a curvature of
space-time that is often assumed to explain the other effects predicted by the
theory. But the equations do not
specify a causal sequence, and according to our model it is the changed light
speed that produces the apparent curvature of space-time, not the reverse.
A
strong argument for a causal relationship between the reduction in the speed of
light, the reduction in the clock rate of matter particles and the reduction in
the energy content of matter particles is the exact two-fold difference between
the change in the speed of light and the last two effects. If the quantum field acted directly on
matter particles there would be no explanation of this exact correlation.
Another
advantage of assuming that the change in light speed is the primary effect of
the quantum field is that it avoids the infinities that have plagued previous
attempts to quantize gravity. This is
because the change in the speed of light is like the change in the quantum
energy field in that both of them are inversely proportional to the first power
of the distance. What remains is to
show how the slope in the speed of light relates to an attractive force and to
explain why the force of gravity between two electrons is 10-37 times
the force of the electric charge.
4. The weakness of the
gravitational force compared to the other forces is due to the indirect
mechanism by which the quantum energy field acts on matter particles.
In
the case of the strong nuclear force there is a specific virtual particle, the
gluon, the exchange of which is thought to produce the force. And it seems likely that the electric and
magnetic forces are also mediated by the exchange of specific particles, which
are generally thought to be photons.
With gravity, however, we are proposing that there isn’t a specific
particle that is exchanged, such as the postulated graviton. Rather we postulate that the quantum energy
field acts indirectly on matter particles by reducing the speed of light. This explains all of the unique properties
of gravity, particularly the inability of large masses to absorb the field to
which they respond. This is different
from the electromagnetic fields, which are completely absorbed and neutralized
by the responding particles. Because of
the non-absorbability of the gravitational field, local masses must exert their
effect as a small increment on top of the much greater gravitational field of
the entire Universe. This explains the
relative weakness of gravity and implies that unlike the electric charge,
gravity is not a gauge force.
5.
Inertia results when the energy content of a particle is affected by its
motion relative to the ILSF.
The
fact that a reduction in the speed of light is accompanied by a reduction in
the clock rate of matter particles indicates that the quantum energy field
affects the speed of energy trapped in matter particles in the same way that it
affects the speed of free energy. This means that the energy of a particle of
matter moving with respect to the ILSF vibrates at different speeds with
respect to the particle depending on whether the energy is moving in the same
direction as the particle or opposite.
The greater the particle's speed relative to the ILSF, the greater this
asymmetry becomes and the more time is required for a single vibration. This increase in time approaches infinity as
the particle’s velocity approaches the speed of light.. It is our contention that the strict
correlation between the reduction in clock rate and increase in mass of a
rapidly moving particle is evidence of a causal relationship. And the mathematical description of these
changes is very similar to that of another type of asymmetrical relationship,
that of the time required for a boat to travel up and down or across a moving
river [13].
There
is an important and paradoxical difference between the effects of gravity and
that of motion on the relationship between the change in the energy of a
particle and its clock rate. In the
case of gravity the fall in energy is directly proportional to the decrease in
clock rate, while with motion it is an increase in energy that accompanies the
decrease in clock rate. A proposed
detailed explanation of this paradox given in reference [7] is based on the
observation that with gravity there are fractional changes in both clock rate
and length dimension that are each exactly one-half the fractional change in
light speed. With motion, however, the
decrease in clock rate and light speed are accompanied by an increase in length
dimension. In the case of a particle
moving with respect to the ILSF, the clock rate would slow and the mass would
increase by the factor g = 1/Ö(1-b2), where b is v/c. This increase in mass is detectable
only at high velocities and approaches infinity as the particle's speed
approaches the speed of light, the absolute limit in the speed of matter
particles or free energy.
Because
the ILSF cannot be detected it is impossible to determine, when a particle at
low velocity accelerates, whether it is increasing or decreasing its speed
relative to the ILSF. This is because
the change in mass of the particle at low velocities is also too small to
detect. However, all changes in
inertial motion require an exchange of energy even though it is impossible to
determine in which direction the energy is moving. This is the explanation of inertia. A more detailed account is
given in reference [7].
Discussion
A
theory or model should not only be consistent with all known observations, but
must also have the possibility of being refuted by future observations. Any one of the seven following observations
would refute our model:
1) Any departure from an exact equivalence of the inertial mass of a particle of matter, including the mass derived from its kinetic energy, and its mass as determined by its production of a gravitational field or its response to that field. Thus, an effect of temperature on the orbit of an object circling the earth would refute our model..
2) Any demonstration that the framework of space at
any point is not determined by the total gravitational potential of the
universe, which is the integral of the quotients of all its particles of energy
divided by their distance from that point.
The Stanford gravity probe is designed to test this point.
3. The demonstration of a gravity boson such as the
postulated graviton that acted directly
on matter particles.
4. Any lack of correlation between the change in the
speed of light, the change in clock rate and the energy derived from a
gravitational fall.
5 Any
evidence that the gravitational force can be absorbed.
6. A demonstration that the curvature of star light
around the sun is not the least time path.
7. A demonstration that the one-way speed of light is
isotropic on the earth’s surface.
A
precedent exists for avoiding infinities in the description of particle
interactions by adding additional steps.
In 1967, Salam and Weinberg found a way to simplify the mathematics of
the weak interaction and at the same time combine it with the electromagnetic
interaction by inserting hypothetical intermediate particles, the W+,
W- and the Z bosons between the source particles and their
products. The theory was extended and
generalized by Glashow in 1970 and the W and Z particles were observed in the
early 1980s.
We
are not proposing a new particle, but by dividing quantum gravity into two
steps we believe the mathematics can be greatly simplified and gravity can be
unified with inertia. The change in the
speed of light in a gravitational field is proportional to the first power of
the distance from the attracting body and thus the speed of light is inversely
proportional to the energy level in the quantum field of distributed
energy. And the fractional release of energy
by a matter particle falling in a gravitational field is exactly one-half the
fractional reduction in the speed of light.
The proposal that the energy content of matter particles is affected by
the speed of light and that the latter is determined by the quantum field of
distributed energy from the entire Universe provides an explanation of Mach’s
Principle and the basis for the unification of
gravity and inertia.
The
above model is based on the primary hypothesis that energy and the space and
time within which energy moves are all that exist in this Universe. The distributed energy of the Universe
required by the uncertainty principle of quantum mechanics provides an
explanation for the control of the speed of light, which produces the apparent
curvature of space described by General Relativity. This is the basis for the causal unification of General
Relativity and Quantum Mechanics.
How
does the gradient in the speed of light produce the gravitational force? The answer is that in the quantum world,
everything that can happen does happen with a certain degree of probability.
Because the particle requires more energy to exist at a higher altitude it
cannot go up on its own energy. But it
can go down by converting bound particle energy to kinetic energy. And once it starts down it cannot stop
unless it collides with another particle and converts its kinetic energy to
heat or some other form of energy. So
it continues to accelerate downward until that happens.
Perhaps
the most important argument in favor of the proposed model is that it gives the
same explanation for the inverse square laws of gravity and electric charge,
while at the same time giving unique explanations for the unique properties of
gravity, which include, its relative weakness, its non-absorbability, its
change in clock-rate, its curvature of light path and its close connection to
inertia. All are explained by the proposal that the quantum energy field acts
indirectly through a change in the speed of light..
1)
J.
Maddox, “The Unexpected Science to Come”, Scientific American 281 62-67, (1999).
2)
Einstein,
A., The Special and the General Theory,
p.76 (Translated by R. W. Lawson, Crown Publishers, New York), 1061)..
3)
D.W.Talmage
and R.J. Sanderson, “Why is gravity so weak”, Physics Essays 7,
415-421, (1994).
4)
A.
Einstein, "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies", [Annalen der Physik
17, 891-921 (1905)], reprinted in The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein,
vol 2, 140-171, (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1989).
5)
A. Einstein. "The General Theory of Relativity", [Annalen der
Physik 49. 769, (1916)], English
translation in H.A.Lorentz et al., The Principle of Relativity, (Dover, New York, 1952).
6)
R.
Morris. The Nature of Reality, p 41 (McGraw Hill, 1987).
7)
D.W.Talmage
and R.J.Sanderson, "On the unification of gravity and inertia", Physics Essays 11, 53-59 , (1998); see
also the web page www.geocities.com/davidwtalmage/.
8)
M.B.
Tapley and C.W.F. Everitt, "
Co-Co-Experiments in Gravitational Physics with GP-B and STEP", Adv.Space
Res. 13, 77, (1993).
9)
I.I.Shapiro,
M.E.Ash, R.P.Ingalls, W.B.Smith, D.B.Campbell, R.B.Dyce, R.F.Jurgens,
and
G.H.Pettengill, Phys.Rev. Lett. 26,
1132, (1971).
10)
J.E.Dodd, The
Ideas of Particle Physics: An Introduction for Scientists, p30 (Cambridge University Press, 1984).
11)
R.P.Feynman,
QED, The Strange Theory of
Light and Matter, p 120 (Princeton University Press, 1985).
12)
J.
Gribbin, The Search for Superstrings, Symmetry and the Theory of Everything, p 64 (Little Brown & Co., Boston, 1998).
13)
D.Park,
The How and the Why: An Essay on the
Origins and Development of Physical Theory, p 418 (Princeton University
Press, 1988).