Using Quantum Physics to Find the Best Model for Gravity, Gravitational Waves, and the Vacuum

ABSTRACT: According to Einstein's theories of relativity, nothing is faster than light; yet, observations made by Newton, Laplace and Van Flandern led them to believe gravitational information is much much faster than light, virtually instantaneous. To thicken the plot further, LIGO observed gravitational waves propagating within the light-speed limit. Then there's the vacuum energy problem where the vacuum seems to have up to infinite energy! By making use of quantum physics and changing an initial assumption about the vacuum energy, it is possible to connect the dots between quantum physics and General Relativity. By exposing a fundamental flaw in the rubber-sheet model for curved spacetime, it is possible to create a superior model that reconciles the speed of gravitational waves with the illusion of faster-than-light gravitational information.

Quantum physics is probabilistic as opposed to deterministic. Given a vacuum that is composed of numerous (omega) energies it only makes sense to multiply each energy by a probability. The alternative is to simply add all the energies and get up to infinity! Assuming each energy has a wave function, each probability can be determined by squaring each wave function. Each energy is represented by the Hubble energy (Hubble's parameter * Planck's constant) multiplied by n. At equation 1 below, we calculate the vacuum mass density (rho). At equation 2 we determine the cosmological constant:

Now, let's introduce a particle with mass m (or it could be massless: m = E/c^2). It could be located anywhere and everywhere. Its location (x,y,z coordinates) is uncertain at best. We could add m multiple times to cover all its possible locations, but that would lead to a rediculously big number. Or, as we did with the vacuum, we could multiply each m location by a probability (see equations 3 and 4) and that will give us the expectation value for m which is really just m. Thus, multiple m's at multiple locations don't amount to more than just m. The velocity of m is also uncertain, but we can calculate its expected value at equation 5. At 6 we determine the expectation value for the wavelength of m.

At equation 7 we see how multiple locations of m impact its gravity:

The gravity of m is also at multiple locations along with m, but probabilties cut it all down to size. The size being the left side of equation 7: the gravity of the expectation value: m.

At equation 8 below, we redefine m as one or more particles (expected values). At 9 and 10, we calculate the final velocity and the final wavelength, respectively.

At 10 we have the De Broglie wavelength formula. At 11 we below can see that if mass m or final velocity v changes, the final wavelength lambda must instantaneously change to keep Planck's constant a constant. After a few algebraic steps, we derive the Schwarzshild radius at 16.

Note that any change of mass m causes an instantaneous change of its wavelength (lambda prime). This means that when a black hole's singularity mass changes, its Schwarzschild radius instantaneously changes! Equation 17 below confirms this. The light-speed constant c on the left side is not a constant unless mass m and Schwarzschild radius changes are synchronized. Thus, we don't have to wonder how the singularity sends information out as far as the Schwarzschild radius, assuming such information is limited to light speed. It doesn't need to. Every mass simply has, and is defined by, a corresponding wavelength and Schwarzschild radius.

But wait! It gets even better! The diagram below shows the total radius r (in black), the Schwarzschild radius (in red) and the remaining distance (in blue). Let's assume the circle below contains the volume (V) of the entire universe (or any volume you like). If mass m owns the volume as far out as the Schwarzschild radius, then the vacuum's claim along the total distance r is reduced. The rest of the universe owns only the volume along the remaining distance.

One can infer that the remaining distance (in blue) must change instantaneously in response to a change in the Schwarzschild radius (in red) which in turn changes instantaneously to a change in the average wavelength which responds instantaneously to a change in mass m.

Equation 18 shows that proper time, out to radius r, is also reduced and is proportional to the square root of the remaining distance over r. The reader may recognize a variation of the Lorentz factor on the left side. One may also infer that proper time is reduced instantaneously given its dependency on the remaining distance.

Using the diagram above, we can set up equation 19 below. From there we can navigate to Einstein's field equations at 21. At 22, we can further verify the instantaneous relationship between matter, spacetime, and gravity. Again, the constant c is not constant unless spacetime curvature responds instantaneously to a change in the stress-energy tensor.

So far we have shown how matter interacts with spacetime. We should now take a look at how vacuum mass interacts with spacetime. All masses project a Schwarzshild radius regardless of how concentrated or diffuse they are. In each diagram below, the gray area represents the mass concentration. Note that each diagram has a mass of m and the same Schwarzschild radius.

Vacuum mass, like the star and black hole, also curves spacetime. The cosmological constant is that spacetime curvature caused by vacuum mass density. We add this to the field equations:

So a question arises: Why does vacuum mass density and its curvature cause the universe to expand? Below, term A implies term B, and, term C implies term D. Term B shows how matter (E) accelerates. When distance r is larger, the rate of acceleration is less. When r is smaller, the acceleration rate increases. This is because matter (E) is fixed. Contrast this with term D. At term D, the opposite happens: Acceleration increases as r increases and vice versa because vacuum mass is not fixed. It is proportional to volume. Both B and D contribute to spacetime curvature, but are seemingly opposite forces.

At equation 25 we set a scalar version of the Einstein tensor equal to the sum of the curvature caused by mass m and the curavature caused by vacuum mass. From there we derive equations 30 and 31 which show the tug of war between an expanding universe and gravity.

We can simulate the net acceleration rate at equation 31 with an accelerating rocket (see diagram A below). If we throw a shot put across, it will appear to fall along a curved path. Throwing the shot put gives it kinetic energy which may be lost and converted to gravitational waves (GWs, purple curved lines). At diagram B we have a fixed container with a magnetic field. Equations 31 and 32 demonstrate the time-delay difference between gravity and electromagnetism. Imagine t1 is the time it takes to initiate the rocket engine and the electromagnet. The magnetic field takes an additional r/c seconds to develop, since photons must propagate from the floor of B to the shot put (distance r) at speed c. After t1 + r/c seconds have passed, the shot put falls and takes time t2 to hit the floor. By contrast, the shot put at A immediately falls after t1 seconds.

Thus gravity's total time t is t1 + t2 seconds (equation 32). Electromagnetism's total time t is t1 + r/c + t2 (equation 33). Also note that the gravitational waves (GWs) do not cause the shot put to fall, but rather, it is the shot put's lost kinetic energy that causes the GWs.

Observations confirm that the GW strain (h) is consistent with 35 below and not 34. At 34 we have the curvature of the complete energy of the source; whereas, at 35, we just have the curvature of kinetic energy of the source. Notice at 36 and 37 electric and magnetic waves are proportionate and correlate with their respective fields. By contrast, GWs do not correlate with the full gravitational field.

The accelerating-rocket thought experiment above seems like a good approximation of gravity and gravitational waves; however, it seems to contradict the famous rubber-sheet model of gravity. Imagine placing the shot put on a rubber sheet. The shot put will depress the rubber sheet. Such depression, however, does not happen instantaneously. The depression curve takes time to form. As it's forming, one can imagine GWs propagating outward from the center of mass. But what happens if the shot put is moving fast (v > 0) and not at rest (v = 0)? One can imagine it not depressing the rubber sheet:

Imagine the earth is covered with a rubber sheet and the shot put has enough velocity v to orbit. It won't fall towards earth's center, so it won't depress the rubber sheet. We model this fact with equation 39:

One might erroneously conclude that if a mass moves fast enough, it won't curve spacetime! This could not be further from the truth. The truth is velocity enhances the curvature of space time:

Thus the rubber-sheet model has a fundamental flaw. The accelerating-rocket model is superior. It creates the illusion that gravity's speed is faster than light. This is consistent with observations made by Newton, Laplace and Van Flandern. I say "illusion" because nothing in the accelerating-rocket thought experiment exceeds the speed of light.

Given all the forgoing information, we can set up a timeline model for curved spacetime and gravitational waves (GW):

Equations 41 through 44 take into account the instantaneous interplay between matter and spacetime along with gravitational waves that don't exceed the light-speed limit. Equations 45 through 47 below confirm that 41 through 44 are correct; otherwise, the constant c would not be constant if the curvature of spacetime had to wait for gravitational waves or gravitons to propagate.

Acknowledgements:

Amber Strunk. Education and Outreach Lead. LIGO Hanford Observatory.

References:

1. Parikh, Wilczek, Zahariade. 2020. The Noise of Gravitons. arxiv.org.

2. Feynman, R.P. 07/03/1963. Quantum Theory of Gravitation. Acta Physica Polonica. Vol. XXIV.

3. Graviton. Wikipedia.

4. Carlip, S. 12/1999. Aberration and the Speed of Gravity. arxiv.org.

5. Van Raamsdonk, M. 05/17/2010. Building up spacetime with quantum entanglement. arxiv.org.

6. Hanson, R.; Twitchen, D. J.; Markham, M.; Schouten, R. N.; Tiggelman, M. J.; Taminiau, T. H.; Blok, M. S.; Dam, S. B. van; Bernien, H. (2014-08-01). Unconditional quantum teleportation between distant solid-state quantum bits. Science. 345 (6196): 532–535.

7. Gravitational Wave. Wikipedia.

8. de Rham, C., Tolley, A.J. 03/17/2020. Speed of Gravity. arxiv.org.

9. Carroll, S.M. 12/1997. Lecture Notes on General Relativity. Enrico Fermi Institute.

10. Marsh G.E., Nissim-Sabat. 3/18/1999. Comment on an article by Van Flandern on the speed of gravity. Physics Letters A Vol. 262, pp. 257-260 (1999)

11. Suede M. 11/29/2012. The Speed of Gravity: Why Einstein Was Wrong and Newton Was Right. Blog commentary re: Tom Van Flandern.

12. Cornish N., Blas D., and Nardini, G. 10/18/2017. Bounding the Speed of Gravity with Gravitational Wave Observations. Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 161102

13. Van Flandern, T. 1999. The Speed of Gravity What the Experiments Say. Meta Research University of Maryland Physics Army Research Lab.

14. Nix, E. 08/22/2018. Who Determined the Speed of Light. History.com.

15. Speed of Gravity. Wikipedia.

16. Tests of General Relativity. Wikipedia.

17. Decross, M. et al. Gravitational Waves. Brilliant.com.

18. Lawden, D.F. 1982. Introduction to Tensor Calculus, Relativity and Cosmology. Dover Publications, Inc.

19. Stefanovich, E. V. 09/16/2018. A relativistic quantum theory of gravity. arxiv.org.

20. Light-time correction. Wikipedia.

21. Liénard–Wiechert potential Wikipedia.

22. Kopeikin, S. M. Fomalont, E. B. 03/27/2006. Aberration and the Fundamental Speed of Gravity in the Jovian Deflection Experiment. arxiv.org.

23. Faber, J. A. 11/24/2018. The Speed of Gravity Has Not Been Measured From Time Delays. arxiv.org.

24. Yin Zhu. 08/18/2011. Measurement of the Speed of Gravity. arxiv.org.

25. Perihelion of Mercury’s Orbit. macmillanlearning.com.

Curing Divergences without Supersymmetry and Renormalization

Abstract:

Supersymmetry or ad hoc methods such as renormalization are often used to tame infinities that result from divergent functions in quantum physics. Although SUSY particles have yet to be discovered and may be too massive to fulfill their purpose, and, renormalization seems to lack mathematical rigor. Here we offer an alternative method that employs the least-action and Heisenberg uncertainty principles.

Imagine a Lagrangian with divergent terms. One strategy is to renormalize it. Simply discard the divergent terms, especially if they are infinite. However, Paul Dirac had this to say about such methods: "I must say that I am very dissatisfied with the situation because this so-called 'good theory' does involve neglecting infinities which appear in its equations, ignoring them in an arbitrary way. This is just not sensible mathematics. Sensible mathematics involves disregarding a quantity when it is small – not neglecting it just because it is infinitely great and you do not want it!"

Another strategy is to add superpartners that each have the same mass as their respective standard-model counterparts but make an opposite contribution to the Lagrangian. As a result, the divergence vanishes. Albeit, there is a slight problem: the symmetry of Super-symmetry is broken--the superpartners are believed to be more massive than their standard-model partners. This deflates the balloon of vanishing divergences. To make matters worse, there is a complete and total lack of empirical evidence supporting these superpartners.

If renormalization seems like bad math and SUSY particles are nowhere to be found, what other options are there? How about the least-action and Heisenberg uncertainty principles? Let's first examine the least-action principle:

A particle typically takes the shortest path possible between two points. For that to happen, delta-s, at equation 1, cannot be a large, divergent quantity. It should be zero units of action or time multiplied by energy. However, the following is true:

Line 3 shows that time multiplied by energy is greater than or equal to h-bar. To get delta-s to equal zero requires steps 4 through 6:

At 7 we set up another substitution. The final equations are 8 and 9 below:

Equations 8 and 9 show why there's a least action principle and why energy is generally conserved. Suppose we have a conserved energy L. The divergent energy, delta-E, can be interpreted as energy borrowed from the vacuum. Because it's borrowed, it must vanish within time delta-t. The larger this energy, the shorter its lifespan. As a result, the energy L that you start with is the energy you end up with. It is conserved. Also, the action is the least action.

At equation 10 we have a Lagrangian where there is no borrowed energy. Because no energy is borrowed, time delta-t is infinite. In other words, this scenario can last indefinitely and create the impression that energy is always conserved.

At equation 11 we have the opposite extreme: a Lagrangian that diverges to infinity. The good news is delta-t is zero, which shows that infinite borrowed energy does not exist. We can also infer that large borrowed energies exist for too short of a time to be meaningfully observed and measured, so the energy we do observe and measure is small by comparison. Thus, renormalization works despite its ad hoc nature because nature wipes out divergences by means of the uncertainty principle and least action. The only time it is appropriate to keep the divergent terms is when divergent energy is added to the system and not borrowed from nothing.

Now, let's suppose L is a Lagrangian for vacuum energy (see equation 12). A Higgs boson (m-sub-H) pops into existence and has a lifespan of t-sub-H. A too-large Higgs mass would have a lifespan too short to provide a meaningful opportunity to observe it, so the mass we are most likely to observe is a smaller mass.

More examples: Equation 13 below takes into account multiple particles. Equation 14 takes into account a Lagrangian or function with multiple terms and parameters.

Since delta-s must be zero to minimize the action, then delta-s along D dimensions must also be zero. Further, both delta-s and s have units of momentum multiplied by position. If we integrate over position and/or momentum space, the following must be true:

The uncertainty of knowing a particle's position is cancelled by knowing its momentum and vice versa. As a result, the particle's action is minimized along with its position path and momentum.

In conclusion, divergences are tamed if the least-action and uncertainty principles are applied. SUSY particles are not needed and ad hoc methods such as renormalization can be set aside.

References:

1. Lincoln, Don. 2013-05-21. What is Supersymmetry? Fermilab.

2. Martin, Stephen P. 1997. A Supersymmetry Primer. Perspectives on Supersymmetry. Advanced Series on Directions in High Energy Physics. Vol. 18.

3. Susskind, Leonard. 2012. Supersymmetry and Grand Unification Lectures. Stanford University

4. McMahon, David. 2008. Quantum Field Theory Demystified. McGraw Hill

5. Baez, John. 11/14/2006. Renormalizability. math.ucr.edu

6. Renormalization. Wikipedia

The Beautiful Destruction of the Graviton

Uncertainty Principle for Black Holes

The above video discusses black-hole mathematical singularity problems. The current laws of physics seem to break down once a particle crosses a black hole's event horizon. One mathematical singularity occurs at the Schwarzschild radius; another occurs at the black hole's center. That being said, we will show if Heisenberg's uncertainty principle is employed, the singularity problems vanish and the laws of physics are restored. First, we define the variables we will use:

Before we examine a black hole, let's look at an electron orbiting a hydrogen nucleus. If we know the electron's mass and its approximate velocity (close to light speed c),i.e., its momentum, then we don't know its exact position. Its position could be anywhere within the Bohr radius. The product of its uncertain position and momentum gives us a number close to Planck's reduced constant:

We can imagine the electron being anywhere within a spherical cloud extending as far as the Bohr radius:

Now, let's take the mass of a black hole. Let's assume it is greater than the Planck mass. At the black hole's Schwarzschild radius, equation 3 is true:

Next, we add a pinch of algebra to get equation/inequality 5--an uncertainty principle for the black hole.

So far, so good, but we run into a problem when we reduce radius r to, say, the Planck length:

The inequality at 6 clearly violates the uncertainty principle. The left side is required to be greater or equal to the right side--not less! The problem is caused by the momentum term containing nothing but constants (the Planck mass, c, and m).

If we are more certain about the position or size of the black hole's physical singularity, we need to be more uncertain about its momentum, so we need a momentum uncertainty factor represented by the Greek letter eta:

At 8 we see the uncertainty principle is restored. When radius r shrinks to a Planck or even a zero limit, eta blows up as it should.

Below we do some more algebra and derive 14:

At 14 we see the total energy on the right side never exceeds the total finite energy on the left side. A large momentum uncertainty (eta) cancels position certainty due to a small or zero radius. The inequality/equation at 14 also implies the black hole's singularity position is uncertain if the momentum is known. It could be located anywhere within a sphere bounded by the Schwarzschild radius. The most probable location being the center.

We can take what we have developed so far and apply it to an energy conservation technique used within a previous post titled "High Energy Quantum Gravity." At 15 below we take the total energy between two orbiting bodies and subtract the strong, weak and electromagnetic energies.

The gravitational energy that remains will have a radius (ro) independent of radius r. The total gravitational energy remains constant no matter the distance r. However, we've factored in eta to conserve the Heisenberg uncertainty principle if r shrinks below the Scharzschild limit. Equation 15 reveals that a small force over a large area is equal to a large force over a small area.

Now, let's take what we now know and apply it to the singularity problems that crop up in the Schwarzshild metric below:

At 16, the right side's first term is infinity if r = rs. This implies the spacetime interval (ds) is infinite at the Schwarzschild radius--which is ridiculous. If r = 0, the last term, proper time, is infinite--also ridiculous. But of course, we have the tools to vanquish these mathematical singularities. We know the following Lorenz equations are true:

From 19 to 23 we make some substitutions and simplify the metric at 24:

At 25 we factor in eta:

Now, the only time we get infinity is when r is infinity and kappa is greater than zero. This makes sense if you stop and think about it (see results below).

When the radius is equal to the Schwarzschild radius, the spacetime interval is finite and the proper time is zero. When the radius is zero, the spacetime interval is only the outside observer's time, which makes sense, since nothing can move through zero space (a single point). The proper time is also zero, which makes sense, since it implies that time began after the universe expanded beyond a single point. Thus the current laws of physics that previously broke down are now at least partially fixed.

Special thanks to Cosmological {Prime} Causality for linking this post. Click here to read their blog.