Toward a Background Independent Representation of the Fundamental Forces

Ted Silverman E-mail: ted@sollar.info

Abstract
It is premised that a quantum theory of gravity should represent spacetime as a dynamical construct, so that the physical elements of the theory comprise the structure of the vacuum rather than independent entities adrift within it. For example, in the context of String-M theory space might be modeled as a configuration of strings/membranes, with ponderable processes represented as collective, dynamic modes of that configuration. The case is made for pursuing this type of approach by demonstrating how a locally causal, low energy approximation1 to such a theory can be constructed in three spatial dimensions plus time.2 The model unifies gravity and the other fundamental interactions by describing fermions and bosons as vibrational states of the vacuum instead of discrete surfaces embedded within it. In this manner, quantization-of-action, relativistic invariance, gravity, the velocity of light and several other fundamental constants can be shown to emerge together as collective properties of the underlying dynamics. A simple equation for gravity is derived, equivalent to Newtons as a first approximation Einsteins relativistic representation follows as a second but absent the gravitational constant, which is replaced by the Planck and fine structure constants.

In the context of the framework presented here, low energy approximation more-or-less means linear approximation to something non-linear. 2 That is to say, a structured, malleable three-dimensional plenum hereinafter Subspace embedded in a rigid Cartesian manifold. Time is concomitantly elastic, and therefore locale-specific, while similarly described in relation to a Newtonian time coordinate. The epistemological difficulties associated with establishing such a coordinate system and identifying the parts of the plenum are here disregarded (removed by an abstraction, as Einstein once remarked in a similar connection).

1 Introduction
In a recent publication[1] I presented a heuristic framework for modeling the vacuum, adopting and extending a set of concepts 3 developed by David Bohm[2]. Based on this model, and pursuant to a group of general kinematic considerations regarding periodic processes, I argued that it should be possible to develop a locally causal, unified representation of quantum phenomena and gravity; including all geometrico-relativistic effects associated with the latter, which, along with quantization-of-action, emerge naturally under the framework from first principles. The primary purpose of that work was the elucidation and resolution of several longstanding epistemological problems, while in this paper I will attempt to show that the proposed model does in fact suffice for the development of a unified treatment of the fundamental forces. Because the treatment includes gravity and employs a simple formalism, it allows for new predictions regarding cosmological phenomena, particularly such as involve very dense configurations of matter. It is therefore hoped that these ideas will prove useful to physicists seeking to discern the merits of competing explanations of anomalous gravitational behaviors, such as flat galactic rotation curves and data from the Pioneer space crafts.

2 The Foundations of String Theory and Background Independence

It is an essential premise of String Theory that elementary particles can be modeled as periodic motions of a more fundamental entity. In addition, it is found that models based on this premise allow for the emergence of higher-order entities (collective features of the models) that are equivalent in salient ways to the primary objects, and so can also be considered fundamental. More generally, the dualities that have been discovered among various String theories have given hope to many investigators that they may find a unique underlying representation of these seemingly diverse constructions. However, while the principles of quantum theory and special relativity are built-in to the foundations of these approaches to unification, a key aspect of general relativity, that of background independence, has largely been ignored. This is related to a more fundamental problem, viz.: How does one model the vacuum i.e., relativistic spacetime in the context of these programs?
Although in reference [1] I explicitly reject such a close connection with Bohms interpretation largely because he stresses the significance/necessity of non-locality (cf [2]) I have since come to realize that his concept of an Implicate and Super Implicate Order is analogous in an important way to a core attribute of the model presented here, and that this attribute, which is independent of and supersedes considerations regarding non-locality, is of overriding significance.
3

If one accepts that relativistic invariance and quantization-of-action are emergent properties, and therefore not necessarily operative as usually expected on every conceivable level of scale4, and if one further assumes that there is no fundamental distinction between the vacuum and ponderable processes but rather that the latter are emergent, collective properties of the former, then a great simplification and unification of the foundations of physics appears possible.

3 The Significance of Heuristic Constructions

As with classical mechanics and its representation in terms of abstract dynamics, quantum theory allows for several mathematically equivalent yet conceptually distinct interpretations. Illustratively, with respect to classical physics, Maxwell was led to his equations for the electromagnetic field on the basis of a detailed, mechanical/hydrodynamical model of the aether, which served as heuristic guide to a general, dynamical description absent references to mechanical constructions. With respect to quantum theory, Heisenbergs empirically-derived Matrix Mechanics and Schrdingers more theoretically motivated Wave Mechanics are isomorphic descriptions of non-relativistic quantum phenomena, and Feynmans Sum-Over-Histories treatment of quantum field theory yields a relatively intuitive, tractable and efficient method for addressing problems that require some rather abstruse mathematical acrobatics. On the other hand, the visuodynamical interpretation of quantum theory pioneered by de Broglie and extensively developed by Bohm, while empirically equivalent to other formulations 5 has yet to gain currency. This is unfortunate because, as Bohm always maintained, the primary value of his work is that it offers an alternate, conveniently visualizable way to explore the meaning and implications of the mathematical apparatus, and so perhaps a foothold on a new path forward. This is especially the case with respect to quantum field theory. As Sin-Itiro Tomonaga put it, with the advent of quantum electrodynamics Schrdingers unfulfilled wish, namely not to place the wave (x) in the configuration space but to welcome it to the three-dimensional space, has been realized[3] Bohms interpretation of QFT in terms of an implicate and super-implicate order furnishes a clear picture of that wave and its interactions, indicating how the linear features of quantum theory might be approximations to non-linear ones, and how the far-flung parts of the field are correlated. Pursuant to Bohms approach which as noted has been successfully applied to both quantum field theory and non-relativistic wave mechanics; from spin to tunneling and all of the other infamously paradoxical and non-visualizable quantum behaviors albeit with the addition here of a somewhat more physical interpretation of the wave equation absent non-locality, it is
4 5

As many persuasive arguments would suggest; cf reference [1] To the extent investigated; again, quite extensively.

possible to construct a low energy model of vacuum processes in which quantization-of-action, relativistic invariance and gravitation emerge naturally from first principles. Thus, as Bohm anticipated, a non-trivial extension of his paradigm suggests itself; one in which non-local connections are not necessary. While this work is in a nascent state, it nevertheless furnishes both an interesting perspective and a way to make testable calculations regarding its empirical applicability claims I will attempt to substantiate in the following brief remarks.

4 Epistemological Considerations on the Foundations of Relativity and Quantum Theory

It was shown in [1] that relativistic invariance and quantization-of-action can be conceived as closely connected, emergent properties on the basis of general kinematical relations inherent to periodic motion (and a group of considerations regarding the role of time in physical processes 6) a connection that I referred to as the Principle of Common Provenance. It was also shown that the relation of energy to frequency, the mass-energy identity, and wave-particle duality are all necessary, collective properties of a broad class of physical models. These considerations were elaborated in extensive detail over the course of several hundred pages, so here I will only reference their relevant upshots, one of which is that a theory intended to stand in a foundational relation to the Standard Model should not only predict the values of some physical constants but also the emergence of Lorentz invariance and quantization-of-action in the appropriate regimes of scale along with the geometrico-dynamical, relativistic properties of gravity; particularly background independence. Contrarily, the most widely pursued approaches to quantum gravity and unification wire-in relativistic invariance and quantization-ofaction from the start, and treat background independence as a difficulty to be swept under the rug. Beyond the epistemological deficiencies associated with this methodology it lies at the root of many counterproductive mathematical complications that these programs encounter, as well as problems with infinities that arise in standard quantum and relativistic settings more generally. The view to be developed circumvents these complications and offers a simple vision for a unified framework, while sharing one of the key features of value to be found in others; namely, the central premise that some more or less localized periodic action underlies ponderable mass and energy. It also shows, as a matter of principle, that finding a link between quantum phenomena and gravity should not be considered an unlikely circumstance. Consequently, one should be
6

And the problematic notion of dimensionless entities and events i.e., the point in space and instant of time.

cautious with respect to attributing undue significance to this feature. Indeed, one of the most important aspects of our framework may be that it furnishes a context for better understanding the putative successes of others e.g., again, that treating ponderable matter/energy as the manifestation of some underlying periodic process is a powerful heuristic; perhaps more significant than other, model-specific attributes. Together with the Principle of Common Provenance, this understanding might enable physicists to re-evaluate the need for problematic features unique to any particular model, such as additional dimensions of space.

5 The Theory of Subspace: A Dynamical Model of the Vacuum

Imagine, as empirical and theoretical evidence would suggest, that space is an energetic entity of complex constitution, varying in structure and characteristic attributes across infinite levels of scale. We assume that it has the capacity to support both local periodic processes and a variety of indefinitely extended longitudinal and transverse disturbances related thereto, and consider its [observable scale] homogeneity to reflect a state of equilibrium in the immediately underlying complex of processes. We refer to this model of the vacuum as Subspace, though unless otherwise noted this term will hereinafter be used to indicate the level of scale/processes on which the phenomenology of particle physics is deemed to arise. We model localized periodic action approximately as simple harmonic motion an isotropic pulsation although we assume that such processes comprise complex Subspace structures, which can only be accurately described non-linearly; i.e., as solitons. These compact entities represent fermions. We model the extended fields of the solitons as simple plane or spherical waves, which yet support collective, emergent features of a particulate nature, analogous to the collective oscillations of electrons in plasmas and phonons in crystals. These are bosons. The fields and fermions have both longitudinal and transverse components of action, and longitudinally polarized disturbances can propagate faster than light. Longitudinal waves, outside the immediate confines of the soliton and in the far field generally, correspond with the putatively non-energetic waves/wave-packets of quantum theory, 7 which are taken to guide particle motion in the causal picture of Bohm et al, whereas transverse waves are deemed to interact with fermions more energetically in the manner associated with bosons. For example, the electromagnetic vector potential is associated with longitudinal waves and the electric and magnetic field vectors with transverse waves. In this manner the concept of the photon illustrates the general relation between guiding and energetic waves. One aspect of this relation is that the various wave-constituted entities can become phase correlated by means of a longitudinal, relatively
7

And so are approximately described by a linear wave equation.

non-energetic resonant interaction prior to the exchange of an observable quantum of energy. 8 Thus the fields both guide motion and mediate interactions, and entanglement is effected via locally connected processes. 9 Again, we assume that waves and their interactions can be approximately described by the methods of quantum field theory, so that the Bohmian causal interpretation gives a linear approximation to our model. Just as fermions and bosons move in accordance with the gradient of the probability amplitude density under the Born paradigm, and the gradient of the quantum and super-quantum potential, respectively, under that of Bohm, in our model they move in accordance with the gradient of the spatial (Subspace) density, and the interaction of solitons and field waves causes the places where such interactions occur to have increased Subspace density. 10 This is one of the key premises of our model: That the density fluctuations associated with periodic action modify the index of refraction of the region of Subspace in which that action occurs, affecting the passage of other waves, so that linear superposition is an approximation valid only when fluctuations are not very intense. In other words, we assume that the reflection of waves from solitons, and density gradients generally, results in an increase in the average Subspace density of regions in which such interactions occur. Therefore, processes occurring in places with varying spatial density move or diffuse in accordance with the gradient, and this constitutes our interpretation of the wave equation (and, as noted below, the curved space of general relativity). Of course, this is a purely heuristic construction; perhaps a somewhat rudimentary one. But the deductions based upon it lead to a comprehensive interpretation of empirical results, and it must be recognized that all models are of a similar heuristic nature, and in all cases are justified only by the applicability of the equations that can be discovered with their aid. These density gradients have cumulative effects on empirically relevant scales, and are thus identified with the curved space of General Relativity, so that not only Lorentz invariance and quantization-of-action but also gravity and its relativistic properties emerge naturally from the model. That is to say, the increased spatial density associated with fermions arises from general wave-particle interaction, which interaction gives the Newtonian component of gravity, while the geometrico-relativistic effects associated with the concomitant density gradient give the Einsteinian component. Gravity is thus involved in all quantum processes, even impacting the size and stability of fermions, and its relativistic and other macroscopic properties are cumulative effects of those processes generally. We address the mathematical representation of these aspects
8 9

Consider in this connection the Feynman-Wheeler theory of advanced electromagnetic waves cf reference [4] Entanglement as usually understood is here interpreted as an artifact of the conventional formalism. 10 Another concept elaborated in [1], along with the equivalence of conservative potentials and Brownian motion, of F=MA dynamics and optical action, etc.

of the model in the next section, focusing on the most simple and significant consequences thereof.

6 Gravity and the Fine Structure Constant

As described in [1], Plancks constant, the speed of light and the gravitational, fine structure and perhaps even cosmological constants can be shown to arise together in such a tightly integrated fashion that only the velocity of light and the mass and size dimensions of a single particle are necessary for the determination of these other values. That is to say, we showed that the gravitational (and perhaps cosmological) constant is superfluous, because it can be simply defined in terms of the Planck and fine structure constants. Again, these relations follow directly from the representation of dynamical interactions between waves and solitons and as will be seen in what follows all of the fundamental interactions can evidently be modeled in the same fashion. We consider the periodic motion comprising a fermionic entity to be locally confined, along with the majority of its energy, within a spherical region of radius equal to the fermions de Broglie wavelength, with frequency given by: = / where = / (1)

Here c is the speed of light, is the de Broglie wavelength, h is Plancks constant and m is mass. (Although mass is treated as an emergent property under our framework we do not explore this aspect of the model here but rather, for simplicity, employ conventional dimensions. This adaptation to convention requires the introduction of normalizing parameters in the following development, which should be understood accordingly.) We assume that wave-particle transactions involve resonant conditions i.e., that net changes to average particle states are primarily due to interactions with waves at the particles frequency and that the strength of these interactions is in turn determined by the cross-sectional area and density of the region in which the fermion is confined. This density gives a coupling parameter that can be thought of as a manifestation of the particles index of refraction relative to that of the surrounding space. Thus, as discussed in [1] at length, the relevant value of the field is frequency (i.e., that of the particle with which the field interacts), which is taken to represent a flux, per solid angle, in units of velocity per unit of mass. And so multiplying this flux by a mass yields a term in units of acceleration, and multiplying by a mass again gives units of force. Figure [A] illustrates the primary gravitational interaction.

Because the relative sizes/cross-sections of dissimilar particles are not properly represented by equating particle radius with wavelength (e.g., the Compton wavelength of the electron is larger than that of the proton, in inverse proportion to the relation between their masses), we need a normalizing factor for determining scattering area i.e., for giving particle crosssection in relation to wavelength and the atomic mass unit (hereinafter amu) furnishes a standard in this regard. Moreover, the equation for gravity can be reduced to a particularly simple form in terms of the amu, namely: h 2 / 2 (2)

where h, again, is Plancks constant, is the fine structure constant, N is the number of atomic mass units comprising the gravitating source (that is, not an integral multiple of this unit but simply the mass of the source divided by that of the amu), m is the mass of the other gravitating body and r is the distance of separation. However, while this is indeed a simple representation, it is not the most perspicuous with respect to the gravitational interaction and its connection with the other fundamental forces. To see this connection, we expand [2] per figure [A] and the discussion below, in terms of particle frequency (i.e., flux again, because our underlying model is not based on Newtonian concepts, for dimensional consistency we must multiply this expression by a unit of velocity and divide by a unit of mass) and scattering cross-section: 2 2 2 2
0

(3)

where fi , i and mi are the de Broglie frequency, wavelength and mass of one of the two particles, respectively, mj is the mass of the other, rij is the separation distance, is again the fine structure constant, mi/mamu is the ratio of the [ith i.e., gravitating] particle mass to the atomic mass unit (again, the cross-section normalizing factor) and 0 represents the dimensional factor of velocity per unit mass c is a vector, the value of which is the velocity of light (divided by unit of mass). The reason for this convention will become apparent in what follows. When both particles are nucleons [3] reduces to 2 2 2 2

(4)

with the normalizing velocity component suppressed, and thus (in the form of [2]) to

and is derived in accordance with the following considerations. Per the arguments of reference [1], the value of the flux is given by the frequency of the particle with which it interacts and, as noted, its dimensions are velocity per unit of mass per unit of solid angle (steradian) per second. In accordance with figure [A], each particle shields the other by blocking a portion of the incident flux, the geometric attenuation of which resulting from the separation distance is given by the ratio of the shadowing particles cross-sectional area to the area of the hemisphere centered on the shielded particle and tangent to the cross-section of the other i.e., 2 divided by 2r.2 Note that we avoid complications associated with composite masses (internal shielding, use of integrals, etc.) by treating gravity as the sum of the interactions between individual particle pairs. However, if the premise of the Figure A model has general applicability (i.e., beyond the fundamental equations here derived from it) then in very dense configurations of matter this might not be appropriate, in which case it should be possible to make new, verifiable predictions regarding gravitational phenomena. In order to see the connection with general relativity (and the fine structure constant), we calculate the radial, gravitational contraction associated with the solitons (amus) region of confinement (again, the sphere with radius given by the amus de Broglie wavelength) and demonstrate that this result accords with the relativistic prediction. We then show that waveparticle interactions can be viewed as a function of the gradient of the index of refraction, which we identify with spatial curvature. The contraction is first derived from the link between the properties of Subspace and the velocity of light. As we showed in [1], the mass-energy identity and its connection with the velocity of light are consistent with a simplified representation of Subspace as a system that supports elastic waves. With this analogy we can calculate a characteristic Bulk Modulus, and so obtain the relation between the compression of Subspace associated with a soliton (nucleon/amu) and the concomitant gravitational energy density. The equation for the Bulk Modulus is:
9

2 2

(5)

and

2 = = 4 3 3 = 42 (6)

where V is the solitons (nucleons) volume, dp the incremental (gravitational) pressure and dV the corresponding change of volume. This neglects the gravitational energy density, which is equal to the incremental pressure: 3 2 = 44

Therefore, because again

we have

or

43 3 2 1 2 3 2 = = 3 43 3 44 4 42 2 3 2 =

2 4 3 3

and therefore

This is the radial contraction associated with the Newtonian component of the interaction; the gravitational pressure-induced compression of the Subspace region comprising the soliton (nucleon). We establish the relation with the relativistic contraction by deriving the latter from the gravitational potential in accordance with Einsteins Principle of Equivalence, and comparing it with the value for hereinabove calculated in accordance with the notion of the bulk modulus. The relativistic value is:
10

2 3 2

(7)

1 =

where the gravitational potential at the surface of the soliton (nucleon) is

and thus the dilatation factor, to an adequate approximation, is

Therefore

2 1 2 2

and

= 0 = 0 0 1 = 2 2 2

2 2 2 (8)

Despite the approximations employed, equations [7] and [8] are reasonably close. Now, any spherical region of Subspace larger than and concentric with the soliton will be reduced in volume along with it, in proportion to the inverse square of the regions radius (inasmuch as the surrounding Subspace must occupy a smaller volume when the portion comprising the soliton shrinks). From this it follows (and from the additional consideration that, as the Soliton moves, ambient space must rush in towards it again cf. [1], p. 308) that the contraction in the solitons ambient space will likewise correspond, quantitatively, with the curved space of general relativity, and will give the same effects, from time dilation to all other Einsteinian components of gravity such as the bending of light and the extra gravitation associated with curved space itself (curvature not only adds to the Newtonian aspect of gravity but also makes it nonlinear i.e., curved space gravitates, and this follows from our model because the Subspace density gradient around compact regions also reflects flux in the manner of the soliton, though generally to a considerably smaller degree). Indeed, there is an interesting connection between this feature of the model that is, the gravitational properties of empty space (density gradients in Subspace) and the role of the fine structure constant.
11

[Note: The rest of this section is not formally essential to the development of the equations governing the other interactions, nor for recognizing their similarity and connection to equation [5] for gravity. However, it makes the underlying model somewhat more compelling inasmuch as it illustrates the reach and consistency of the analogies invoked, thereby lending credence to the generalized role that the fine structure constant is deemed to play.] This connection can be understood by pursuing the analogy with the index of refraction, which leads to some related concepts, namely; characteristic impedance and amplitude reflection coefficient. These ideas are closely related and serve as convenient heuristic tools under our framework, because we equate a Subspace density gradient with a changing index of refraction. It should be noted that a similar idea was invoked by Eddington[5] in an early exposition of General Relativity, in which he compared the curved space near a gravitating object to a variable index of refraction, and exploited this equivalence to calculate a geodesic for light about the Sun. The analogy has since been demonstrated to be valid generally[6], and in our theory it is more than a helpful metaphor. If we model the flux-soliton interaction as a wave encountering a boundary between regions of Subspace where the index of refraction changes, then we can calculate a corresponding reflection coefficient attributable to the changing density. Ignoring considerations regarding angle of incidence (direction cosines), the relation for the reflection coefficient is: = 1 0 1 + 0

where Z1 is the characteristic impedance of the region that the wave is entering and Z0 is that of the region it is leaving. Characteristic impedance is a concept closely related to index of refraction, but it furnishes a particularly interesting perspective on the issues to be addressed here and in the sequel. In our elastic solid analogy, the characteristic impedance is the product of density and wave speed. Thus we have = 1 1 0 0 1 1 + 0 0 2 20

which is approximately equal to

where 1 and 0 are the densities of the soliton and empty Subspace, respectively; c1 and c0 the wave speeds in regions with these, respective densities (c0 = c, the speed of light in vacuum)
12

and m the soliton mass. The approximate value for c1 is obtained by calculating the reduced distance across the region occupied by the soliton, which is gravitationally compressed in accordance with the above considerations. That is, we merely assume that waves cross this shorter distance (the diameter of the soliton) in the time it would normally take to traverse the same region if not compressed, then take this as the [reduced] value of c1 with respect to c and thereby derive the value of R. Notwithstanding this somewhat crude approach, the fine structure constant is evidently understandable as a coefficient of the reflectivity of the soliton with respect to the surrounding space. Moreover, keeping in mind that mass is an emergent property in our model, and choosing the speed of light to be unity, this relation i.e., 2 = 2

(times the mass associated with the given region) is very interesting. And similar relations obtain in other contexts, under considerably different interpretations. For example, consider an electron undergoing so-called Zitterbewegung. If we imagine the underlying source of the phenomenological electron to be a singular oscillating process say a to-and-fro, linear motion of a [relative to that motion] tightly confined periodic fluctuation then on the basis of the Principle of Common Provenance a distinct picture emerges. As demonstrated in [1], an entity comprising an internal, isotropic wave motion is uniquely constrained with respect to translatory movements. Figure [B] illustrates the salient kinematic relations for a simple pulsating motion. Because the internal waves have nodes at the boundary of the spherical region, and the radius of the sphere is here taken to be one wavelength, the entity can move only in discrete translatory steps, the length of each given by the Pythagorean equation as depicted in the image, which is the wavelength times 3.

In accordance with this constraint, we set the electron moving in an oscillatory fashion by letting it step its minimal displacement distance, back and forth about a fixed central point. If there is an ambient flux, this oscillation will result in a rotation around its central point. (That is, as a result of transverse interac-

tions. For an excellent treatment of such phenomena see reference [7]). If we assume the oscillation to be only approximately linear i.e., to have a sharp but non-vanishing turning radius, thereby
Figure B

13

forming a highly flattened ellipsoid of revolution and liken the resulting orbit to an electric current around a small conducting loop comprising two closely spaced, linear conductors, then we can speak of the electrons capacitive and inductive reactance at resonance, which is given by the relation 1 = (9)

where C is capacitance, L is inductance, f is frequency, and the left and right sides of the equation give the capacitive and inductive reactance, respectively. If we assume that such an oscillation underlies [or is otherwise in sync with] the solitons intrinsic periodic motion and thus occurs at the electrons Compton frequency then the concomitant reactance is equal to the characteristic impedance of the vacuum multiplied times the fine structure constant. In other words, if we compare an electromagnetic wave in empty space to one that is propagating down a perfectly conducting waveguide, and further compare the interaction of the [empty-space] wave with our oscillating electron to an interaction between a [guided] wave and a terminal impedance in the waveguide, it is as though the region of space in which our electron is oscillating has a voltage reflection coefficient given by the fine structure constant (i.e., in relation to that of the vacuum). This can be shown as follows. From equation [9] for resonance, we have = 1

This corresponds to the equation for the velocity of electromagnetic wave propagation as a function of the electric permittivity and magnetic permeability of the vacuum, i.e.: = is: 0 = 1 0 0

These constants then likewise represent the characteristic impedance of empty space, which 0 1 = 0 0

If we express the electric charge in terms of the frequency and voltage we have:
14

where E is energy and q is electric charge. Additionally

2 = = = 2 2 = = 2 = 20

where i is current, Z is reactance/resistance, q is electric charge and:

Thus we have:

or

2 1 0 = 2= = 0 0 =

From this we can obtain a relation similar to the one we derived for the [density related] amplitude reflection coefficient of the nucleon vis--vis the pressure of gravity. That is, the [voltage] reflection coefficient of the space in which the electron orbits, expressed in terms of its relation to empty space, is defined as: 0 + 0 1 1 +

so that we have

as the expression for the reflection coefficient. Thus again, in a seemingly completely different context, the fine structure constant fulfills a similar role. Furthermore, if we equate the angular momentum of this [now un-flattened] orbit with that of the electron spin, we have with v the electron velocity and orbital radius = 3. Thus the speed of the electron with respect to that of light is
15

with , again, the fine structure constant. Although, in contradistinction to our equations connecting gravity with the fine structure constant, this result is only an approximate one (albeit fairly close the value here is accurate to within two-tenths of one percent), it is nevertheless interesting. So we see that, in addition to deriving gravity and its relativistic properties on the basis of this simple model, we are also able to glimpse some interesting connections with electromagnetism. Yet this must be only a partial perspective, because we know that all of the phenomena embraced by quantum theory can be mathematically treated la Bohm and interpreted via his notion of implicate order which corresponds to our image of a pulsating soliton with its extended field. The modifications we are introducing to his interpretation do not affect its general correspondence with known empirical facts (i.e., again, as investigated to date). Rather, the primary upshot is that the theory can be extended to include gravity. Of course, there are realms in which significant new results will follow from this extension, though again they do not involve domains in which quantum theory is currently well verified. To clarify this, we next apply our model to (a) the electric force; (b) couplings between members of virtual quark-antiquark pairs involving a gluon exchange; and (c) the color charges residual, inter-nucleonic force.

= 2 43

7 Gravity and the other Fundamental Interactions

We describe gravity as due in the first instance to an energy source that is external to gravitating systems; i.e., an external flux, the source of which is deemed to be the total ambient energy of Subspace, each particle interacting with those waves with which it is resonant. Thus gravitationally interacting particles mutually shield each other, casting shadows in this flux. However, a natural interpretation of the electric force follows from the notion that interacting particles (charges) are sources of the relevant field energy; that space is homogeneously filled with such sources; and that the difference between negative and positive charge is simply a difference of energy levels. For example, if we start from Diracs notion of a sea of negative energy particles and assume that each such particle (again, soliton), by virtue of its intrinsic periodic motion, radiates energy at a given average level, it follows that negative charge can be associated with regions in which the average energy of oscillation, and hence radiation, is a particular amount higher than
16

the overall average, whereas positive charge can be associated with a region in which average energy is a similar amount lower than average. Thus, two negative charges will repel, because the energy radiating between them is higher than the external energy from which they mutually shield one another. Accordingly, such negative charges will act as though attracted to regions of positive charge, whereas positive charges, because they are less energetic than average, will act like buoyant objects with respect to each other, because the thus heavier negative charges will tend to fill the space between them. While this model is somewhat crude and perhaps not sufficiently extensible, it nevertheless suffices for the deduction of a simple, empirically valid formalism (one could argue in such fashion against our gravitational model, dismissed and reinvented as it has been over the centuries, even though it has here led to a valid equation for gravity that reduces Newtons constant to quantum mechanical constants). Moreover, it brings into bold relief one of the most important features of physical phenomena as understood under the frameworks of both relativity and quantum theory, viz.: context dependence. Consider the relativistic interpretation of the magnetic interaction between two parallel electric currents. In order for the salient effect to manifest, it is necessary that there exist something like two conducting wires, each filled with both negative and positive charges. This is because magnetism is understood to depend on the relative increase of positive charge density in each of the wires as seen by the negative charges in the other. Significantly, when this interpretation is applied to moving charges in otherwise empty space the argument collapses, unless space is similarly considered to be somehow filled with charge sources. The salient point is that we are led to an equation for the electric force that not only works but is virtually identical in form to that for gravity, including its dependence on the fine structure constant and this can be extended to the other fundamental interactions. This follows in a straightforward manner for forces that can be expressed in terms of a potential that is inversely proportional to distance. Thus the electric potential between two charges: 2 40

where

under our model takes the form

2 = 40 = 20 1 /
17

so that the force is given by

or

1 11 1 2 / 2 +1 0 2 2 2 / 2

1 2

(10)

where f is the de Broglie frequency of the electron, m is its mass and its wavelength. Remember that the analogous form of our equation for gravity is (11)

with the difference in the exponents primarily due to the fact that, under our model, the electric force is a direct interaction between particles (i.e., emitting their own energy, so that each feels the direct effect of the kick) whereas gravity is due mainly to the shielding of an external flux, so that the mass and coupling constant enter into the equation for gravity twice, once for shielding and once for the corresponding effect on the shielded entity. Regarding the respective values of the velocity vector (integer powers of the velocity of light either one or zero, evidently, for all forces), it is noteworthy that the force associated with the magnetic component of electromagnetic radiation stands in a similar relation to that of the electric component: It is smaller by a factor equal to the speed of light; and, perhaps not unrelated to the above considerations, the ratio of the magnetic to the electric dipole moment in the far field of an arbitrary current source is equal to the fine structure constant[8]. Similar considerations apply to the color force between quarks, as can be seen in what follows. For simplicity, we consider the interaction between members of quark-antiquark pairs. The so-called Cornell potential for describing the color force is () = 4 + 3

where s is the QCD coupling coefficient (not constant but rather a running coupling based upon energy levels, and generally three orders of magnitude larger than the fine structure constant), the ar term is only effective for distances greater than 10-15 meters, and the first term (evaluating for force rather than the potential) reduces to 4 [ 0 ] 1 1 1 2 / 2 3
18

(12)

where the de Broglie frequency/wavelength and the mass are the values associated with the given quark/anti-quark. While it is possible to extend our model to the weak force, the interactions hereinabove addressed are the easiest to treat with simple, straightforward methods. However, in order to demonstrate the versatility of the framework we will show that it also applies to the residual color force between nucleons; i.e., to the Yukawa potential, which is approximately: 11 () = 2

where g2 is (also approximately)

Therefore, the force can be expressed as

1 1 1 1 1 2 2 / 2

15

(13)

with the value of an approximately 15.

8 Conclusions
Of these several results, it is the simple form of equation [5] for gravity and the common format of equations [10] through [13] that demand attention. For we see an unsuspected connection between gravity and the other forces, which is particularly close with respect to the electric. Moreover, Newtons gravitational constant is evidently superfluous, inasmuch as the strength of the interaction can be more naturally defined in terms of the Planck and fine structure constants (and the conventional value for the atomic mass unit). While all models are nothing more than heuristic guides ultimately, by necessity, only approximations to more accurate theories yet to be discovered these preliminary results are quite encouraging and suggestive; one expects that a more comprehensive formalism may be close at hand. (And so the many talented practitioners of String theory and other approaches to quantum
11

With respect to asymptotic freedom: Although our model applies in the most straightforward manner to 1/r potentials, other forces with different distance dependencies can be represented via our theory, including spinspin interactions.

19

gravity/unification might wish to combine forces, as it were, by making a concerted effort to model the vacuum.) The simple model we have presented is valid to a surprising degree of accuracy, with respect to both quantum phenomena and gravitation. Regarding the latter, it yields Newtons equation as a first approximation, expressed in terms of quantum mechanical values, and it yields Einsteins when relativistic effects are considered (and the appropriate formalism is applied as noted, the equivalence of a variable index of refraction with the curved spacetime of general relativity has been worked out by many investigators, cf [6]). Of course, new predictions that diverge from both Newtonian and Einsteinian theory are expected in certain domains, as discussed below. Regarding quantum phenomena, the model similarly yields predictions that conform to empirically established results, while divergence is expected in certain realms. For example, under our framework the form of the wave field which is approximately described by the wave equation in quantum theory is dynamically connected with the local entities/events and is not merely informed by their presence (e.g., by the existence of a potential associated with a charged particle, which under the conventional interpretation simply indicates that a term for that potential, defined throughout space and time, must be included in the wave equation). In turn, the behavior and course of entities and events are not merely informed by the wave but rather follow it dynamically, much as de Broglie originally expected albeit with a different interpretation of the underlying mechanism, which further connects the model with gravitation. Thus entanglement is modeled as dynamic correlation. In general, so-called non-local actions in such instances, if any, where such a description might be apt are not expected to be transmitted instantaneously but possibly at faster-than-light speed, which can exist without compromising the integrity of relativity or quantum theory in domains where they have been confirmed to be applicable. If such actions exist, then new experiments will be required to reveal them, as there are as yet no empirically established demands for faster-than-light connections, let alone instantaneous ones only, with respect to the latter, theoretical expectations based on misinterpretation of the Bell Inequalities (and artifacts of the extant theoretical formalism 12). As noted, the model does imply that new predictions might be made regarding gravity, perhaps less difficult to test than those in the quantum domain, viz.: (a) that extremely dense configurations of matter may turn out to have smaller gravitational fields than usually expected, due to a possible shielding limit; and

12

As discussed in reference [1] and as revealed in the extensive investigations of A.F. Kracklauer, cf [9].

20

(b) that such configurations might have to be associated with minimal rather than maximal entropy, because gravity is attributed to a pressure in the extra-particle space rather than to an attraction that is intrinsic to matter-energy (which, if confirmed, could extinguish some misunderstandings regarding the so-called arrow of time in cosmic evolution). It should be noted in connection with these [admittedly quite general] predictions that certain conjectures regarding black holes such as holographic relations and the association of entropy with surface area rather than volume have analogs under our framework. For example, if extremely dense objects are subject to shielding limits then gravitation should be largely associated with their outermost regions (shells). And if interactions between solitons are mediated primarily at the boundaries of the regions in which they are embedded, those interactions can be mathematically projected on an arbitrary, enclosing sphere. Because the simplicity of our equations allows for a rather straightforward treatment of such speculations, perhaps calculations and numerical simulations will be more readily doable than is the case with more complex models. Thus we showed in reference [1] that flat galactic rotation curves and the accelerating expansion of the universe can be fairly accurately described on the basis of a rudimentary application of these ideas and that, if one takes the model seriously, it makes sense to define the cosmological constant in terms of the gravitational constant i.e., to assume that they both arise from the same underlying dynamic, which would explain the formers relatively small value. If this is indeed the case it may be possible to eliminate yet another mysterious number from the corpus of physics.

References
[1] Silverman, Ted. 2010. Philosophical Solutions: in physics, mathematics and the science of sentience. Baltimore. International Institutes for Advanced Studies. [2] Bohm, D. and Hiley, B.J. 1993. The undivided universe. London. Routledge [3] Tomonaga, Sin-Itiro. 1974. The story of spin. Chicago. University of Chicago Press. p 105 [4] Wheeler, John A. and Feynman, Richard P., Interaction with the Absorber as the Mechanism of Radiation, Reviews of Modern Physics, (1945). [5] Eddington, Arthur Stanley, [Space, Time, and Gravitation; An Outline of the General Relativity Theory], Harper, New York, 109 (1959). [6] de Felice, F., On the gravitational field acting as an optical medium, Gen. Rel. Grav. 2, 347-357 (1971). [7] Bjerknes, V. [Fields of Force], Col. Univ. Press, New York (1906). [8] Rand, S.C., Fisher, W.M. and Oliveira, S.L. 2008. Optically induced magnetization in homogeneous, undoped dielectric media. Optical Society of America, p. 2. [9] Kracklauer, A.F. 2010 A "Spoof Loophole" Contra Nonlocality. eprint arXiv:1012.1710

21