CONTENTS

Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix
“Hidden” Parameters Describing Internal Motion within Extended Particle Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
R. L. Amoroso, L. H. Kauffman, E. A. Rauscher, P. Rowlands, and J.-P. Vigier
Electrodynamics with a Future Conformal Horizon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
M. Ibison
The Cumulative Effect of Vacuum Radiation on Particle Coordinates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
J. E. Burns
Reflexivity and Foundations of Physics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
L. H. Kauffman
Further Evidence in Support of the Universal Nilpotent Grammatical Computational Paradigm of
Quantum Physics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
P. J. Marcer and P. Rowlands
Dual Vector Spaces and Physical Singularities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
P. Rowlands
Instant Random Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
N. H. Abramson
Appearance of Objects at Relativistic Velocities, a Holographic Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118
N. H. Abramson
Entropy, Reversibility, Irreversibility and Thermodynamic Cycles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
D. Sands and J. Dunning-Davies
Advances in the Thermodynamics of Ideal Gases by Means of Computer Simulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141
D. Sands and J. Dunning-Davies
The Physical Meaning of the Coefficients cn/G, (n ⴝ 0,1…5) and the Standard Model of the Universe . . 165
L. Kostro
Amending Maxwell’s Equations for Real and Complex Gauge Groups in Non-Abelian Form . . . . . . . . 180
E. A. Rauscher and R. L. Amoroso
Simple Resonance Hierarchy for Surmounting Quantum Uncertainty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185
R. L. Amoroso
Experimental Protocol for Measuring Virtual Tachyon/Tardon Interactions in a Dirac Vacuum . . . . . . 199
R. L. Amoroso and E. A. Rauscher
‘Number States’ and ‘Pilot Waves’ Hidden in Maxwell’s Classical Equations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217
J. E. Carroll
The Metaplectic Sampling of Quantum Engineering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232
W. J. Schempp
Inerton Fields: Very New Ideas on Fundamental Physics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 244
V. Krasnoholovets
Brane-World Gravity in Normal Coordinates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 269
N. Ahmed
Does Inhomogeneous Dust Distribution in Higher Dimension Drive Late Acceleration? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 281
S. Chatterjee and A. Das
A Theoretical Mechanism of Szilard Engine Function in Nucleic Acids and the Implications for
Quantum Coherence in Biological Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 287
F. M. Mihelic
The Space-Time Continuum as a Transversely Isotropic Material and the Meaning of the Temporal
Coordinate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 291
C. I. Christov
Causal Analysis of the Quantum States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 295
S. M. Korotaev and E. O. Kiktenko
Scheme for Measuring Experimentally the Velocity of Pilot Waves and the Discreteness of Time . . . . . 332
G. P. He

v
The Explanation of Michelson’s Experiment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 348
S. Klinaku
An Absolute Phase Space for the Physicality of Matter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 352
J. S. Valentine
Baryogenesis in the Early Universe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 374
D. M. Karczewska
The Hypergeometrical Universe: Cosmology and Standard Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 392
M. A. Pereira
Thermodynamics in ‘Manifest Reality’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 418
A. Hankey
Nature of the Physical Observer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 422
D. S. Osoroma
Physics of Non-Inertial Reference Frames . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 457
T. F. Kamalov
Accelerating Universe in Higher Dimensional Space Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 461
D. Panigrahi
Gauge Fixing in the Maxwell Like Gravitational Theory in Minkowski Spacetime and in the
Equivalent Lorentzian Spacetime . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 468
R. da Rocha and W. A. Rodrigues, Jr.

Author Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 480

vi
 Preface
Search for fundamental theory is an avenue of inquiry that drove Jean-Pierre Vigier over his sixty plus years as a
physicist. I recall visiting him in his apartment in Paris after the accident that led to his passing a few months later. I
asked him, 'since you can't work anymore, what do you think about spending some time writing your biography?'
His response was emphatic - "I want to do Physics!" It does not get any more inspiring than that. I was struck at that
moment how much Vigier personified physics. Much of his work was considered heretical during his lifetime. He is
still considererd ahead of his time; but slowly the dawn approaches to light his work on astrophysics, quantum
theory and particle physics especially.

This proceedings marks the VII th symposiium in honor of noted French Physicist Jean-Pierre Vigier, student and
collaborator of Nobelist Louis De Broglie. It should be noted that Vigier was first asked to be Einstein's assistant,
but because of Jean-Pierre's politics at the time the US State Department would not allow him into the United States
during that period.

I remember asking him to collaborate on a program to integrate Gravity and Electromagnetism, one of the Holy
Grails of Physics. The first year he said, 'I am too old for that'. The second year he said, 'Richard, some of the
greatest minds in physics have failed to do this over the last seventy-five years and failed'. I answered, 'yes, but they
didn't know what we know. By the third year he agreed and we were able to produce a simple and elegant
integration of gravity and electomagnetism which was published by Kluwer Academic as part of the III rd Vigier
proceedings held at UC Berkeley. The fundamental idea was his, but it was very inspiring to me and just the
motivational insight I needed to develop a new cosmological paradigm over the next decade. Out of Vigier's simple
idea I was able to develop the concept of 'Continuous-State" cosmology, an extension of Einstein's original Static
Universe model. This has led, as introduced in this volume to a simple experimental protocol for surmounting or
violating the quantum Uncertainty Principle. This should lead to bulk Quantum Computing in the near term.

The first two symposia were held in the nineties at York University inToronto. As mentioned the third was held at
UC Berkeley and was probably the best to date as it was very well funded and attracted many well know Physicists.
The fourth was held at Pierre et Marie Currie Universitat, Vigier's home base in Paris. The fifth and sixth symposia
were held in Liege, Belgium in conjunction with the Complex Systems conference CASYS. And now this the VII th
was held at historic Imperial College, London. Physicists attended from all over the world from such climes as
China, India, Russia, USA, UK and Canada for example. The symposium has a nearly twenty year history; and
Stanley Jeffers one of the original founders, as well as several other long time attendees,was in attendence.

One of the keynote speakers, Avshalom Elitzur, who was also recipient of the Noetic Medal during the symposiium,
(http://www.mindspring.com/~quantum.computing/) stated in his acceptance speach
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fSCNdnIWP8I&feature=related) 'while there are many great physicists alive
today, there has been no profound breakthrough for nearly one hundrred years. I think the reader of this diverse and
eclectic volume on a broad variety of topics of key interest to physicists will find some of the work discussed in the
thirty-two chapters has set the stage for the next transformative period in physical science.

Richard L. Amoroso
Noetic Advanced Studies Institute
Oakland, CA USA
October 2010
 "Hidden" Parameters Describing Internal Motion
Within Extended Particle Elements
*+
R.L. Amoroso, #L.H. Kauffman, +*E.A. Rauscher,
&
P. Rowlands & ^J-P Vigier
* +Noetic Advanced Studies Institute,Physics Lab, Oakland, CA 04610-1422 USA
#
Dept of Mathematics, Statistics & Computer Science, University of Illinois at Chicago, IL USA
+*
Tecnic Research Laboratory, Apache Junction, AZ 80000 USA
&
Dept. of Physics, University of Liverpool, Liverpooll UK
^Emperium Mobile, Kokauveam, Kolob (Posthumous)

Abstract. Recent attempts to consider isolated particles and real constitutive wave elements as localized,
extended spacetime structures (i.e., moving within time-like hypertubes or branes are developed within a causal
extension of the Feynman-Gell-Mann electron model. These extended structures contain real internal motions,
(i.e., internal hidden parameters) locally correlated with the "hidden parameters" describing the local collective
motions of the corresponding pilot-waves. Recent experimental evidence is briefly discussed.

INTRODUCTION

Recent developments in the causal stochastic interpretation of Quantum Mechanics are presented to aid
interpretation of new observations in Electromagnetic Theory associated with O(3) invariance and photon
mass. [1-5] These "hidden" parameters describe internal motion within extended particle elements associated
with a Feynman-Gell-Mann type causal electron model. They are related in this work to an extended version
of the causal stochastic interpretation of electron theory based on the introduction of real internal spinning
motions within the particles, and guiding pilot waves constitutive elements. This procedure can be
interpreted as a local correlation between these new internal mot ions and the "hidden parameters” describing
the collective external pilot-wave motions already introduced to represent the Feynman-Gell-Mann pilot-
wave motion [6].
This attempt to re-examine electron theory in the causal interpretation of Quantum Theory in terms of
new internal and external mo tions is justified by the set of problems and questions left open after the
astonishing success of QED predictions. Here we mention only:
• The problem of the electon's size (i.e. the discrepancy between its Compton radius RC ≅ 10−16 cm
and the pointlike behaviour ( Rc (charge) << Rc ) of its EM charge in high energy EM scattering
(tied to the question of EM divergence);
• The problem of the nature of the electron's spin, of its EM self interaction and the interpretation of
its magnetic moment.
• The problem of the contribution of its charge to its mass;
• The interpretation of its anomalous magnetic moment and unknown origin or the Poincaré forces,
which prevent the expansion or its charge distribution.
 This introduction rests on an extension of Maxwell’s Theory of light to interpret recently observed
phenomena [7-9]. It is based on Dirac’s suggestion [10] that the vacuum is a real physical medium built of a
covariant polarized distribution of electromagnetic waves which carry excited linear Maxwellian and
nonlinear soliton type photon waves (“piloted” by linear waves) [11]. If this is true one can introduce
• Nonzero electric field divergence and nonzero electron conductivity in vacuo tied to nonzero
photon mass [1-5] corresponding to a non-expanding universe cosmology [4,12].
• New extended charged particle (electrons and photons) models built with point-like EM charges
rotating around a center of mass [4,13-15] as discussed here (see Fig. 1).

Since in this model the pilot wave and the piloted particle are composed of extended elements (cores),
we start with the assumption that each individual element moves within a time-like hypertube 1 which
contains:

ν
• A distribution of conserved energy-momentum, Tμν (satisfying ∂ Tμν = 0 which recovers all
internal and external interacting fields. As one knows [4,13-15,] this implies the existence of a
covariantly defined centre of mass, Yμ (θ ) where (θ ) is the proper time along Yμ ’s path [16]. Its
internal mass distribution can be assumed to be contained within a re lativistic spinning sphere (in
Yμ ’s rest frame, Π 0 ) of radius R around an axis of rotation centered on Yμ with a moment of
inertia I = 12 mR 2 in such a way that its equator rotates with a velocity  c in Π 0 [13]. This
spherical mass distribution can be assumed to behave, for all practical purposes, like a rigid mass
distribution [17] so that an external force applied to it can be separated into two components. i.e., a)
a translational force on Yμ b) torques around Yμ and X μ .
• A practically point-like electromagnetic internal charge distribution in each individual extended
element corresponding to an internal conserved current, J M satisfying ∂ μ J μ = 0 . This implies
the existence of a covariantly defined (in Π 0 ) centre of charge, X μ (τ ) moving within the
hypertube with a proper time τ 0 . This assumed distinction between mass and charge distribution,
corroborated by experiment on individual electrons [13], implies 1) that EM charge e is contained
in a radius RE  R in X μ 's rest frame, Σ ; , 2) that X μ moves with a velocity v  c on the
core's equator: and
• That there is an attractive (gravitational) force between Yμ and the small mass Δm of charged
elements contained within the neighborhood r ≤ RE of X μ (τ ) in Σ 0 .

We present this model as follows. In the first part we analyze the internal motions of the free extended
elements, which constitute the building blocks of the pilot wave and particle aspect of individual isolated
electrons. This analysis implies the introduction of new internal variables (including their individual center
of mass and charge) describing these (unobserved) internal motions: a procedure comparable to the
introduction of the internal molecular motions within Maxwell's and Bolt zinann's theory of point gases 2 .
The second part introduces external interactions (i.e. collective motions) between neighboring extended
elements and interactions between the permanent internal motions of each element with its neighbors

1
These cores are evidently related to the isolated extended electron model developed by MacGregor (and others) [13] and we shall see
that our initial assumptions imply their correspondence with QED and SED results.
2
These individual extended elements are thus treated as extended particles with constant internal motions which imply the existence of
new types of interactions between neighbouring elements, such as the quantum potential and spin -orbit coupling. As we shall see it is
possible to start with a model of internal motions which recall former classical electron models.
described in terms of new collective parameters (density, etc.) which imply the existence of waves and
piloted soliton-like particles constituting the individual micro -objects analyzed by the Quantum Mechanical
formalism in its causal stochastic interpretation [18]. In the last part we shall briefly discuss recent
experimental results which can be interpreted within this model.

INTERNAL MOTIONS OF PARTICLE INDIVIDUAL EXTENDED ELEMENTS

IN TERMS OF CAUSAL COLLECTIVE BEHAVIOR

If an individual electron is described 1) as a real wave, Ψ comprising extended elements which can be
analyzed in terms of collective mo tions propagating on a covariant stochastic subquantum Dirac type aether
[19], and if 2) these collective motions can be analyzed in terms of average drift motions within time-like
hypertubes (2-branes) combined with stochastic random path perturbations (like molecules in a gas), then we
can introduce at each point, Yμ a scalar density, ρ (Yμ ) of these extended elements and the internal
parameters, A yield an average value <A> at Yμ (θ ) : where θ defines the proper time along the average
drift path followed by the condensed density, ρ ( d ρ / d θ = 0) within the collective motion. If the
collective motions contain a non-dispersive soliton-like particle like conserved density concentration, ρ (θ )
tied to nonlinear terms in the wave’s equation, the ρ ’s will follow an average drift line (plus random
fluctuations of course) so that the linear part of the Ψ field can be considered as a pilot wave. The model
implies that the average individual extended element’s internal parameters are related to known electron
properties, so that the following description of free extended wave (and particle) elements resemble a
classical extended electron model proposed by MacGregor [13], Mckinnon [20] Ignatovich [21] and Vigier
[6].
The starting point in this model is that each basic constitutive electron element contains a rotating point-
like charge e within an extended structure (as initially suggested by Yukawa) and that this charge (centered
at X μ ) undergoes a helicoidal motion of constant radius R =  / mc around Yμ (in Π 0 ) so that we can
write (in Π 0 ) Rμ = Y μ − X μ and Rμ ( dYμ / dθ ) = Rμ ( dX μ / dτ ) = 0, since there is a constant central
force between Yμ and X μ . We can also assume (following Faraday, et al. [6,22]) that its magnetic field
contains two parts. The first external part is incorporated into the moving mass energy, δ m0 c 2 of the point-
like charged part of the core. The second part, which does not rotate with it (according to Faraday's
e xperiments [6,22]) corresponds in Maxwell theory to a magnetic moment μ = e / mc ≅ eR / r . The
corresponding magnetic self-energy, WH carried along by the point-like charge. can thus be treated as a self-
inductance resulting from the current generated by our point-like electric charge so that we can write
⎛ e⎞ ω e
i=⎜ ⎟  , (1)
⎝ c ⎠ 2π 2π R
with the magnetic moment μ = π R ⋅ i. The corresponding magnetic self-energy, WH then
2

becomes
2
1 1 ⎛ e ⎞
WH = L ⋅i 2 = L ⎜ ⎟ (2)
2 2 ⎝ 2π R ⎠
which yields (since L = 4π R and i ≅ e / 2π R )
 e2 α
WH = = mc 2 (3)
2π R 2π
where m denotes the total mass.
Expression (3) also results from the relation, w = v / R  c / R, with
⎛ e ⎞⎛ v ⎞ e
i = ⎜ ⎟⎜ ⎟
⎝ c ⎠ ⎝ 2π R ⎠ 2π R
(4)
⎛ eR ⎞ ⎛ v ⎞ eR e
μ = ⎜ ⎟⎜ ⎟  =
⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ c ⎠ 2 2 mc
Indeed,WH can also be considered the interaction of its non-rotating magnetic moment, μ with the field
(magnetic moment) corresponding to a magnetic radius, RH . As shown by Born and Schrödinger, we get
[23]
2μ 2
WH ≅ 3 (5)
3RM
The Einstein-deBroglie particle relation E= mc 2 = hv follows immediately for single individual
elements. Indeed, since we have λ v = c , one rotation of Xµ around Yµ so that
λ = 2π Rs = h / mc and c = λ ⋅ v, the corresponding angular momentum is thus 2π R ⋅ mc = h, which
yields Rs = h / mc.
Since FAPP there is a central constant force between Xµ and Yµ we can also define an internal spinning
motion of the elements of the system within their time -like boundaries by their angular momentum tensors,
Sαβ . Following MacGregor [13] these properties can be visualized by assuming that the cores and soliton
electrons behave like rigid relativistic bodies in the sense:
• That all pairs of its internal extended elements are separated by constant space-like relativistic
intervals during their motion;
• That if one characterizes each internal point-like internal element by a coordinate, z μ in the rest
inertial frame Σ 0 of X μ ( x = 0) the particle (i.e. z μ = X μ ) rotates twice around Xµ when Xµ
undergoes one rotation around Yµ according to Dirac's analysis [24];
• That one can define two different radii related to different types of fields, i.e., 1) a radius R around
Yµ which contains all material (charged and uncharged) elements, charged and neutral field sources
within the hypertube, but is smaller than the EM self-field's extension; and 2) a radius RE  Rc
centered on X μ (τ ) which contains charged elements, i.e. sources of the self-electromagnetic
fields.
This implies two evident physical consequences. One needs two radii for each extended element since
one has two source distributions, i.e. one small radius, RE for the charge distribution around X μ , and one

Compton-like radius, Rc  RE for all the neutral electron elements since the extended electron contains
point-like sources and fields.
Since X μ is surrounded by a moving electromagnetic field, the magnetic Faraday field's energy
distribution moves with X μ (τ ) and carries self-energy. The charged sub-elements (which move with a
velocity, c repel but are held together by the magnetic pinch forces resulting from their velocity (a
Toka mak-like behaviour) and the magnetic self-field does not rotate around X μ , according to Maxwell's
theory. The representation of the corresponding electromagnetic contribution to the charged part's total
mass, Δm is a longitudinal vector potential, AμL and one must add to it the usual transverse potential
contribution ATμ emitted as a consequence of X μ 's acceleration in its orbital and spinning motion around
Yμ . The usual electromagnetic contributions to the core's energy WE and WH can be represented by
WE = 0. Since WH is only 0.1% of the total energy mc2 , this total mass is essentially of gravitational
origin associated with the internal orbital spinning mo tions of the electron. This suggested relation between
observed masses and internal relativistic spinning motions (which enhance bare masses in relativity theory
[6]) has its historical origin in Descartes' original model of vortex-like atoms.
If one thus assumes, as results from extended charge particle models, that a core (i.e. an electron's total
mass with m = 0.511 MeV) is the sum, in any given inertial frame, of the contributions of its various moving
internal parts. For example, τ in the rest frame, Π 0 , of Yμ (0) one should add the contribution of the rigid

rotating electrically charged core (spin) which contains the total charge e and radius RE which rotates
locally around X μ to the angular velocity of the orbital motion of X μ around Yμ . The spin vector, Sμ
located at X μ (τ ) is in general not parallel to the axis of rotation (centered at Yμ . ) of the orbital circular
motion of X μ around Yμ . In other words, the charged core behaves like a spinning rotating plane around
X μ (τ ) . As we shall now show, their angle is determined by the relativistic conservation laws.
As one knows in the case of a spinning motion around an axis with an equatorial velocity,
c (ω = c / R), the relativistic spinning mass, M s is related to the rest frame mass by the relation
3
Ms = m (6)
2
so that writing as usual I = ( M s R ) / 2 we get I = (3/4) mR = (1/2) M s R where M is the rotating
2 2 2

part of the rest mass.

If we then define the spin angular momentum of the relativistic spinning sphere by
 
J = I ω; (7)
and introduce the "spinning mass Compton radius", Rc =  / M s c we obtain
1
J = , (8)
2
so that this contribution yields m s = (3/2)m ( s , o = spinning, non-spinning)

I = ms R 2 , ( Rμ = Y μ − X μ )
1
(9)
2
with ω ≅ c / R and R =  / M s c,
 1 
J = I ω = ms R⋅ c = (10)
2 2
where  / 2 is the projection of the spin on the z-axis centered on Yμ . We can now calculate the mass-
energy contribution of the moving charge and associated moving EM Maxwellian fields and the
corresponding g factor. As one knows, if one denotes by v the velocity of Yμ (i.e. λ = 1/(1 − v 2 / c 2 ) ) one
has in the associated inertial frame, Σ lab
m( lab ) = γ m( em)
J ( lab) = J ( em)
M (lab ) = M ( em)γ (11)

ϑ( em)
ϑ(lab ) =
γ
where M represents the electron's and core's magnetic moment. This is not enough, however, since we know
from our spin- 1 2 model, [13] that one has
1
1 ⎛ 1 ⎞2 3
J = ⎜1 + ⎟ ⋅  =  (12)
2 ⎝ 2⎠ e
so that one should write, R = 3 ⋅  / mc since relativity theory yields, J = (1/2)mRc , i.e. increases R
and J by the factor 3.
If we now recall that the spin axis z (centered on X μ ) is not parallel to the axis (centered on Yμ )
perpendicular to the equatorial plane of the motion of X μ , this implies that the charge's motion generates a
dipole with total magnetic moment 3e / 2mc (along with a z component e / 2mc ) so that the
magnetic moment which corresponds to this current loop is
e e
μ=
RQ = 3 (13)
2 2 mc
associated with the increased radius volume, RQ = 3 R.
The associated gyromagnetic ratio of the electron thus becomes
μ 2mc
g= ⋅ =2 (14)
J e
and the angle between the two axes of rotation (centered on Yμ and Xμ) corresponds to the value
θ = ± arctan 1 ( )
3 = ±54.70. This is to be expected, since it has been shown that the corresponding
quadrupole moment vanishes in that case, so that angular energy-momentum conservation, as confirmed by
experiment, and the central force between Yμ and Xμ, are automatically preserved.
In the preceding calculations of m s we have left aside the contributions to the rotating
mass (energy) of the electromagnetic fields generated by the dipole motion. Denoting by WE and WH their
contributions, we see that one should take WE ≅ 0 = constant in this model. Indeed, as a consequence of
Maxwell's theory, Feynman's calculations and Faraday's experiments, we see that the Coulomb electric field
around the charged core does not rotate, so that it does not contribute to m s . The situation is different for
WM . Experiments have shown since Fermi's first experiments [24] the electron's magnetic field structures
were much larger (RH »RE ) than its electric charge distribution.
We also find that the value g = 2 was not quite exact; and that the value M = e / 2mc ,
where m is the observed electron mass, was a bit too small. Evidently this result can be interpreted in our
model since, fo llowing Faraday [22], all the EM energy of the free electron does not rotate, and one should
write
 ms = m0 − Δm (15)
where Δm = m (α / 2π ) which according to QED [24] represents the non-rotating part of the internal
electron energy. Which yields
e ⎛ α ⎞
μ= ⎜1 + ⎟ (16)
2mc ⎝ 2π ⎠
and g = (2mc / e )( μ / J ) so that
2α
g −2= (17)
eπ
and we have
⎧WH = 593eV
⎪
⎪ ms = m ⎛⎜ 1 − α ⎞⎟ = 0.51041 MeV
⎪ ⎝ 2π ⎠ c2
⎨ (18)
⎪ R = 3 ⋅  ⎛1 − α ⎞ = 6.6962 ×10 −11cm
⎪ mc ⎜⎝ 2π ⎟⎠
⎪
⎩ g = 2 × 1.001159652193
In this model the electron has a very small charge radius RF << 10-16 , an extended rotating charge and a

mass and EM field distribution (around Yμ ) with s =  where the centre of charge X μ has a velocity
 c.

DIFFERENT MOVING MASS AND ELECTROMAGNETIC ENERGY-

MOMENTUM DISTRIBUTIONS IN INDIVIDUAL EXTENDED CORES
Within the classical and relativistic theory the transition from point-like elements (associated arbitrarily with
Ψ waves endowed with mass, EM charge, spin, etc.) to extended ele ments into the hydrodynamical
description of field behavior has evident qualitative consequences. The corresponding Lagrangian and
Hamiltonian formalism now contains two types of variables associated
• With the internal elements' motions located at any given point, and
• With the average collective motion of these elements around the said point, which correspond (i.e.
react differently) to the local and external interaction around this point.

In other words, a description of a fluid recovers the description of its individual internal motions and the
description of its waves' collective motions, described in terms of different internal parameters.
To clarify the consequences of this point, introduced some time ago in the literature [17] let us first
briefly recall the extremely simple case of a relativistic fluid built with rotating rigid spheres of rest mass
Mo , radius R and spinning around an axis with equators moving very close to the velocity of light, c. As a
consequence of this rotation, the relativistic spinning mass, M s is related to Mo by the relation Ms = (3/2 )
Mo and the internal measured density of the mass remains constant. Also as a consequence, the relativistic
moment of inertia, I becomes larger than the corresponding non-relativistic moment of inertia,
I c = (2/5) M 0 R 2 and becomes I = (1/2) M s R 2 due to the increase of mass at a distance from the axis
of rotation. The spin angular momentum of our relativistic spinning sphere then becomes [13]
 
J = Iω (19)
 
where ω represents the angular velocity which satisfies the relation in our model. We thus get
1 1
J= M s ⋅ Rc = . (20)
2 2
If we consider angular momentum seen from an external point just outside the element's equator - an
expression which implies that all diameter points external or on the equator satis fy, with respect to its centre,
O, a relation similar to the usual Heisenberg equations for each value of r < R. This description of an
extended relativistic rotating massive sphere does not include electromagnetic charge. This model is thus
insufficient since it does not apply to electron theory and corresponds to a massive neutrino if one assumes
that it is held together by gravitational interactions [25].
If there is equilibrium between the centrifugal force and the attractive gravitational force along Yμ and

X μ relation (19) yields a new realistic interpretation of the physical nature of Planck's constant [4] which is
now related to the angular momentum of our model, which only depends on the R ⋅ M s product, a property
which can be experimentally tested.
An extension of this chargeless model to an interpretation of electron motion has been proposed by Mac
Gregor [13]. One adds to the model a very small localized distribution of charged matter on a core's equator,
i.e., of total mass, δ m carrying a charge e and radius RE « A, carried with a velocity c (FAPP), so that the
whole model rotates as a block in the rest frame of O. This pointlike charge distribution is the source of
 
electric and magnetic self-fields (denoted E and H ) influenced by external EM fields and held together by
its own self-fields (since it behaves qualitatively like a Tokomak current pinched by its own magnetic field)
with negligible electric self-energy WE and small magnetic self-energy, WH . If δ m is small this rigid

model has the remarkable property that the total observed rotating spin, J =  / 2 (mass and charge)
around Yμ and the electromagnetic spin (tied to X μ ) are equal FAPP in the rest frame of the charged core
(which practically coincides with the point O) as a consequence of the core's rigidity if δ m is small enough.
Two physical consequences follow immediately from this model:
• The charge spherical distribution in its own rest frame is practically flattened into a very small disk
3
in Yμ 's rest frame and the EM spin, bμ is tangent (FAPP) to the X μ velocity since the velocity is
 c in the present model. In other words, the extended electron charged model recalls Bohr's
original hydrogen model where the proton-electron Coulomb attraction is replaced by a
Yμ − X μ ms − δ m gravitational interaction as the charge has to rotate twice on itself (following
Dirac's argument) in order to recover its external EM distribution;
• If the mass and electric distributions belong to a single rigid material block, then there is a unique
( m)ω
spin orientation in space-time. If we denote by ∫αβ
the core's material mass angular momentum
with radius in the rest frame of the mass center, Yμ , a Lorentz transform will give its value and
orientation FAPP at Xμ .
At this stage we consider the physical reasons for the real spin axis orientation from the observed
orientation, Jz with ( J =  / 2 ) in an external inertial frame. As one knows. An equatorial loop current
produces in general observable multipolar electric effects, since its real rotation axis is not parallel in general
to the axis observed in the experiments. Now one knows that in relativity theory the separate conservation in
motion of angular momentum is only possible within a central field of forces. Since this is the case for our
model, if we assume that the real interactions associated with measurement processes do not modify the
magnitude of internal spin J which corresponds to values, J x , J y , Jz in the rest frame Σ 0 of the centre of
charge, Xμ with the Pauli matrices (so that J = ( J x2 + J y2 + J z2 ) ⋅ (  /2) we see 1) that
J = ( 3 / 2 ) , and 2) that the model has an effective (FAPP) vanishing electric quadrupole moment which
is zero along Oz and vanishes along Ox and Oy (in Σ 0 ) when averaged over a closed cycle (in Π 0 ) of
precessional motion, which corresponds, in the rest frame of Yμ to two rotations of X μ around Yμ so that
E = mc 2 = hν . This implies of course that Dirac's analysis, corresponding during the motion to the non-
crisscrossing Faraday lines of force centered on X μ now appear, in this model, as a consequence of central
gravitational forces between Yμ and Xμ .
This also implies, as shown by MacGregor [13], that the forces associated with a J (or magnetic moment)
of a charged particle, when combined with the internal central forces of the model, a reorientation of the

core's real physical orientation in space - so that the angle between the real rotation axis J in Π 0 and the

measured J z axis (with J z =  / 2 takes the value Θ = arccos(1/ 3) = 5.7. The model yields a direct
interpretation of the gyromagnetic g factor with α = e / c. As for the spin and the radius, one must
2

distinguish for the same real physical reasons between the observed and real intrinsic qualities in that case.
The preceding physical interpretation (justification) by each individual core element of QED predictions
implies some interesting consequences, i.e.:

a) The proposal that the internal charge core of the electron undergoes internal oscillations equivalent
to the presence of an internal electron current, implies that Planck's constant  , initially discovered
as a consequence of the collective behaviour of black-body radiation, is in reality a constant related
to the electron's internal charged core rotation (the original Stoney [4,26]). Its constancy can be
shown to result from the self electromagnetic fields [27].
b) The existence of stable internal oscillations is evident in this model. Following Maxwell, the
charged core's oscillations imply accelerations. As the core accelerates, it must, by Ampere's law,
build up a magnetic field. That build-up. by Faraday's law, will induce an electric field, whose
direction, by Lenz's law, is opposed to the acceleration, so that its acceleration is the cause of its
deceleration, which will reduce the magnetic field and induce a Faraday electric field since this
process accelerates the core again.

This explains the core's internal oscillations. As discovered by Beckmann [28] if the frequency of the
velocity of oscillation is v and the average velocity v (about which the velocity fluctuates) and if the distance
measured along the paths of Yµ between the points at which the electron attains successive maxima of its
fluctuating velocity is λ , one sees by elementary kinematics that we have the relation
v = vλ (21)
where λ is the length associated with one revolution of X μ around Yμ .
The determination of the extend internal core’s distribution of electric charge,ρ ( x) and the possible
forms of the corresponding self-induced electrostatic field in the frame of X μ (τ ) have been discussed
recently [29]. Assuming that ε and ε0 represent the permittivity of the medium inside and outside the rigid

(i.e. static) core in the rotating rigid frame bμ ( r ≤ RE inside) we have φ ( x ) = Q / 4π c0 ⋅ x where Q is
the core's total charge and x ≤ RE . Assuming ε 0Δφ ( x ) = 0 for x ≥ RE and εΔφ ( x) = − ρ [φ ( x )] for
x ≤ RE we get by writing ε = A / k 2 ( k 2 being a real number) the total charge in the form
 Q= ∫
x ≤ RE
Ω( x )φ (x )d 3 x (22)

with Qv = 4π r Dμ (r ) = Q for r ≥ RE . The corresponding electrostatic energy of the self-induced

2

fields is
1
WE = ∫
2 x ≤ RE
Ω( x )φ 2 ( x ) d 3 x (23)

with an associated mass M given by

∫ Ω( x)φ ( x ) d x = 2Mc .
2 3 2
(24)
x ≤RE

It has been shown that the continuity of the values of φ for the value r = RE implies that
πM
Q = 4cε 0 sin( kr ) (25)
ARE
which yields
e sin ( π r / 2 RE )
φ (r) = (26)
4πε 0 r
so that if we take into account the oscillation of X μ around Yμ then R / RE ≥ 10 .
7

This model implies that the extended electron's constitutive elements contain two different types of
internal distributions:

• An extended charge distribution, i.e. a charged core centered on Yμ (τ ) with a small radius RE
moving with a velocity  c along an equator surrounded by an electromagnetic field which carries
energy momentum and a mass, ~ 0.01 m; and
• An extended uncharged matter distribution with an energy-mo mentum distribution centered on
Yμ (θ ) with a larger radius R  10−11 cm and a mass ≅ 0.99 m with
m = 510.406eV = mobserver (1 − α / 2π ).

As discussed above both distributions are spinning, and as shown by Mac Gregor [13], at different
angular velocities can be treated as "rigid" FAPP in the relativistic sense of the term. As one knows, an
external force applied to this type of rigid body can be separated into two components, i.e.:

• A translational force that acts through the mass center;

• Torques that act through the charge and mass centre;

from which one can predict the existence of a helical channeling window (Mott scattering) in electron-
positron and electron-electron scattering, presently suggested by various experiments [20].

CHARGE AND SELF-ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELD MOTIONS

WITH FREE EXTENDED CORES
Since the point-like charge e within each extended element is actually surrounded in its
rest frame S o by an irrotational Coulomb field Ec (which is time varying for an observer
moving through it, i.e. behaves like a moving charge carrying a flattened Coulomb field with it), and by an
induced Faraday field, Ψ which corresponds to inertial electro-magnetic reactions, we thus write, in S o the
self-field in the form:
E = Ec + Ψ (27)
and have by definition
∇Ec = 0
∂B (28)
∇×Ψ=−
∂t
with the relations B = ∇ × A, with Ec = − ∇φ (i .e. Ψ = −∂A / ∂t ) and where the current, J = ρv
corresponds to the core's orbital motion ∇ × B − (1/ c 2 )( ∂E / ∂t ) = μ J , ρ is the charge density and v
the current velocity. Using the Lorenz gauge (∇ ⋅ A = (1/ c 2 )(∂φ / ∂τ )) and Maxwell's equations, we get
for the self-field the relation
1 ⎛ dv dφ ⎞
Ψ=− 2 ⎜
φ +v ⎟ (29)
c ⎝ dt dt ⎠
which implies that the force exerted on the charge by its own field is given by
⎡ dv dφ ⎤
eΨ = ∫ ∫ ∫ ⎢ ρφ + ρ v ⎥dv (30)
⎣ dt dt ⎦
accompanied by the Maxwellian equations
ρ μ J φv
φ=−
ε
and A =
4π ∫ ∫ ∫ r
dv = 2
c
(31)

and we see by writing d φ / dt = (d φ / dr )v ⋅ cos θ and dv = 2π r 2 sin θ drdθ and (where r and θ
denote the usual coordinates in S o ) that the second term vanishes by integration, so that
φ dv
Ψ=− 2
(32)
c dt
and the Faraday force is eΨ = −eφ / c 2 . Moreover, if one works in Σ 0 one can replace E by Ψ and use
H = B / μ so that the Poynting-Heaviside Theorem yields for the change of electromagnetic energy in a
volume V the relation
⎡1 2⎤
∫ ∫ ( Ψ × H )⋅ dS + ∫ ∫ ∫ J ⋅ Ψ ⋅ dV = ∫ ∫ ∫ ⎢⎣ 2 εΨ + μ H ⎥dV = 0
2
(33)
⎦
if this energy is conserved.
Since Ψ is proportional to v and H is proportional to v, then
∂
∂t
(
c1v 2 + c2v 2 = 0) (34)

which yields by differentiation and multiplication by 2v the constant orbital rotation of X μ around Yμ ,
i.e.,
v + ω 2 ⋅ v = 0 (35)
where c2 / c1 = ω .
2

This shows that the helicoidal motion of the electromagnetic self-field of the rotating charge is associated
with a total energy δ mc which should be subtracted from the total core energy
2
mc 2 to obtain the rotating
energy ms c2 . Since we have
2⎛ α ⎞
m sc = mc ⎜ 1 − ⎟ = (m − δ m ) c
2 2
(36)
⎝ 2ο ⎠
with mc 2 = hv and c ≅ λv we get the following table:

Table 1

A. Nonrotating Rest Frame Properties

m0 = m(1 − α / 2π )(2/3) m0 = mechanical mass
R = 3(  / mc )(1 + α / 2π ) m = experimental mass
WE = electrostatic self-energy
WE = 0
e = equatorial point charge
B. Calculated Rotating Inertial Properties
M s = m(1 − α / 2π ) M s = spinning inertial mass
WH = mc (α / 2π )
2
WH = magnetic self-energy
I = ms R
1
2
2 ω = c / R = relativistic limit

C. Calculated Spectroscopic Quantization

vanishing electric dipole moment
J = 3 / 2⋅ 
μ = 3 ⋅ e / 2 mc ⋅ (1 + α / 2π ) nonvanishing electric dipole moment
D. Spectroscopic Quantities at Quantization Angle ΘQM
J z = 1 / 2⋅  ΘQM = ±54.7
μ z = e / ( 2mc) ⋅ (1 + α / 2π ) vanishing electric quadrupole moment

SPINORS AND WAVE EQUATION DESCRIBING INTERNAL

ROTATIONS OF EXTENDED CORE ELEMENTS
The transition from point-like to extended core elements implies (in our model) the existence of internal
rotations. These can be represented in various mathematical languages such as the tensor and spinor
languages. For internal motions, the question is how they are related to Yμ and X μ .
Of course, the description of such collective motions can be developed in different ways. The simplest is
to split spacetime into small 4-volume elements into which we define average variables which correspond
• To the average values of the core's internal motions within such domains; and
• To the average values, such as the density, ρ the drift current, etc. of the quantities which
characterize locally these collective motions and to describe their evolution within drift hypertubes,
recalling that the evolution of such quantities along paths tangent to a 4-vector, vr associated with
μ
a proper-time, τ is given by ∂ ( A ⋅ vμ ) since we are now dealing with conserved densities.
This amounts to a description of a collective wave in a fluid where we have introduced the variables
which connect the local average internal motion of its constitutive extended elements (such as spin) with the
external variables associated with the collective motion of neighboring particles in contiguous hypertubes
(like pressure), a process which enlarges the usual Maxwell-Boltzmann description to local average internal
elements’ internal motions and implies that the wave equations of Quantum Mechanics describe
simultaneously collective measurable (i.e. probabilistic) external and internal motions. The utilization of
vectors or spinors in this description is thus only a matter of convenience.
If we start with a set of elements the transition to collective motions implies if one works within
hypertubes containing all the X μ 's of the enclosed conserved set, that one can introduce within it an
internal set of average quantities densities A (representing their average position) whose proper-time
derivative (w.r.t. the hypertube's time -like axis parameter) is given by ∂ μ ( A ⋅ vμ ) where vμ is the 4-
velocity of this axis.
To discuss individual motions of our extended cores we start from the description, notations and results
of reference [30]. The motion of a single isolated core wave element is described by a centre of matter
density xμ ( z ) with vμ = α xμ / dz , internal angular momentum, Sαβ and 4-momentum, G μ satisfying
the Wayrsenhoff equations
G μ = 0, Sαβ = Gμ vr − ωr vμ , Sαβ v β = 0 (37)
Yμ (θ ) and the clock-like behaviour of internal motions with
which imply the existence of a centre of mass

a clock-needle Rμ = Y μ − X μ = S μν with Rμ G = Rμ Yμ = 0 which rotates (⊥ to u and X μ ) with the

μ

Einstein-deBroglie frequency Ω = ( M / m)ω /2, where M = G G and m = G X . Following

2 μ
i μ μ μ

Dirac, the extended element's charged core part thus rotates twice on itself while X μ rotates once around
X μ in its rest frame Gi = 0 (i = 1,2,3).
In order to show that the associated real collective waves satisfy a Feynman-Gell-Mann type equation we
shall, following Battey-Pratt and Racey [31]
1) Connect the tensor definitions of reference [32] which define each element's behaviour) with new
internal variables defined in terms of two component spinors (i.e. rewrite the internal wave
equations corresponding to equations for internal and collective core motions; and
2) Add new collective variables (such as a conserved element density) and introduce on each fluid
droplet new collective interactions generating de Broglie's and Bohm's Quantum Potential Pilot
Wave.
Point 1) immediately results from this well known fact that any space-rotation of a wave element around
X μ (τ ) can be represented by a quaternion
φ = α +i β + jγ + k δ (38)
with φ = φφ * = α + β + γ + δ = 1 where φ *
2 2 2 2
is the quaternionic conjugate. Since one can write
α + iδ − γ + iβ
φ= (39)
γ + iβ α − iδ
any representation of a spherical rotation is now a special unitary matrix of order 2 (i.e. SU2 ) whose operand
form (introduced by Dirac) is the 2-component spinor
α + iδ
. (40)
γ − iβ
The connection with the Darboux-Frenet frame [33-35] is evident. Denoting by OZ = Oμ3 the
instantaneous spin rotation axis in the rest frame of X μ (ψ ) a spherical rotation starting from the spinor
⎛1 ⎞ ⎛1 ⎞ ⎛i 0 ⎞
⎜ 0 ⎟ can be rotated into ⎜ 0 ⎟ by the operator ⎜ ⎟ which
⎝ ⎠ ⎝ ⎠ ⎜0 − i⎟
⎝ ⎠
rotates the core of our model by 180° about the z-axis, i.e. represented in the Lie group space by a quarter
⎛ eiθ ⎞
turn around a great circle in the 4D hypersphere and goes through the intermediate positions,⎜ ⎟ where
⎝0 ⎠
θ is the angular displacement along the great circle which now represents a core rotation of 2θ about our
z-axis 3 .
In such an extended rotating core model a rotation that is a linear function of time is referred to as spin
[36]. With our notations the corresponding rotation is thus represented by the operator
⎛ eiωt 0 ⎞
⎜ ⎟ (41)
⎜0 − iωt ⎟
⎝ e ⎠
in the core's rest frame centered on X μ (τ ). When the core is moving with a velocity v w.r.t. an external
observer, Σ the initial condition
⎡γ + iδ ⎤ Φ1
⎢γ + iβ ⎥ = Φ (42)
⎣ ⎦ 2

in its rest frame L50 appears in the form

⎡ ( v r⋅ /c 2 ) ⎤⎥⎥
⎡ Iωt −
⎢
exp.⎢ − ⎤
⎢ ⎢
⎣
β ⎥
⎦ ⎥
⎢ Φ1e 0 ⎥
Φ=⎢ 2 ⎤ ⎥
(43)
⎢ (
⎡ Iωt −
v ⋅
r /c ) ⎥
⎢ exp.⎢ −
⎢ β
⎥ ⎥
⎥
⎢ 0 ⎥
⎣ ⎦

⎣ Φ 2 e ⎦
to the static observer as a consequence of the Lorentz transformation t ' → (t − v ⋅ r / c2 ) / β with
β = (1 − v 2 / c 2 )1/2 and v ⋅ r = vx x + v y y + vz z . The observer sees the centre x of a contracted core
moving past him with a velocity, v and observes a variation of the rotation's phase with time, but also from
position to position. This is a straight forward consequence of the chosen D ( 1 2 ) representation of the
Lorentz Group. As a consequence, each particular phase of the motion moves with a velocity V = c2 / v
in the direction of v (See Figure xxx), as in de Broglie's initial assumption, and regions of constant phase are
perpendicular to the motion of the model.
X μ with an angular velocity ω (1 − v 2 / c 2 ) 2 as a
1
For our external observer, the core rotates around
consequence of time dilation, and this rotation combined with V produces a decreasing pitch (w.r.t.
increasing velocity) since he sees an angular velocity of ω / (1 − v 2 / c 2 )2 the helical configuration: a well
ω (1 − v 2 / c 2 ) 2 and the covariant form (i.e.
1
known result of the distinction between the contravariant (i.e.
and the covariant form of the rotation energy of the core.
Now as noticed by Battey-Pratt and Racey, [31] the introduction of the preceding new internal spinor

3
Since our model, as in references [4,14,15 ], is continuously connected with surrounding space, one must distinguish between
inversion by parity P and reversal (by time inversion T) of spin.
variables implies that they are related (for an observer) to the variables X μ and Yμ describing locally the
core's external motion by a wave equation with ∇ 2 − (1/ c 2 )( ∂2 /∂t 2 )
ω2
Φ= 2
(44)
c
since an immediate calculation yields
∂2 Φ ω2 ω 2v 2
= − Φ and ∇ 2
Φ = − Φ. (45)
∂t 2 β2 c4 β 2
If we recall that in the single element case we have shown that E = Mc = hv so that
2

M 2 c2 ω 2
= 2 (46)

2
c
we see that the relation (44) (which represents with new parameters the core's internal rotation) takes the
classical form of a Klein -Gordon equation (16)
m 2c2
Φ= Φ (47)

3

an astonishing fact indeed, since we now connect spin with mass in a discreet extended clock-like wave
element. This is not all, however. The similarity to the Feynman-Gell-Mann equation appears immediately.

COLLECTIVE CORE MOTIONS

The Lagrangian description of a set of core collective motions (waves) evidently implies physical (i.e.
mathematical) relations between the collective variables and the local average variables describing (locally)
individual constitutive set elements in a small 4-volume centered on a point X μ (τ ). This can be done in
two steps:

1. The local relation (interpretation) of collective spinor parameters describing a real small collective
linear pilot wave equation with the local internal variables of their constitutive extended elements.
2. Their relation with the non-dispersive non-linear internal soliton-like solutions representing
observed particles in this model.

We start from the assumption that both states' collective motions are described locally by 4-component
spinors Ψα satisfying the connection and identities (discovered by Pauli [17]) connecting them with the
representations Φ ( 1 2 , 1 2) of the Lorentz group, and therefore satisfying automatically the Pauli identities
with the 4x4 matrices γ μ . . With the usual Bjorken-Drell relations and notations (  = c = 1) we first
assume that the pilot-wave Lagrangian without constraints can be written:

( ) (
L = m 2 Ψ Ψ − i∂ˆ − eAˆ * Ψ ⋅ i ∂ˆ − eAˆ Ψ +) 1
4
Fμν Fμν + μ 2 A*μ Aμ (48)

which yields for the Ψ field Feynman-Gell-Mann type field equations

( )( )
⎡ i ∂ˆ − eAˆ * i∂ˆ − eAˆ − m2 ⎤ Ψ = 0
⎣ ⎦
(49)
with two conserved currents
 Re ⎡ Ψ ( i∂ μ − eAμ ) Ψ ⎤
1 1 ν
J1μ = and J 2 = ∂ ⎡ Ψσ μν Ψ ⎤⎦
2m ⎣
(50)
m ⎣ ⎦
along with
σ μν = 1 2 ( λμ , γν ) (51)
and spin vector density

Sμ =
1
m ⎣
( ⎦ )
Re ⎡Ψ γ ; γ μ i∂ˆ − eAˆ Ψ ⎤ . (52)

We complete this description with two physical constrains (assuming (  = c = 1) which reduce the
Dirac equation to the Feynman-Gell-Mann equation:
• That Ψ also satisfies the Dirac equation

(i∂ˆ − e∂ˆ ) Ψ = mΨ (53)

• That the invariant i Ψγ 5Ψ vanishes, i.e.,

i Ψγ 5 Ψ − 0 (54)
which imply that Ψ can be built with a two-component spinor W
⎛W ⎞ ⎛W ⎞
Ψ = ⎜ ⎟ with W = ⎜ 1 ⎟ (55)
⎝W ⎠ ⎝W2 ⎠
and that Ψ now satisfies the usual Feynman-Gell-Mann equation
⎡⎛  ⎞2    2 ⎤
⎢⎜ i ∂ˆ −
e
( )
A ⎟ + σ H + iE ⎥ ω = m2 c 2ω (56)
⎣⎢⎝ i ⎠ ⎦⎥
which we can now analyze in terms of internal and external (collective) variables.
As well known, by analyzing the purely mathematical connection between 4-component spinors, Ψ and the
finite dimensional representations of the Lorentz group D ( 1 2 , 1 2) , Pauli showed long ago that one has the
following local mathematical identities, i.e. (with
γˆμ = (1/3 ⋅ !)⋅ ∈μναβ γν γα γ β ): - two invariant g =ΨΨ and i Ψγ 5Ψ = 0 in this model; - a current and
spin density J μ = i Ψγ μ Ψ and Sμ =−Ψγˆμ Ψ with J μ J μ = ρ 2 , S μ S μ = ρ 2 and J μ Sμ = 0 ; an
angular momentum density M μν , i.e. M μν = 12 Ψ (γ μ γν − γν γ μ )Ψ with ρ ⋅ M μν = − ∈μναβ Sα J β ; a
momentum density K M = i Ψ ⎡⎣∂ μ ⎤⎦ Ψ; an energy momentum density Tμν with

( )
ρ ⋅ Tμν = ρ ⋅ −Ψ ⎡⎣ ∂ μ ⎤⎦ γ nΨ = K μ ⋅ J μ ∂ ν J λ ⋅ M μλ (57)
which yields a simple physical interpretation of relation (44) with the constraints (53) and (54). Indeed, if we
write
W = ρ 1/2 ⋅ eiS /U (58)
and if we now utilize the hydrodynamical interpretation of relation (58) with the help of the quaternion
formalism introduced by Battey-Pratt (38), we can physically interpret the terms appearing in relations (57).
One first remarks that, as already published and dis cussed in the literature [1,6,17] and without the
constraints (53) and (54), the relation (48) associated with waves Ψ = Q ⋅ ω (with ωω = ±1 ) has been
shown to correspond to a quantum potential
 Q
U= − ωω∂ μ ω∂ μ − ω∂μ ωω∂μ ω (59)
Q
and related to the usual quantum calculations.
Now from { }
L = ( c / 2 ) ( Ψγ μ Dμ Ψ − DμΨ ϕμ Ψ ) + 2 χΨΨ = 0 = ( c / 2 ) t μμ + ρ m0 c 2 = 0 a
Lagrangian, the Dirac constraint (53,54) can be derived (reintroducing  and c ) (with ξ = mc 2 /  and
( )
Dμ = ∂ / ∂x μ − ( ie / c ) Aμ ) because as shown by Takabayasi [37], Halbwachs [17], etc., if analyzed in
hydrodynamical terms with Ψγμ Ψ = 0 this yields the Dirac equations

λμ Dμ Ψ = − χΨ and Dμ Ψλμ = χΨ so that L = 0. They also yield the conserved current,

μ
∂ μ = −i cΨγ μ Ψ = ρU μ (with ∂ j μ = 0, ρ = Ψ Ψ and U μ = ∂ μ / ρ ) so that U μ Yν = −c 2. The
associated angular momentum, spin and momentum densities take the form
Sμν = ( i / c ) ∈μνλα Uλ σα with σ α = (  / 2 ) Ψ5γγ α Ψ (so that the spin density modulus is just
σ 0 ( σα σ α ) 2 = ρ  / 2 ) and the total impuls ion g μ = − (1 / c 2 )t μν v μ = ( i / 2 ρ ) Ψ ⎡⎣ ∂ μ ⎤⎦ Ψ.
1
The

L = ρ g μU μ + Sμλ ∂ μU λ + ρ m0c = 0 yields the energy

2
energy momentum density corresponding to
μ μ
momentum density t μν = g μU ν + S μλ ∂ μU λ = g μ ⋅Uν + Θμν ; with ∂ tμν = g μ + ∂ Θ μν ⇔ so that
we have ∂ μ tμν = tην = 0 = g μ + ∂ μ Θ μν ⇔ and ∂ν Θμ is the form taken by the quantum potential in
that case. The constraint (53) also implies a consequence of angular momentum conservation that the
Belinfante tensor f μνλ = ( i / 4) cωλ5λα Ψ = + ( i c / 4 ) t μνλα Ψλˆα Ψ yields the associated angular
momentum density Sμν through the relation
c2
f μνλU λ = − S μν
2 (60)
i
= t μνλα U λσ α
2
where σ α is the spin density.
Introducing then the dual of the vector density, σ α by the definition
σˆ [αβγ ] = σˆ [αβγ ] = σˆ μ = itαβγμσ μ with μ ≠ α , β , λ (61)

and utilizing the Takabayasi projection operator on a plane orthogonal to vector U μ i.e.
Uμ Uν
η μν = δ μν + . (62)
c2
(U )
With the definition Wμ = ημν Wν for all vectors we get the expression
1 ⎧ ⎛U U ⎞⎫
f μνλ = δ μν ⋅U λ + ⎨ict μναλσ α ⎜ α 2 λ + δαλ ⎟ ⎬
2 ⎩ ⎝ c ⎠⎭ (63)

= δ μν ⋅ U λ + Θ μνα
so that starting as usual from the identity expressing total angular momentum conservation. i.e.
 t μν − tνμ = 2∂λ f μνλ
(64)
= δμν + Θ μν
we get the relation
g μU v − gνμ + ⎡⎣δ μλ ∂ μU λ ⎤⎦ = Sμν + Θην + τ μν . (65)
Any attempt to describe the average internal behaviour of a localized particle -like wave packet "piloted"
by an external linear wave raises the problem of the physical stability of the particle aspect of matter. If
observed extended elements of particles and pilot-waves are extended wave packets, which thus recover
internal motions, can one describe them within the frame of the usual linear wave equations or should one
add non-linear terms to those equations to endow them with non-dispersive (non-spreading) properties at
least during their lifetimes? This problem has already been discussed in the literature by de Broglie et al.
[38] and we shall only briefly summarize here some established results related to the present model. In order
to satisfy observed physical properties of quantum particles, the first property is that if we consider each
wave element (in the pilot wave and in the particle-like soliton) as bilocal structures with an internal centre
of mass around which spirals a point-like centre of charge, the average motion of individual particle
elements (i.e. constitutive pilot-waves and piloted solitons) should be considered as an approximate
continuous distribution (defined by the density ρ of a parameter Yμ ( Θ ) (or X μ ) of their mass centers
associated (carrying) spin Vectors Sμ ( Θ ) defining local orbital spin corresponding to local average
rotation of their associated centers of charge around Yμ (Θ ) .
The second property is that if the components of the (average) wave function , satisfy the same wave
equation a non-linear term can be introduced into it, which would only be effective (big enough) inside the
extended soliton part. This would also explain the piloting mechanism.
As a possible solution we shall only present here an extension of the solution proposed by Mackinnon.
[39] If we assume:
1) That in the rest frame of its centre of mass the extended average element centers at a point Yμ (Θ)
at the centre of a volume ΔV is associated with the charged point X μ (τ ) at a constant distance
R = X μ − Yμ ;
2) That Yμ (τ ) in its rest frame is the origin of an orthogonal set of three axes (where Rμ lies in the
X,Y plane) represented by a pair of spinor components ϕ (ϕ1, ϕ2 ) , where the X-Z axis is the
rotation axis;
3) That we can leave aside the space-like distance Rμ = Y μ − X μ (i.e. neglect the corresponding
internal oscillations) and work directly in the rest frame of I 0 of X μ , since X μ and Yμ in a free
core remain within the same time -like hypertube;
4) That, following Mackinnon [39] we start from the assumption that if we construct in Π 0 at X μ a
system of three orthogonal axes rotating around a vector σi and X ≅ 0 then the corresponding
phase vibration (of Yμ w.r.t. X μ ) must be the same for all external observers. It is represented
[40] by a two-component spinor ( )
Ψ Ψ1 ( X μ ) , Ψ 2 ( X μ ) associated with the representation

D ( 1 2 , 0 ) and D ( 0, 1 2 ) of the Lorentz group [20]. This implies that if U denotes the velocity of
X μ w.r.t. a direction z in an inertial frame, the wave packet representing all possible inertial plane
 waves (on X μ ) with all velocities ± c in the interval is given by, the non-dispersive wave
expression
⎧ Θ⎫
{ }
F12 ( x , t ) = K exp i ⎡⎣ω ( k0 ) t − k0 x ⎤⎦ ⎨sin ⎬ ⋅ Φ12
⎩ Θ⎭
(66)

with

( )
m0 c − 12
Δk = 1−β
2


m0 v
k0 =
(1 − β )
− 12
2

U
β= (67)
c
Θ = Δk ( z − vt )
k = constant
A two component spinorΦ ( Φ1 , Φ 2 ) then satisfies the wave equation
m02 c4
F1,2 −
 3 ( 2 2
) (
F1,2 = c − v exp i ⎡⎣ω ( k0 ) t − k0 x ⎤⎦ ⋅∇ )
(68)
∇ sin Θ
(
= λ exp i ⎡⎣ω ( k 0 ) t − k 0 x ⎤⎦ ⋅
Θ
)
where λ Θ N of
is a constant. A simple extension of preceding calculation suggests that, adding a solution

(xx) to a solution Θ L of its linear left-hand side with the same phase S ( x , t ) implies that the soliton
(particle) wave Φ N ) is piloted by Φ L which satisfies the Feynman-Gell-Mann equation.
The assumption of extended particle cores (with internal, Rμ motions) implies, of course, the
introduction of different Lorentz frames. Indeed, to describe them one should add to external observer
frames Σ (one passes from one frame to another by a Poincaré transformation):
• An instantaneous, comoving inertial frame whose origin, Yμ is at rest and its Lorentz frame has

a 4μ  dYμ / d Θ, a μ3 ≅ RM , so that the orbital rotation of X μ vanishes;

• An instantaneous comoving inertial frame , I 0 whose origin, X μ is at rest and its Lorentz frame
has bμ4 ≅ X μ = dX μ / dτ and no spin but which rotates with an angular momentum tied to the
rotation of Rμ = Y μ − X μ
• A non inertial frame , N a centered on X μ in which the accelerating electron charge X μ is at rest
and its instantaneous spin is zero;
• A non inertial reference frame M a which Yμ is at rest ( dY / dΘ = 0 ) and the instantaneous
orbital motion of X μ is zero;
• A non inertial reference frame N g supported in a gravitational field. The principle of equivalence
 implies that N = N when a = − g . The necessity of introducing the preceding frames has
a g

been discussed recently (without electron spin) by Petkov. [41]

This introduction implies (as will be developed in subsequent work) that at

1) The velocity of light is anisotropic in N a and N g ;
2) The electric fields in I 0 and N a are identical;
3) The charged volumes in N a and N g are anisotropic;
a g
4) The X μ 's follow local geodetic paths in N and N in the distorted internal geometry within R;
5) Another important point [42] is that if we recall that the point-like charge centered on X μ rotates
twice on itself [6,24] while X μ undergoes one rotation around Yμ then one sees that if one
assumes that this internal Zitterbewegung resonates with the corresponding external zero-point field
to ensure the continuity of Faraday's lines of force on the electrons charged sphere, then one
E = hv = mc 2 and the deBroglie relation ( ωcγν ) c
−2
expects that = mcγν /  = p /  defines
this gearing pilot mechanism.

In this model internal/core (17) and particle oscillations beat in phase with the external zero-point frequency
of the extended pilot wave elements.

DIVERGENCE OF THE ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELD

In this chapter our discussion has centered primarily on properties relating to extended electron dynamics;
however as discussed in detail elsewhere [14,15] the model applies equally well (as summarized in this and
the next section) to internal photon motion and integration of the EM and G fields. A non-vanishing
divergence of the electric field given below can be added to Maxwell’s equations which results in space-
charge distribution. A current density arises in vacuo and longitudinal electric non-transverse
electromagnetic terms (i.e. magnetic field components) appears (like B (3) ) in the direction of propagation.
Both sets of assumptions were anticipated by de Broglie and Dirac. They imply that the real zero-point
(vacuum) electromagnetic distribution
• Is not completely defined by Fμν but by a four-vector field distribution given by a four-vector density,
Aμ associated with a de Broglie-Proca equation i.e.
•
mγ2 c 2
 Aμ ( xα ) = − Aμ ( xα ) (69)

2

and its complex conjugated equation.

• The Aμ field potential equation also contains a gradient term so one has in vacuum:
•
Aμ = ATμ + AμL + λ∂ μ S (70)

with Aμ A ∗ → 0 and a small electrical conductivity in vacuo.

 POSSIBLE NEW CONSEQUENCES OF THE MODEL

Since such models evidently imply new testable properties of electromagnetic and gravitational phenomena
we shall conclude this work with a brief discussion of the points where it differs from the usual
interpretations and implies new possible experimental tests.
If one considers gravitational and electromagnetic phenomena as reflecting different behaviors of the
same real physical field i.e. as different collective behavior, propagating within a real medium (the aether)
one must start with a description of some of its properties.
We thus assume that this “aether” is built (i.e. describable) by a chaotic distribution ρ ( x μ ) of small
extended structures represented by four-vectors Aμ ( xα ) round each absolute point in I0 . This implies

• the existence of a basic local high density of extended sub-elements in vacuum

• the existence of small density variations δρ ( x μ ) Aα ( xμ ) above δρ > 0 for light and below (δρ < 0) for
gravity density at x μ .
• the possibility to propagate such field variations within the vacuum as first suggested by Dirac [43].

One can have internal variations: i.e. motions within these sub-elements characterized by internal
motions associated with the internal behavior of average points (i.e. internal center of mass, centers of
charge, internal rotations : and external motions associated with the stochastic behavior, within the aether, of
individual sub-elements. As well known the latter can be analyzed at each point in terms of average drift and
osmotic motions and Aμ distribution. It implies the introduction of non-linear terms.
To describe individual non-dispersive sub-elements within I 0 , where the scalar density is locally
constant and the average Aμ equal to zero, one introduces at its central point Yμ (θ ) a space-like radial four-
vector Aμ = rμ exp(iS / ) (with rμ r μ = a2 = constant) which rotates around Y μ with a frequency
ν = m γ c 2 / h . At both extremities of a diameter we shall locate two opposite electric charges e + and e − (so
that the sub-element behaves like a dipole). The opposite charges attract and rotate around Y μ with a
velocity ≅ c. The +e and –e electromagnetic pointlike charges correspond to opposite rotations (i.e ±  /2)
and Aμ rotates around an axis perpendicular to Aμ located at Y μ , and parallel to the individual sub-element’s
four momentum ∂ μ S .

Figure 1. Diagram conceptualizing two oppositely charged sub-elements rotating at v ≅ c around a central point 0
behaving like a dipole “bump” and “hole” on the topological surface of the covariant polarized Dirac vacuum.
 Assuming electric charge distributions correspond to δm >0 and gravitation to δm < 0 one can describe
such sub-elements as holes (δm < 0) around a point 0 around which rotate two point-like charges rotating in
opposite directions as shown in Fig. 1 below.

These charges themselves rotate with a velocity c at a distance rμ = Aμ (with rμ rμ = Const.). From 0
one can describe this by the equation
1/2
⎡ ∗ ⎤
mγ2 c2 ⎢⎣ (Aα Aα )⎥⎦
 Aμ − 2 ⋅ Aμ = ⋅ Aμ (71)
 ( Aα∗ Aα )1/2

with Aμ = rμ ⋅ exp[iS( xα ) / ] along with the orbit equations for e+ and e − we get the force equation

m ⋅ ω 2 ⋅ r = e 2 / 4π r 2 (72)

and the angular momentum equation:

mγ ⋅ r 2 ⋅ ω =  / 2 (73)

Eliminating the mass term between (31) and (33) this yields
ω = e 2 / 2r (74)

where e2 /2r is the electrostatic energy of the rotating pair. We then introduce a soliton-type solution
sin ⋅ K ⋅ r
Aμ0 = ⋅ exp [i (cot− K 0 x) ] (75)
K ⋅r
where

K = mc / , ω = mc2 /  and K0 = mv /  (76)

satisfies the relation (31) with r = (( x − vt) 2 ⋅ (1 − v 2 / c 2 ) −1 + y 2 + z 2 ) 1/ 2 i.e.

 Aμ0 = 0 (77)
so that one can add to Aμ0 a linear wave, Aμ (satisfying  Aμ = ( m γ2 c 2 /  2 ) Aμ ) which describes the new
average paths of the extended wave elements and piloted solitons. Within this model the question of the
interactions of a moving body (considered as excess or defect of field density, above or below the aether’s
neighboring average density) with a real aether appears immediately 4 .
As well known, as time went by, observations established the existence of unexplained behavior of light
and some new astronomical phenomena which led to discovery of the Theory of Relativity.
In this work we shall follow a different line of interpretation and assume that if one considers particles,
and fields, as perturbations within a real medium filling flat space time, then the observed deviations of
Newton’s law reflect the interactions of the associated perturbations (i.e. observed particles and fields) with
the perturbed average background medium in flat space-time. In other terms we shall present the argument
(already presented by Ghosh et al. [44]) that the small deviations of Newton’s laws reflect all known
consequences of General Relativity.

4
According to Newton massive bodies move in the vacuum, with constant directional velocities, i.e. no directional acceleration,
without any apparent relative “friction” or “drag” term. This is not true for accelerated forces (the equality of inertial and gravitational
masses are a mystery) and apparent absolute motions proposed by Newton were later contested by Mach.
 NEW BACKGROUND CONDITIONS OF THE DIRAC VACUUM

If one assumes in conjunction with the de Broglie-Bohm-Vigier Causal Stochastic Interpretation (CSI) of
quantum theory [18,45-47] that de Broglie matter-waves describe a wave-particle duality built up with real
extended space structures with internal oscillations of particle-like spin, it is possible to justify Bohr’s
physical assumptions and predict new properties of a real Dirac covariant polarized vacuum [10,45].
Bohr’s major contribution to modern physics was the model of photon emission-absorption in Hydrogen
in terms of random energy jumps between stable quantum states and atomic nuclei. This discovery was one
of the starting points for the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum theory. We suggest this structural-
phenomenology by general covariance applies equally as well to the symmetry conditions of the Dirac
vacuum backcloth also; but as one knows the purely random description of quantum jumps suggested by
Bohr is obviated by the CSI of quantum mechanics [18,45,46,48] suggesting this interaction is piloted. We
feel the CSI interpretation is required for our exciplex model to work because it is the internal motion of a
massive photon that enables coupling to the Dirac vacuum.

Figure 2 a) 2D simplistic view of 3D Dirac rotation map. b) 2D rendition of 4D view of Dirac hyperspherical rotation
for raising and lowering Dirac-type topological advanced-retarded annihilation-creation vectors.

Some experimental evidence has been found to support this view [48,49] showing the possibility that the
interaction of these extended structures in space involve real physical vacuum couplings by resonance with
the subquantum Dirac ether. Because of photon mass the CSI model, any causal description implies that for
photons carrying energy and momentum one must add to the restoring force of the harmonic oscillator an
additional radiation (decelerating) resistance derived from the EM (force) field of the emitted photon by the
action-equal-reaction law. Kowalski has shown that emission and absorption between atomic states take
place within a time interval equal to one period of the emitted or absorbed photon wave. The corresponding
transition time corresponds to the time required to travel one full orbit around the nucleus. Individual
photons are extended spacetime structures containing two opposite point-like charges rotating at a velocity
near c, at the opposite sides of a rotating diameter with a mass, mγ  10−65 g and with an internal
oscillation E = mc = hv . Thus a new causal description implies the addition of a new component to the
2

Coulomb force acting randomly and may be related to quantum fluctuations. We believe this new
relationship has some significance for our model of vacuum C-QED blackbody absorption/emission
equilibrium [4].
The result from real causal interactions between the perturbed local background “ether” and its
apparently independent moving collective perturbations imply absolute total local momentum and angular
momentum conservation resulting from the preceding description of vacuum elements as extended rigid
structures.
 CONCLUSION

We conclude this model with three remarks.

1. If one assumes elementary particles are extended in space, then one enters a new field of research,
since one should describe (in such a frame) their internal motions and connect them with
observable properties of their external motions.
2. Such attempts evidently violate the limits imposed on physical models by the Copenhagen
interpretation (believed to be incomplete), since one thus assumes the existence of some still
unobservable properties only justified by their indirect physical consequences and their internal
motions occur in distorted space-time geometry like the Einstein energy dependent spacetime
metric, M̂ 4 [50] which in terms of new thinking should be extended to an HD string theoretic
vacuum that takes into account the parameters of a covariant Dirac polarized vacuum.
3. The model proposed in this work (albeit too simple) suggests a similarity between the proposed
internal periodic motions of electrons and the periodic mo tions, at much larger scale, of atoms and
molecules, i.e. extends to internal particle motions some of the concepts suggested by the causal
stochastic interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. Whether this is true or not will be settled by the
future development of microscopic physics [49].

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

This paper was typed from an unfinished handwritten manuscript by J-P Vigier. One of us, Amoroso was
Jean-Piere’s main collaborator and final student during the last decade of his life. His contribution is
somewhat hidden and imbedded in the body of the manuscript, but more salient elements can be found in
places where his and joint papers with Vigier are referenced. The others, Kauffman and Rowlands have
made commentary in the following appendices.

APPENDIX I GENERAL COMMENTS BY LOUIS H. KAUFFMAN

Comments on "Hidden Parameters Describing Internal Motion Within Extended Particle Elemements"
by J.P.Vigier. by Louis H. Kauffman
1. This paper addresses electron theory in the context of questions about the size of the electron in
relation to its pointlike behaviour, the problem of the nature of electron spin and its electromagnetic self-
interaction, the problem of the contribution of the electron charge to the electron mass, and the problem of
the anomalous magnetic moment.
2. The paper bases its modeling on the assumption that the vacuum is a physical medium built of a
covariant polarized distribution of electromagnetic waves. In this model, each individual element moves
within a time -like hypertube.
3. Certainly if one assumes that elementary particles are extended in space, then one should describe
their internal motions and connect these with observable properties from the outside. This makes this sort of
modeling a challenge to the pure symmetry approach to elementary particles where the particle is identified
with its external quantum symmetry group. In this context it is legitimate to assume that there is associated
with a a particle a distinction of geometric type in the ambient three dimensional space. Of course it is also
possible to articulate this distinction in terms of internal spaces of higher dimensions as occurs in string
theories and earlier in Kaluza-Klein theory. At this point we reach an interface between the topology of
embedded manifold structures in three dimensional space and correpsonding structures in higher
dimensions. If the hypertubes appear from the outside as tangled knotted and woven structures, this will
have to be compared with their interior view that will contain the geometry and topology of the interior
spaces.
 4. The remarks in Comment 3, lead mathematically to new notions about knots and links in three
dimensional space that can generalize the role of knots and links in both string theory and in Chern-Simons
theory. In both of these cases the embeddings of one-dimensional manifolds (or tubes about one-dimensional
manifolds) are augemented by extra structure that is called out as internal structure or the structure of a
gauge field on a bundle over the three-dimensional space. In all these cases it is the relationship among these
structures that is of consequence for particle properties and particle interactions. What we need to think
about on the mathematical side is how to hold the context of a knot with extra structure when this structure
has global complexity as does a gauge field or a string quantization. The notion of external/internal that is
challenged here will potentially lead to new mathematics and new physics.
5. The point of view taken here also challenges the strict notion of measurement in the Copenhagen/von
Neumann school of quantum mechanics. Particles being field structures should not have their measurements
treated as an idealized projection to an eigenstate, but rather, the entire context of the measurement should
be taken into account as a quantum field theoretic phenomenon. This is more complex, that a simple
projection and it is more realistic, more geometrical and more topological. It will be worth the effort to find
this richer formulation of measurement in relation to geometric/topological particle structure.

APPENDIX II GENERAL COMMENTS BY PETER ROWLANDS

The paper describes a model of particle structures extended in space-time, with structural features
incorporating ‘hidden’ parameters which describe ‘the local collective motions of the corresponding pilot-
waves’. This is part of a long-term project by Vigier in applying the pilot wave model of de Broglie to
overcoming some of the problems inherent in the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. The
conclusion to the paper says that the semi-classical model proposed is ‘too simple’, but that it suggests a way
of linking particles with proposed internal structures with atoms and molecules which are known to have
such structures.
Present experimental evidence is consistent with a point-like structure for fundamental particles; data
from Penning traps suggests that the radius of the electron, if it exists, must be less than 10–22 m. String /
membrane theory, however, has proposed that fundamental particles can be represented in some sense as
extended objects, which would help to overcome the problem of infinite self-energy needing to be removed
by renormalization, and the finite size is linked to the brane concept in the abstract of this paper.
A point-like structure for particles does not mean that the particles will behave as point-like in a classical
way. There are aspects of particle behaviour which generate properties akin to extension, even in a point-like
particle – for example, vacuum polarization, Zitterbewegung and the related Lamb shift. There are also the
classical radius, relating mass and charge, and the Compton radius, a measure of the particle’s mass. And, of
course, Heisenberg uncertainty means that a point-like particle cannot be located at a classical point. In
addition, aspects of quantum systems can often be usefully modeled by semiclassical approaches, e.g. the
Bohr theory. So, even assuming a Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics and a strictly point-like
structure for a fundamental particle, it is relevant to ask how far a model of an extended structure can
encompass such intrinsically quantum properties as Zitterbewegung. The value of such a model, therefore,
does not necessarily require us to prove it to be true, but depends on the extent to which we can use it to
generate results, especially numerical ones, for experimental investigation and extension of theory into new
areas.
p. 3 Equation (5) is of interest because the factor 2/3 makes it close to the expression that Heaviside
obtained for the mass (m) produced by a sphere of radius r, with a charge e uniformly distributed through it:

e2 2
= mc 2
4πε 0r 3

I have always thought that, for an electron, the radius

 3 e2
r=
2 4πε 0me c
2

was more important than the ‘classical radius’ (Zero to Infinity, p. 612), and certainly with respect to the
polarized vacuum, Zitterbewegung, etc. (Something like this or the classical radius connects directly with the
electron mass, which derives from Zitterbewegung. This is also true of the Compton wavelength.) Of course,
an electron is not a diffused sphere of charge, but this is not a totally inaccurate expression of vacuum,
which, from the electron’s point of view is a series of ‘virtual’ positron-electron pairs. Vacuum is nonlocal
and so fits in with a picture of a diffused concept of charge rather than a localized one.
This also fits in with the formula (6) on p. 4, where the relativistic spinning mass is 3/2 times the rest
frame mass derived from the classical radius.
I also have a long-standing calculation of the vacuum energy of the universe (the so-called ‘dark
energy’) being 2/3 of the total energy (Zero to Infinity, p. 605), and I have also related this indirectly to the
2/3 in the electron mass calculation. This is a prediction by about 20
years of the experimental result (early versions date from 1979, 1982, 1992, 1994), not a retrodiction.
p. 4 Descartes is quoted as the originator of vortex-like atoms. I certainly accept that vortices are
fundamental to Descartes, but am not convinced that this extended to vortex atoms.
p. 7 ‘unique spin orientation in space-time’. The nilpotent formulation of quantum mechanics defines the
uniqueness of fermions solely through the instantaneous direction of the spin axis, which contains all the
information that is known about a fermionic state (Zero to Infinity, p. 144). The nilpotent formulation
derives from a double vector space, one space being defined as ordinary, observable, space, the other as
unobservable, vacuum, space (see the accompanying paper, P. Rowlands, Dual Vector Spaces and Physical
Singularities). The uniqueness of axis is in both spaces.
p. 18 The diagram immediately calls to mind the work of two contributors to PIRT 2010 (and earlier
meetings). A. Giese has a particle model with + and – charges rotating round each other at the speed of light.
G. Grantham has a vacuum that is made up of a lattice of electron-positron pairs. I think of both of these as
being a kind of model of Zitterbewegung, which I have as occurring at a particle ‘singularity’, on the
boundary between real and vacuum spaces. (See P. Rowlands, Dual Vector Spaces and Physical
Singularities) So I think of an extended in structure in real space as being like a ‘physical’ semiclassical
model of the more abstract and quantum mathematical structure of a dual vector space (the ‘vacuum’ space
being a mathematical combination of all the unobservable parameters in physics – mass, time, charge). This
also fits with the string / membrane concept, in principle, though it rules out any of the individual string
models as being ultimately or fundamentally true. (P. Rowlands, Dual Vector Spaces and Physical
Singularities)

REFERENCES

1. M. Evans et al., (1994) The Enigmatic Photon, Kluwer,

2. Vigier, J-P (1990) Evidence for nonzero mass photons associated with a vacuum-induced dissipative redshift
mechanism, IEEE Trans Plasma Sci, 18:1;64-72.
3. Amoroso, R.L., Kafatos, M. & Ecimovic, P. (1998) The origin of cosmological redshift in spin exchange vacuum
compactification and nonzero rest mass photon anisotrophy, in G. Hunter, S. Jeffers & J-P Vigier (eds.) Causality and
Locality in Modern Physics, Dordrecht: Kluwer.
4. Amoroso, R.L & Rauscher, E.A. (2009) The Holographic Anthropic Multiverse, Singapore: World Scientific.
5. Barnes, A. & Scargle, J.D. (1975) Improved upper limit on the photon mass, Phys Rev. 35: 17; 1117-1120.
6. J.P. Vigier, Phys. Lett. A 235 (1997) 419.
7. Roy, S. & Lehnert, B. (1998) Extended Electromagnetic Theory; Space Charge in Vacuo and the Rest Mass of the
Photon, Singapore: World Scientific.
8. Lehnert, B. (2002) New developments in electromagnetic field theory, in R.L. Amoroso, G. Hunter, M. Kafatos & J-P
Vigier (eds.) Gravitation & Cosmology: From the Hubble Radius to the Planck Scale, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
9. Lehnert, B. (1998) Electromagnetic theory with space-charges in vacuo, in G. Hunter, S. Jeffers & J-P Vigier (eds.)
Causality and Locality in Modern Physics, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
10. Dirac, P.A.M. (1952) Nature (London) 169, 702.
11. Petroni, N.C & Vigier, J-P (1983) Dirac’s aether in relativistic quantum mechanics, Foundations of Physics, 13:2;
253-285.
12. Amoroso, R.L. (2002) Developing the cosmology of a continuous state universe, in R.L. Amoroso, G. Hunter, M.
Kafatos & J-P Vigier (eds.) Gravitation & Cosmology: From the Hubble Radius to the Planck Scale, Dordrecht: Kluwer
Academic.
13. M.H. Mac Gregor, (1992) The Enigmatic Electron, Kluwer Academic Publishers.
14. Vigier, J-P, and Amoroso, R.L. (2002) Can one unify gravity and electromagnetic fields?, in R.L. Amoroso, G.
Hunter, M. Kafatos & J-P Vigier (eds.) Gravitation and Cosmology: From the Hubble Radius to the Planck Scale,
Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
15. Amoroso, R.L. and Vigier, J-P (2004) Toward the unification of gravity and electromagnetism, in V.V. Dvoeglazov
& A.A. Espinoza Garrido (eds.) Relativity, Gravitation, Cosmology, New York: Nova Science.
16. G. Hunter, Y mu paper
17. F. Halbwachs, Theorie relativiste des fluides a spin, Gauthier-Villars, 1960.
18. Bohm, D. & Vigier, J-P (1954) Model of the causal interpretation of quantum theory in terms of a fluid with
irregular fluctuations, Phys Rev 96:1; 208-217.
19. P.A.M. Dirac, Nature 1968 (1951) 906.
20. L. Mackinnon, Found. of Physics 81 (1978) 157 and 11(1981) 910.
21. V.K. Ignatovich, Foundations of Physics 8 (1978) 565.
22. M. Faraday, Phil. Trans. Royal. Soc. (1832) 25 and (1852) 25.
26. GJ Stoney (1881) On the physical units of nature, Phil. Mag. 11, 381-391.
28. P. Beckmann, Einstein Plus Two, Golem Press, 1987.
29. P. Hillion and J.P. Vigier, II Nuovo Cimento XVIII (1960) 205.
31. Battey -Pratt and T.J. Racey, Int. J. Th. Phys. 19 (1980) 437.
33. G. Darboux (1918) Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. 24, 394-403. 1
34. G. Darboux (1917) Principles de Geometrie Analytique, Paris: Gauthier-Villars.
35. VB Matveev (1991) Darboux Transformations and Solitons, Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
36. N. Cufaro-Petroni, Ph. Gueret and J.P. Vigier, II Nuovo Cimento 81 (1984) 243.
37. T. Takabayasi (1979) Relativistic mechanics of confined particles: The bilocal case, Prog. Theor. Phys. 67, pp. 1-68.
38. L. de Broglie (1953) La physique quantique indeterministe, Paris, Gauthier-Villard.
39. Mackinnon, L. Lett. al. Nuov. Cim. 42 (1985) 362.
41. V. Petkov (2000) Acceleration dependent electromagnetic self interaction effects as a basis for inertia and
gravitation, in press.
42. B. Haisch and A. Rueda, Phys. Lett A (in press).
43. D. Bohm et al., II Nuovo Cimento XVIII (1960) 209.
44. A. Ghosh (Origin of Inertia (1999) Aperion, 2:1, 33-39.
45. Vigier, J-P (2000) selected papers, in S. Jeffers, B. Lehnert, N. Abramson, & L. Chebotarev (eds.) Jean-Pierre Vigier
and the Stochastic Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, Montreal: Aperion.
46. Vigier,J-P (1997) Possible consequences of an extended charged particle model in electromagnetic theory Physics
Let A, 235:5; 419-431.
47. de Broglie, L. & Vigier, J-P (1972) Phys. Rev. L. 28, 1001-1004.
48. Kowalski, M. (1999) Photon Emission from Atomic Hydrogen, Physics Essays, Vol.12, 312-331.
49. RL Amoroso, LH Kauffman, P. Rowlands, EA Rauscher, (2012) Search For Fundamental Theory, London: Oxford
Academic Press, in process.
50. A. Einstein (1912) Energy dependent spacetime metric
51. D. Bohm and J.P. Vigier, Phys. Rev. 109 (1958) 1882.
52. P.A.M. Dirac, Nature 1968 (1951) 906 and 169 (1952) 702.
53. Ph. Guereit et al., Phys. Lett. 107A (1985) 379.
 
  

 


    
      

                
                      
                      
      !  "  # "   $   #       
  




                        
       
      %      &%      
        %      '     
                  (    ) 
 *       
     &        
   *                    
     

    (  +(  (  ' ( ( (  ( &

 ,,,-&'(,,.-)( -/ -0'( -/1 2

!"#$%&'#!%"

                      
0     %                 
 &3  &% "3#   (  %          
 % (      03              
          4          
     (   4        (      
      $    $        5,6
 
(                 7     
          &        (  
           8 9            
              8

           (          &  
       "              # 4%
    &          (         
     
                        
   *           (  9  (   
(  4      &         %  
                 
       

 #%"%$()*%'"&$+
*            & 3         ,
  W   W    ",#
 W         &  "#      3   
 
                    ) 
  U)"-# : " W #  4         *    &     

             .
   W :  W  " #
   ",#  
     ".#
  !   $   "       !"   ; P < ! " (  #   #$%$ #


  
&           % % &      =
                       
       / 9       "  #         
>             ( %      
       
               
                 3  

(          " #(           3 
 W f      

4            03 ?            
              @
  3      5 6
 §  · : '#
¨ ¸  :&  :/ . "/#
( © W ¹ 
                  )   :   
  '      (  /        ?   5.6
( , ABC : B ,.1 0
"@#
: / -B/( : & - @1( : '# /B1 u ,-@

            "/#          
    4                   
         : (             5 6
  
 
 W  |  (W "1#
(      (             W - 
4            "/#  " #
, §  ·
¨ ¸ : '#  : &   : /  / "B#
( ©  ¹
(   "/#(         4 &      
             
   ,  ( , "C#

,
D      , 

4       U& "-# : . "W #  U '# "-# :  / "W # 

.
4              %   %               & 
  D   E    3               % F      
 >
/
4   (     &  ,  .2,9    &    .(     
@
)                
      ' (   (   (       G   52 1

D       .&  (  ! , : (   F    >(        

     (    (     ( &       &B H
" #  "C#  

,
W ³  c ,  ( c  ( ,   ,  ( I  z ,: ( "A#
-
         52       W     ! , : (C

                     3      
                          
    =                    "C# J 
                          &     
 &         " ) #  4     
      
4        =                
    "B#    "@#    
f
, 
  f      , ³ ,, : ( ,@ . 0 ",-#
( , : '#  :&   :/  /
=      ) "C#    "( "C#    '      #
=                    (     
                (      
   .--- 7(            -,K   '  A =     
    
,
, 
   ,     - ³ ./B : ( /B,A 0 ",,#
( - : '#  :&   :/  /
       B@1K      4           
 *  %         &    (    
 (             (        
 
 (                  
 
    , : ( 5/6

) !)(##$
4      5@6
 & ³  P
 Q ) PQ   ", #
           (  "  #  4      ".# 

) *      K* ( 
  & ³      ,  ,  I ,    G     :  ",.#
4        

1
) "A#  ",,#     3      %    '  - œW -  %       
 G W :   - ,
B
+             
C

 " #    "1#    "C#     W o       o "f( ( , 6 
A
D      3    )        &           
    "/#
     *E  B7      B-- 7    ,:,--- E   
       *E              (     *    
           =     ,:,---           ,---    
   - @ L(     (    ,---    B-- 7

     ,   - ,  ,  
. Ÿ ,   ",/#
 ,  ,      
      - &           
- ,- : ,  , - ",@#
 , - { ,  -     ",/# 

,   ,- 
    ,- ,       ",1#
  "C#    
,   , - ,  ( 
,  , - ,  (   ,  ",B#

 (        

    - 
­
, - °° 
,  ,  , - ,  (   , I  d ,: ( 
® ",C#
(, - °
°̄  
,  ,  , - ,  (   ,  ,  , - I  t ,: (
4 D        , - ! . (     "  # !  -  J        


 I                4         ,
4 E E            M,@ : (          

D              , : (

    

     

  

 

/ 0 4             9     ,:(

          ",C#     &'  ) 
D        +    '         
         ! -              
     +     (       
            (       
= (                    
          =      & F>I   
",1#   

­-  , -  ,
 ,    ® ",A#
 of
¯, 
4              4          
N,N ! -             D      &
          (    '   '      = 
   
 ,    , " -#
o-
        &%       (      &
       

    

   ! -

/1 D                


         %           52     

      '  4                  
   "  &#   &    
  (         
                     ( 
     & '    ,.    ( "     #    
 4                (         
       
  (       &     ( 
         %        
          
          
 ! -(                       
 
      F>       (          &
              *      
               4     (    G
O                      
%     4     .
          
&    (                       
      '       & &
   
 %        &%(     .          ( 
      &   +

    ! -   !

    

N N

/2 0      

4                   /     
  & ³      ,  ,   " ,#
    ",.# 4      
,      ,- 
,  , - ,:      ,  " #
      "C#    &     '   D   & 

ª
 º

    -  «,  ,  , -    ,  , » , - : , - I   
¬ ¼
" .#

4     /           (         

   ! -

    

N N
/3 0       

 (#4/
5
                     
          4         &%   
  &   &  &
  &)          "&
 #           &          

       P '               (  %
   %        )      "  #   (   
                   
  * (            " .#
=            4            
     F>               F >   
               %(  (       
           P%         
   &%     . 4        
        & 
  &     '      *            
   
  G  .             
 (                    
=   (    /(               
    &
             %    4  
               /&     &%
    . 4                  (  
 '       ,- 4           
                     
       
           4     &
     (    &       % 
 4                        
  4             &     
4             .   /    ( 
 %             

      
  9  " #(           ' 
      
           (         
               I         % 
      "#      ,,

&!$67'"#!%"
9               &  
             4        
     
     ".#  %   ,   5,6
) PQ   , D P   , EQ  KDE    KDE " /#
4    '  
,DP   G D P
  " @#
        
     " (  #      
      '       Q  $ ,( 

 , :  Ÿ
r, :  
r, :  " 1#

     " @#(           (  9
     ,

,-
?(       %       .9(      %           
 (         ,2, 9          
,,

  (            (               
   '   
 
J P w P\   
   &\   - " B#
   %          " 1#(          
            /,.      
\   ( I r  \   ( I   " C#
       &          "      
   #          ,/ ?   
    &     " C# 4    ) " C#       
     ! - *      
\  -( I r   \  -( I   " A#
                
    " 1# 
"  # !
" M  #   

   " B#     &   9     (       
         % %& 9      " B#
4 (  \ " ( I  #       " 1#        516

\   ( I   , K J @-\   ( I  

\   ( I    , K- -J -R\ R   ( I   ".-#
\   ( I     , ,
KK- J - J \
@ -R R
  ( I  
 -   //   -JP 2 JP- ! -   K      P      


                
     
\   ( I   S \   ( I   Ÿ K J @-\   ( I   \   ( I   ".,#
4       " C#  " A# 
 K J @- ( ,  K J - \  -( I  

@
- ". #
4               \ " -( I  #  4       ".-#

4 
"  # !
" M  #                

O   

"  # ! M
" M  #               (

    &           \ " ( I ( & #       9>   

% %    &   

\   ( I ( &  , K# J @\   ( I ( &  "..#
  $& J  
"  # !
" M  #     &      4 \ " ( I ( & # 

\   ( I ( &   ,, KK # -\   ( I ( & 

"./#
\   ( I ( &  ,,, KK # K- -J -R- R\ R   ( I ( & 
      " B#(  " A#   ' 
\  -( I r( r&  \  -( ( ( &  ".@#
4    &     ".@#    ! -
  9  
§ - ·
- -R ( - ,( J - J -R J - Ÿ -J -R- R -J - - - J - J- ¨ ¸ ".1#
© -  ¹
 ".@#   &    
\ { K-J -R-R\ R ".B#
         " F   >#         " F
  >#   9    =           9   " B#

! , :     D%              (  
    D     '       

 (     /            

,
4    '   D  (      '     
,.
             &      (               

,/
E F >           &       (      
(          
 , D P   G D P    ".C#
                        
9     &' ,@
       &%      &( & (
       9   J                  
          I          &   (   
   
  &         (    "   # 
    4               &    
+%   "B#

#!,
4         T)9         4
         '          E
            %  *?4        
   "C# 4                
       %                    
          F>  " #          4
              ".#   /           
+              4      

*      '  F&>    
  : ,    ".A#
  +      5A6
  : ,  :/  "/-#
4  
,DP   G D P : ,  :/  "/,#
  9  
§ & ·
¸\   -
P
¨ 
J w P  "/ #
© , : / ¹
4              

o
/    ( o
/
"/.#
         
       '        +  
 ,o  r  / "//#
*       
^ +P `  4  /  H (4 (  ^ +P `  
4  /  H ( 4 "/@#
    &     (    F >         
& (        4            (  
   (    4(           ! ,       H Q - 4 
   &               

         %     ++)     F >   

      *?4&            +      
5,-6
 
      F   F  :  "/1#

,@

                      (  (     &(  
      '      
         4                
     )     % % (         

)#$%(8"#!!)& 
=                      
 03&                        
(  @            "( # ! " ( .# U      (   
 " @#     F >        ( ( 
4      )        *E +  *E   '
 $      $            (     
   ,1 4       4   " #     
  *E       "# '     &    ! ,,B
=     & *         D  "  %  5,,6#
         & "    + *   #   )  
     *E,C
                  
         *E        @    "  
#                  "  #
   J                &         
          
*          @         &  
   J           (        
 
            "&  # 0>   
(                " C#
      
      )          5@6
§, ·
 ³  /  ) ¨ .* . *   /  ¸ "/B#
©/ ¹

.* G *I  I* w  *  w *  Ÿ . * )  ) *  w    w    "/C#
L       ,A
*I    I * / * "/A#

           (  "/C#(  &    "/B# 
§, ·
  ³  / ¨ .* .*K K *    ) /  ¸ "@-#
© / ¹
   (         
/  I - Ÿ w  ) /  - "@,#

           % %  /  G

w /  - "@ #
?   % %            (      "@-# 
 &      G

,1
3        )&0(     (        & &
           
,B
=  (                         
          
,C
D        *             (        
*E  ?'   (      '         &   
 
,A
4        '    &  )    % %        
       O            ( 4      
   
 

/9 4             /9 4            
 &%       F       
>   &  &

§, ·
 ³  / ¨ .* .*K K *   /*K * ¸
 "@.#
© / ¹
              L         "@.#     
      % % G
w   w   w   / "@/#

               %   % %  P '
(
w  { K* w  * - "@@#

  -
w  / "@1#
D               % %      
   
O                   &+0   
  (            O(     &   
 &           (        &   
          @(   @   E        
+(                      4
                  
D(             " C#(           
  (     4           (       
  ' (       *                
"B# =         516
 P   ( I   ,,,  P   ( I   "@B#
                          
P   (   V P   (   "@C#

-
4             

V             K  ".B# E           
"@C# (                    
  $      &   &       ))   (    
 5@6
*I   I * -( I  - "@A#
J   P "  (  #            P "  (  # "J             "@@#
 

  % %&P '       &             
     *4      # 4          
       V       *          
& 4     &          &   
                     

% & J  

I  - (   I  - (   "1-#
 V ! M ,  "@C# 4       
I   (   I   (   (    (      (   "1,#
  
wI   (  
-(   -(   . Ÿ *  -(   . "1 #
w  -
) "1 #      %          "#   I     
  %             
 ) "1 #      
           I           
          4            
          4  
 wI
I   ’ - "1.#
 w
) "1.#   (            
4          (          "1.#
   
            "1.#     % %     "@/#
     O        P ' (          
 "@1#  )  (  F &>        *   &     
 "&#          
P           ? "1.#  "@/#         G
 wI §   · 
w I  ¨  ¸I U ( w  :  ’I "1/#
 w ©  ¹ 
        +  &   D    ! ,: 
      
  "1/#   "1/#     
w \ G .    :  ( w   ’\ "1@#
 \ G! I  =      \                
N N § , , · N
\
 ³
,
c

 c G     c     G     c     ¨¨  ¸¸
 ©    ¹ 
I N{

/S
"11#

4    

N ,
I "1B#
 ,  : 
H 
’\ 
N V .   :   :  /
"1C#
      "1@#     
 N V  : "1A#
4      % %              (    
  "  ! & ,  D #
          (     
   
 N V :  ( * . "B-#
4      F &P '>(                
4            P '&    4 &
  "1B#  "1A#        (    (    
  

$&!#!%"
4        &     (       &
 4            0>        )  
          "1.#  "1/#(      P ' (     
   
,
P  1  1  /P 
P I w
P -I P  -(   - "B,#
      "@1#(  /P           & E       
               (   
                  O    "  # 
   
,

P  1  1  /P  P 
 "B #
  
1 /P  P  I w P  P   -(  




P -( - "B.#

        (      (      1 4
       &        
         &      5, (,.6 &      &
      "        &  #



    


 

/; *                  (

     *    

=       (        )     "1.#  "1/#( 
 %   P '   "@1# 4        &)    
       
^ `
 


P ³ 
 . $ - - 
V  -     -   (   -    -   "B/#
)             5  "D  ! -   *     # 4  

      (           " #    &
 
   "B/#   %   
 I -(  ¦ V O ³  . $ O  -  -   $  I V O - -(    "B@#
O ,(
4          &    G
I -(  ¦ V O ³  . $ -  *O  -     $   O  -    $   I V O - - "B1#
O ,(
0(                     
      , J            
4         +       T)9    
   4 % T)9    "B.#           
       W?(          

#!(< +((#$+
   5, (,.6            &   
      F    > 4         
           (  %     
 &   
             
     (              5,/6

             *    &      
              *         5,@6
4   &  +    %         
 (            %   (     
           (            
 
=               4       
  &  $ %           $   
  (          E         &
        2&+)    (     
          "B.#
             
             
  (       
   ( T)9(    (    
4                   ) 
     
   (             
          &            
"   #    "( #        J  %     
 4                     
 0                    &%
 
4                     
           (           4 
   I     (             
"#      
           
                   
  .

,
4 OJ9       X ( *             
(              
        W?       "B@#( 
       & ' 
? (                        
 (       F >        
  (      0
        (      (         
.
+              (        I  
     
 "%6)&8("# 

      =  P  D  ?        

$$" 
, E J9( 9 ?* T     ,  *G * H ?I ,AC 
 *  + +  0 G =     0 3 ,  +  G = &I --/
. ? 9 0 ( G:: :I -,-
/ P =( 9  * *  H(  + + 
  ? 3 9 --@IB,G-1.@- 
@  *( 4  7+(  U= 0  .  J Y %G  D   * I ,AB.
1
'%  *( W U&E T    J Y %G 0&DI ,AC@
B  3? 4 4   ?   ? 3 ,A/AIB1"1#GB/A&@A
C ?% )( +  9L =
    T  4  ,  3( G = &I ,AA@
A
   O         3  &%  U  ? --BI/CG, @-,&,&, @-,& .
,- D% +( ) 03 4 P + +  +&4 *G * H ?I ,AB.
,, E 0( D  ( J% UL = 9 =   *    ? 4  ,AAAI=G.C&/1
,   U=(  3?
            3   ? ,A/@I,B"  .#G,@B&
C,
,.  U=(  3? *          3   ? ,A/AI ,".#G/ @&
..
,/ ? D 4Z =   =Z ? G J 9     ?  4 O  H ?( H+=I ,AAB
,@ 9 ?* 4 ?  4 = ,  E%( *=G H  *  ?I ,ABB


 The Cumulative Effect of Vacuum Radiation
on Particle Coordinates
Jean E. Burns
127 Williams St. #1, San Leandro, CA 94577, USA; Email: jeanbur@earthlink.net

Abstract. The action principle can predict the trajectories of a system of particles as determined by the
dynamical forces acting on them. However, its predictions do not include the results of quantum fluctuations in
the coordinates of the particles. It is proposed that quantum fluctuations shift the particles from one dynamical
trajectory to another and that the change in action due to a root mean square shift in an individual coordinate is
the same, regardless of which coordinate is shifted. This assumption, together with the uncertainty principle,
implies that the cumulative effect of changes in energy and momentum varies as t-1/2, where t is time, so that
these quantities tend to be conserved. However, the cumulative effect of changes in spatial coordinate varies as
t1/2, so this coordinate shows a Brownian drift over time. An example is given in which this stochastic drift, with
its characteristic t1/2 dependence, could be experimentally observed at the beginning of a highly collimated
particle beam.

INTRODUCTION

The energy of a quantum mechanical system is known to be subject to irregular fluctuations, called
quantum fluctuations, with these fluctuations produced by the interaction of particles in the system with
vacuum radiation. In a system which can be described semi-classically, i.e., the particles can be thought of
as having definite momentum and spatial coordinates (aside from variation within the uncertainty principle),
fluctuations in the energy imply that momentum coordinates are also subject to quantum fluctuations, and
these in turn imply that spatial coordinates are subject to such fluctuations. We are assuming that the energy
of the system is in a definite state, so the energy can be expected to average around its definite value,
regardless of these fluctuations. Similarly, the total momentum can be expected to average around a definite
value. However, it is well known that if a particle undergoes a random walk in a spatial coordinate, over the
long run its position does not simply average out to the location it would have had if there had been no
random walk. Rather, the particle drifts further and further away from the position it would have had.
This paper proposes that quantum fluctuations shift a particle from one dynamical trajectory to another,
with the root mean square fluctuations in any given coordinate producing the same change in the action,
regardless of which coordinate is changed. This proposal, when combined with the uncertainty principle,
predicts the time dependence of each root mean square fluctuation, which is found to conform to the above
expectation. An example in which the above Brownian particle drift could be experimentally observed is
also given.
First, however, there is another consideration that should be discussed. Vacuum radiation affects particle
coordinates through the Compton effect, and for this effect to take place, it is necessary that the radiation
have at least the mass energy of the particle it is affecting. Otherwise it will only produce elastic scattering
[1]. However, this limit does not hinder the production of stochastic action by vacuum radiation because the
spectral energy density of this radiation is proportional to ν , where ? is the frequency [2]. So there are
3

plenty of high energy photons available. Some theories propose that there is a high energy cutoff to this
spectrum. However, the cutoff would be at the extreme high energies associated with the Planck length [3]
and would not be a problem for particles such as electrons and molecules.
 THE ROOT MEAN SQUARE MAGNITUDE
OF COORDINATE FLUCTUATIONS

Let us now ask the relationship of quantum fluctuations to the action principle. Let us call the trajectory
taken in configuration space by a system of particles acting under forces a dynamical path or dynamical
trajectory. We start by noting that the dynamical path can be described in terms of the action S, which is
defined as

t1 dqi
S ≡ ∫ d t L( qi , ), (1)
t0 dt
where L is a function called the Lagrangian. When all the forces can be described in terms of potential
functions, then L = T – V, where T is the kinetic energy and V the potential energy; qi represents the spatial
coordinates of particle i, t is the time, and t0 and t1 represent the beginning and end of an arbitrary time
interval. Specifically, the action principle (also known as Hamilton’s principle) states that the dynamical
path a system of particles takes is that for which the variation of S is zero when compared to neighboring
paths that start and end at the same time and positions [4].
All the dynamical forces acting on the particles can be incorporated into the Lagrangian. However, the
effect of quantum fluctuations is not included in the Lagrangian, so the fluctuations must cause the system to
move from one dynamical trajectory to another. Differing dynamical trajectories will have different initial
conditions, q i (t0 ) and dq i /dt(t0 ), at some arbitrary starting time t0 and will have differing values for the action
in an interval t1 -t0 . So quantum fluctuations on particle coordinates produce a change in the action of the
system over a specified interval. Let us assume that the shift in action due to a root mean square change in
particle coordinate is independent of which coordinate is changed.
In making our analysis we will add two simple assumptions to that above: (1) the energy is constant
along a dynamical path, and (2) although the particles in the system may interact, the energy at the
beginning and end of the path is entirely kinetic.
Let E be the energy and δ E its root mean square fluctuation. Let t = t1 -t0 be the length of a time
interval of interest. We note that if all q i and dqi /dt are shifted at t0 such that the values originally held at t0
are now held at t0 plus an increment of time later, then in effect the particles follow the same dynamical
path, but begin the path an increment of time later. (Or if the increment of time is negative, the particle will
begin its path earlier.) We will denote the root mean square value of this time increment as δ t . Analysis
shows that [5]

E δ t = tδ E . (2)

In order to determine the individual root mean square magnitudes we need another condition, and we will
use the lower limits of the uncertainty principle,

δ E δt =  / 2 . (3)

We find [5]

δ E δt
1/2
1 ⎡⎤
= = . (4)
E t 2 ⎢⎣ Et ⎥⎦
 The root mean square shifts of spatial coordinate, δ qi and of momentum, δ pi where p i = m dq i/dt and
m is the mass of the particle, depend on whether the particle interacts with a potential function during the
time interval t, but can be readily obtained for free particles. Using the lower limits of the uncertainty
principle ,

δ pi δ qi =  / 2 , (5)

we find for free particles that

1/2
⎡ t ⎤
δqi = ⎢ ⎥ ; (6)
⎣m⎦

1/ 2
δp i 1 ⎡ ⎤
= ⎢ ⎥ , (7)
p 2 2 ⎣ Et ⎦

where p is the magnitude of the momentum [5].

We see that the root mean square magnitude of the shift in spatial coordinate is proportional to t1/2 , as it
would be for Brownian motion. So a particle following a particular dynamical trajectory at some original
time t0 drifts away from that trajectory, with root mean square separation increasing, as time increases. It is
of interest that two other, quite different methods of evaluating the motion of a particle subject to random
fluctuations within the limits of the uncertainty principle yield the same results as equation (6). The
stochastic interpretation of quantum mechanics notes that the form of the Schroedinger equation is very
similar to that of the diffusion equation and suggests that this form is due to the random action of some
perturbing influence. Analysis shows that the diffusion coefficient D for this action can be taken as  / 2m
[6]. The corresponding root mean square change in spatial coordinate is ( t / m) 2 Also, a semi -classical
1

calculation shows that the effects of radiation with the spectral energy density and randomizing effect of
vacuum radiation on particles with internal structure results in Brownian motion with a diffusion constant of
the form  / 2m and the corresponding value for the root mean square change in spatial coordinate [7].
We also see (eqns. (4) and (7)) that the root mean square magnitudes of the fractional change in E and p i
are proportional to t-1/2 , so energy and momentum tend to be conserved as t becomes large. However, the
fact that the cumulative shifts in energy and momentum are small does not preclude their having a
significant effect at the microscopic level. As discussed in more detail elsewhere [5,8,9], the small shifts a
particle makes in momentum due to its interaction with vacuum radiation are greatly magnified when it
interacts with another particle, such that the momentum distribution of a thermodynamic system becomes
randomized in one or a few collision times, and this action can account for entropy increase in the system.

BROWNIAN SCATTERING OF PARTICLES

OUT OF A COLLIMATED BEAM

Suppose we have a beam of collimated particles traveling with velocity vx, with a root mean square
magnitude of velocity vy due to experimental uncertainty. We ask the magnitude of Brownian scattering due
to vacuum radiation as compared to ordinary experimental uncertainty.
Define Δy ≡ ν y t and η ≡ ν y / ν x . Let δ y be the amount of Brownian drift due to vacuum radiation.

δ y = ( t / m) 2 , where m is the mass of a particle. Using the relationships x =

1
From equation (6) we find
vxt and E = 1/2mvx2 (neglecting the small dependence of E on vy ), we have
 1/2
δy = 1/4
x1/2 ; (8)
(2mE )

Δy = η x . (9)

Let xC be the value of x where δ y equals Δy Because of the difference in time dependence of the two
types of scattering, the effect of Brownian scattering is greater than that from ordinary experimental
variations in vy from the beginning of the beam up to x = xC and is smaller thereafter. From equations (8) and
(9) we have

δ y |x = xC = Δy |x = xC = η xC ; (10)


xC = . (11)
η ( 2mE ) 1 / 2
2

For a collimated beam of electrons, with η = 10-4 , traveling at 100 eV, xC = 0.195 cm, and dy|x=xC =
1.95x10-5 cm = 195 nm. Although the effect is small, this example suggests the possibility that the
Brownian scattering produced by vacuum radiation, with its characteristic t1/2 dependence, could be
observed experimentally.

SUMMARY

The action principle can incorporate the effects of all dynamical forces on a system of particles, but does
not include the effect of quantum fluctuations. Thus the effect of these fluctuations on particles in a semi-
classical system, i.e., that have definite spatial and momentum coordinates, is to cause the particles to move
from one dynamical trajectory, characterized by one set of initial coordinates, to another dynamical
trajectory, characterized by a different set of initial coordinates. It is proposed herein that the change in
action produced by a root mean square shift in a coordinate is the same, regardless of which coordinate is
shifted, and the latter assumption, combined with the lower limits of the uncertainty principle, yields an
expression for the root mean square value of each coordinate as a function of time. These expressions
predict that the fractional change in energy and in momentum components varies as t-1/2 and therefore energy
and momentum tend to constant values as t becomes large. However, spatial coordinates vary as t1/2 and
thereby do a Brownian walk, moving further from their starting point as t becomes large. An example is
proposed in which this Brownian walk might be experimentally observed in a highly collimated particle
beam.

REFERENCES
1. K. Berkelman, “Compton Effect,” in Encyclopedia of Physics, 2nd Edn., edited by R. G. Lerner and G. L. Trigg, VCH,
New York, 1991, pp. 174-176.
2. P. W. Milonni, The Quantum Vacuum: An Introduction to Quantum Electrodynamics, Academic Press, San Diego,
1994.
3. H. E. Puthoff, Phys. Rev. A 39, 2333-2342 (1989).
4. H. Goldstein, Classical Mechanics, 2nd Edn., Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 1980.
5. J. E. Burns, Found. Phys. 28, 1191-1207 (1998).
6. L. V. Chebotarev, “The de Broglie-Bohm-Vigier Approach in Quantum Mechanics,” in Jean-Pierre Vigier and the
Stochastic Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, edited by S. Jeffers, B. Lehnert, N. Abramson, and L. Chebotarev,
Apeiron, Montreal, 2000, pp. 1-17.
7. A. Rueda, Found. Phys. Lett. 6, 75-108 (1993).
8. J. E. Burns, “Vacuum Radiation, Entropy and the Arrow of Time,” in Gravitation and Cosmology: From the
Hubble Radius to the Planck Scale, edited by R. L. Amoroso, G. Hunter, M. Kafatos, and J.-P. Vigier, Kluwer
Academic, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2002, pp. 491-498. <http://www.mindspring.com/~l.o.v.e.r/Burns-
04.pdf>
9. J. E. Burns, Found. Phys. 37, 1727-1737 (2007).
 Reflexivity and Foundations of Physics

Louis H. Kauffman

Department of Mathematics, Statistics and Computer Science

University of Illinois, Chicago, Il 60607-7045 USA
kauffman@uic.edu

Abstract: This essay is a discussion of the concept of reflexivity and its relationships with self-
reference, re-entry , eigenform and the foundations of physics.

INTRODUCTION
Reflexive is a term that refers to the presence of a relationship between an entity and itself. One can be
aware of one's own thoughts. An organism produces itself through its own action and its own productions.
A market or a system of finance is composed of actions and individuals, and the actions of those individuals
influence the market just as the global information from the market influences the actions of the individuals.
Here it is the self-relations of the market through its own structure and the structure of its individuals that
moves its evolution forward. Nowhere is there a way to effectively cut an individual participant from the
market and make him into an objective observer. His action in the market is concomitant to his being
reflexively linked with that market. Just so for theorists of the market for their theories, if communicated
become part of the action and decision-making of the market. Social systems partake of this same reflexivity,
and so does apparently objective science and mathematics. In order to see the reflexivity of the practice of
physical science or mathematics, one must leave the idea of an objective domain of investigation in brackets
and see the enterprise as a large conversation among a group of investigators. Then, at once, the process is
seen to be a reflexive interaction among the members of this group. Mathematical results, like all technical
inventions, have a certain stability over time that gives them an air of permanence, but the process that
produces these novelties is every bit as fraught with circularity and mutual influence as any other
conversation or social interaction.
How then, shall we describe a reflexive domain? It is the purpose of this paper to give a very abstract
definition that nevertheless captures, what I believe to be the main conceptual feature of reflexivity. We then
immediately prove that eigenforms, fixed points of transformations, are present for all transformations of the
reflexive domain. This will encourage us and it will give us pause. The existence of eigenforms will encourage
us, for we have previously studied them with the notion that "objects are tokens for eigen behaviour".
Eigenforms are the natural emergence of those tokens by way of recursion. So to find the eigenforms dictated
by a larger concept is pleasing. But we shall also need to pause. For the existence of fixed points for arbitrary
transformations will show us that the domain we have postulated is indeed very wide.
It is not an objectively existing domain. It is a clearing in which structures can arise and new structures
can arise. A reflexive domain is not an already-existing structure. Not at all. To be what it claims to be, a
reflexive domain must be a combination of existing structure and an invitation to create new structure and
new concepts. The new will become platforms from which further flights of creativity can be made. Thus in
the course of examining the concept of reflexivity we will find that the essence of the matter is
an opening into creativity, and that will become the actual theme of this paper. We are particularly interested
in the way these concepts of reflexivity affect fundamentals of topology and fundamentals of physics. The
last parts of this essay are a reformulation of elementary mathematics of matrices, complex numbers and
exponentials in terms of process, reflexivity and eigenform. We then show how quantum mechanics and
discrete physics acquire a new point of view in the light of these interpretations. The reader may wish to skip
directly to Section XII to see how this part of the argument proceeds.
Our essay begins with explication of the notion of eigenform as pioneered by Heinz von Foerster in his
papers [4, 5,6,7] and explored in papers of the author [11, 12]. In [5] The familiar objects of our existence can
be seen to be nothing more than tokens for the behaviors of the organism, creating apparently stable forms.
Such an attitude toward objects makes it impossible to discriminate between the object as an element of a
world and the object as a token or symbol that is simultaneously a process. The notion of an eigenform is
inextricably linked with second order cybernetics. One starts on the road to such a concept as soon as one
begins to consider a pattern of patterns, the form of form or the cybernetics of cybernetics. Such concepts
appear to loop around upon themselves, and at the same time they lead outward to new points of view. Such
circularities suggest a possibility of transcending the boundaries of a system within. When the circular
concept is called into being, the boundaries turn inside out.
An object, in itself, is a symbolic entity, participating in a network of interactions, taking on its apparent
solidity and stability from these interactions. We ourselves are such objects, we as human beings are "signs
for ourselves", a concept originally due to the American philosopher C. S. Peirce [10]. Eigenforms are
mathematical companions to Peirce's work. In an observing system, what is observed is not distinct from the
system itself, nor can one make a separation between the observer and the observed. The observer and the
observed stand together in a coalescence of perception. From the stance of the observing system all objects
are non-local, depending upon the presence of the system as a whole. It is within that paradigm that these
models begin to live, act and enter into conversation with us.
After this journey into objects and eigenforms, we take a wider stance and consider the structure of
spaces and domains that partake of the reflexivity of object and process. We make a definition of a reflexive
domain (compare [1] and [18]). Our definition populates a space (domain) with entities that could be
construed as objects, and we assume that each object acts as a transformation on the space. Essentially this
means that given entities A and B, then there is a new entity C that is the result of A and B acting together in
the order AB (so that one can say that "A acts on B" for AB and one can say "B acts on A" for BA). This
means that the reflexive space is endowed with a non-commutative and non-associative algebraic structure.
The reflexive space is expandable in the sense that whenever we define a process, using entities that have
already been constructed or defined, then that process can take a name, becoming a new
entity/transformation of a space that is expanded to include itself.. Reflexive spaces are open to evolution in
time, as new processes are invented and new forms emerge from their interaction.
Remarkably, reflexive spaces always have eigenforms for every element/transformation/entity in the
space! The proof is simple but requires discussion.

Given F in a reflexive domain, define G by Gx = F(xx).

Then GG = F(GG) and so GG is an eigenform for F.

Just as promised, in a reflexive domain, every entity has an eigenform. From this standpoint, one should start
with the concept of reflexivity and see that from it emerge eigenforms. Are we satisfied with this approach?
We are not satisfied. For in order to start with reflexivity, we need to posit objects and processes. As we have
already argued in this essay, objects are tokens for eigenbehaviours. And a correct or natural beginning is
process where objects are seen as tokens of processes. By now the reader begins to see that the story we
have to tell is a circular one. We give a way to understand this circularity with Section X where we discuss
creativity in recursive process and the emergence of novelty.
The reader will see that we have woven a tale the goes back and forth between recursion and idealized
eigenforms. This means that we are sometimes considering abstractions such as reflexive domains and their
algebraic properties and we are sometimes looking at the particulars of recursions directly related to automata
or to specific complex numbers. Here follows a precis of the paper from the point of view of both the algebras
and the physics. This paper explores the analogies of fixe d points, observations and observables,
eigenvectors and recursive processes in relation to foundations of physics. In particular we shall re-open the
books on the complex numbers and view them in terms of recursion and reflexivity, finding new and natural
ways to think about their roles in physical theory (See below).
To give a hint, think of the oscillatory process generated by R(x) = -1/x. The fixed point is i with i2 = -1, but
the processes generated over the real numbers must be directly related to the idealized i. We shall let I{+1,-1}
stand for an undisclosed alternation or ambiguity between +1 and -1 and call I{+1,-1} an iterant. There are
two iterant views: [+1,-1] and [-1,+1]. These, seen as points of view of alternating process will become the
square roots of negative unity. We introduce a temporal shift operator h such that

[a,b]h = h [b,a] and h h = 1 (1)

so that concatenated observations can include a time step of one-half period of the process ...abababab... .
We combine iterant views term-by-term as in [a,b][c,d] = [ac,bd]. Then we have, with i = [1,-1]h (i is
view/operator),
ii = [1,-1]h [1,-1]h = [1,-1][-1,1]h h = [-1,-1] = -1. (2)

This gives rise to a new process-oriented construction of the complex numbers, quaternions, and in fact of all
of matrix algebra. We relate this point of view to thinking about the role of complex numbers in quantum
mechanics and the role of temporal shift operators in discrete physics, that begins with the understanding
that temporal shift operators allow discrete calculus to be represented in a non-commutative (Lie algebraic)
context where all derivatives are represented by commutators.
We also relate these ideas of reflexivity and fixed points to left or right distributive non-associative
algebras and their relationships with knot theory in Section VI. We relate this with approaches to wholeness
in physics and philosophy such as the work of Barbara Piechosinska [16]. A magma is a non-associative
algebra with a single binary operation that is left-associative:
a*(b*c) = (a*b)*(a*c). (3)
Note that this axiom says that every element A of the magma is a structure preserving mapping of the magma
to itself with
A[x] = A*x, (4a)
A[x*y] = A[x]*A[y]. (4b)

The notion of a magma is another view of what should be a self-reflexive domain. In the magma every element
is a structure preserving mapping of the magma to itself. We raise questions about the relationship of
magmas and reflexive domains and illustrate the remarkable and deep relationships among magmas and knots
and braids.

OBJECTS AS TOKENS FOR EIGENBEHAVIOURS

In his paper "Objects as Tokens for Eigenbehaviours" [5] von Foerster suggests that we think seriously
about the mathematical structure behind the constructivist doctrine that perceived worlds are worlds
created by the observer. At first glance such a statement appears to be nothing more than solipsism. At
second glance, the statement appears to be a tautology, for who else can create the rich subjectivity of the
immediate impression of the senses? In that paper he suggests that the familiar objects of our experience are
the fixed points of operators. These operators are the structure of our perception. To the extent that the
operators are shared, there is no solipsism in this point of view. It is the beginning of a mathematics of
second order cybernetics.
Consider the relationship between an observer O and an "object" A. "The object remains in constant form
with respect to the observer". This constancy of form does not preclude motion or change of shape. Form is
more malleable than the geometry of Euclid. In fact, ultimately the form of an "object" is the form of the
distinction that "it" makes in the space of our perception. In any attempt to speak absolutely about the nature
of form we take the form of distinction for the form. (paraphrasing Spencer-Brown [3]). It is the form of
distinction that remains constant and produces an apparent object for the observer. How can you write an
equation for this? We write
 O(A) = A. (5)

The object A is a fixed point for the observer O. The object is an eigenform. We must emphasize that this is a
most schematic description of the condition of the observer in relation to an object A. We record only that
the observer as an actor (operator) manages to leave the (form of) the object unchanged. This can be a
recognition of symmetry, but it also can be a description of how the observer, searching for an object, makes
that object up (like a good fairy tale) from the very ingredients that are the observer herself. And what about
this matter of the object as a token for eigenbehaviour? This is the crucial step. We forget about the object
and focus on the observer. We attempt to "solve" the equation O(A) = A with A as the unknown. Not only
do we admit that the "inner" structure of the object is unknown, we adhere to whatever knowledge we have.
We can start anew from the dictum that the perceiver and the perceived arise together in the condition of
observation. This is a mutual relationship. Neither perceiver nor the perceived have priority over the other. A
distinction has emerged and with it a world with an observer and an observed. The distinction is itself an
eigenform.

COMPRESENCE AND COALESCENCE

We identify the world in terms of how we shape it. We shape the world in response to how it changes us.
We change the world and the world changes us. Objects arise as tokens of a behaviour that leads to
seemingly unchanging forms. Forms are seen to be unchanging through their invariance under our attempts
to change, to shape them.
For an observer there are two primary modes of perception -- compresence and coalescence.
Compresence connotes the coexistence of separate entities together in one including space. Coalescence
connotes the one space holding, in perception, the observer and the observed, inseparable in an unbroken
wholeness. Coalescence is the constant condition of our awareness. Coalescence is the world taken in
simplicity. Compresence is the world taken in apparent multiplicity.
This distinction of compresence and coalescence, drawn by Henri Bortoft [2], can act as a compass in
traversing the domains of object and reference. Eigenform is a first step towards a mathematical description
of coalesence. In the world of eigenform the observer and the observed are one in a process that recursively
gives rise to them both.

THE EIGENFORM MODEL

We have seen how the concept of an object has evolved to make what we call objects (and the objective
world) processes that are interdependent with the actions of observers. The notion of a fixed object has
become a notion of a process that produces the apparent stability of the object. This process can be
simplified in a model to become a recursive process where a rule or rules are applied time and time again. The
resulting object of such a process is the eigenform of the process, and the process itself is the
eigenbehaviour.
In this way we have a model for thinking about object as token for eigenbehaviour. This model examines
the result of a simple recursive process carried to its limit. For example, suppose that

Figure 1
That is, each step in the process encloses the results of the previous step within a box. Here is an illustration
of the first few steps of the process applied to an empty box X:

X F(X) F(F(X)) F(F(F(X)))

Figure 2

If we continue this process, then successive nests of boxes resemble one another, and in the limit of infinitely
many boxes, we find that

Figure 3

the infinite nest of boxes is invariant under the addition of one more surrounding box. Hence this infinite nest
of boxes is a fixed point for the recursion. In other words, if X denotes the infinite nest of boxes, then

X = F(X). (6)

This equation is a description of a state of affairs. The form of an infinite nest of boxes is invariant under the
operation of adding one more surrounding box. The infinite nest of boxes is one of the simplest eigenforms.
In the process of observation, we interact with ourselves and with the world to produce stabilities that
become the objects of our perception. These objects, like the infinite nest of boxes, may go beyond the
specific properties of the world in which we operate. They attain their stability through the limiting process
that goes outside the immediate world of individual actions. We make an imaginative leap to complete such
objects to become tokens for eigenbehaviours. It is impossible to make an infinite nest of boxes. We do not
make it. We imagine it. And in imagining that infinite nest of boxes, we arrive at the eigenform. The leap of
imagination to the infinite eigenform is a model of the human ability to create signs and symbols. In the case
of the eigenform X with X = F(X), X can be regarded as the name of the process itself or as the name of the
limit process. Note that if you are told that

X = F(X), (7)

then substituting F(X) for X, you can write

X = F(F(X)). (8)
Substituting again and again, you have

X = F(F(F(X))) = F(F(F(F(X)))) = F(F(F(F(F(X))))) = ... (9)

The process arises from the symbolic expression of its eigenform. In this view the eigenform is an implicate
order for the process that generates it. Sometimes one stylizes the structure by indicating where the
eigenform X reenters its own indicational space by an arrow or other graphical device. See the picture below
for the case of the nested boxes.

... =

Figure 4

Does the infinite nest of boxes exist? Certainly it does not exist in this page or anywhere in the physical world
with which we are familiar. The infinite nest of boxes exists in the imagination. It is a symbolic entity.
Eigenform is the imagined boundary in the reciprocal relationship of the object (the "It") and the process
leading to the object (the process leading to "It"). In the diagram below we have indicated these relationships
with respect to the eigenform of nested boxes. Note that the "It" is illustrated as a finite approximation (to the
infinite limit) that is sufficient to allow an observer to infer/perceive the generating process that underlies it.
Just so, an object in the world (cognitive, physical, ideal,...) provides a conceptual center for the
exploration of a skein of relationships related to its context and to the processes that generate it. An object
can have varying degrees of reality just as does an eigenform. If we take the suggestion to heart that objects
are tokens for eigenbehaviors, then an object in itself is an entity, participating in a network of interactions,
taking on its apparent solidity and stability from these interactions.

Figure 5
 An object is an amphibian between the symbolic and imaginary world of the mind and the complex world
of personal experience. The object, when viewed as process, is a dialogue between these worlds. The object
when seen as a sign for itself, or in and of itself, is imaginary. Why are objects apparently solid? Of course
you cannot walk through a brick wall even if you think about it differently. I do not mean apparent in the
sense of thought alone. I mean apparent in the sense of appearance. The wall appears solid to me because of
the actions that I can perform. The wall is quite transparent to a neutrino, and will not even be an eigenform
for that neutrino. This example shows quite sharply how the nature of an object is entailed in the properties
of its observer.
The eigenform model can be expressed in quite abstract and general terms. Suppose that we are given a
recursion (not necessarily numerical) with the equation

X(t+1) = F(X(t)). (10)

Here X(t) denotes the condition of observation at time t. X(t) could be as simple as a set of nested boxes, or
as complex as the entire configuration of your body in relation to the known universe at time t. Then F(X(t))
denotes the result of applying the operations symbolized by F to the condition at time t. You could, for
simplicity, assume that F is independent of time. Time independence of the recursion F will give us simple
answers and we can later discuss what will happen if the actions depend upon the time. In the time
independent case we can write

J = F(F(F(...))) (11)

the infinite concatenation of F upon itself. Then

F(J) = J (12)

since adding one more F to the concatenation changes nothing. Thus J, the infinite concatenation of the
operation upon itself leads to a fixed point for F. J is said to be the eigenform for the recursion F. We see that
every recursion has an eigenform. Every recursion has an (imaginary) fixed point.
We end this section with one more example. This is the eigenform of the Koch fractal [14]. In this case one
can write symbolically the eigenform equation

K=K{K K}K (13)

to indicate that the Koch Fractal reenters its own indicational space four times (that is, it is made up of four
copies of itself, each one-third the size of the original. The curly brackets in the center of this equation refer
to the fact that the two middle copies within the fractal are inclined with respect to one another and with
respect to the two outer copies. In the figure below we show the geometric configuration of the reentry.

K=K{KK}K

Figure 6
 In the geometric recursion, each line segment at a given stage is replaced by four line segments of one
third its length, arranged according to the pattern of reentry as shown in the figure above. The recursion
corresponding to the Koch eigenform is illustrated in the next figure. Here we see the sequence of
approximations leading to the infinite self-reflecting eigenform that is known as the Koch snowflake fractal.

Figure 7

Five stages of recursion are shown. To the eye, the last stage vividly illustrates how the ideal fractal form
contains four copies of itself, each one-third the size of the whole. The abstract schema

K=K{KK}K (14)

for this fractal can itself be iterated to produce a "skeleton" of the geometric recursion:

K=K{KK}K
=K{KK}K { K{KK}K K{KK}K }K{KK}K (15)
= ...

We have only performed one line of this skeletal recursion. There are sixteen K's in this second expression
just as there are sixteen line segments in the second stage of the geometric recursion. Comparison with this
symbolic recursion shows how geometry aids the intuition. The interaction of eigenforms with the geometry
of physical, mental, symbolic and spiritual landscapes is an entire subject that is in need of deep exploration.
It is usually thought that the recognition of an object arises in some simple way from the assumed
existence of the object and the action of our perceiving systems. This is a fine tuning to the point where the
action of the perceiver and the perception of the object are indistinguishable. Such tuning requires an
intermixing of the perceiver and the perceived that goes beyond description. Yet in the mathematical levels,
such as number or fractal pattern, part of the process is slowed down to the point where we can begin to
apprehend the process. There is a stability in the comparison, in the correspondence that is a process
happening at once in the present time. The closed loop of perception occurs in the eternity of present
individual time. Each such process depends upon linked and ongoing eigenbehaviors and yet is seen as
simple by the perceiving mind. The perceiving mind is itself an eigenform.
Mirror-Mirror
In the next figure we illustrate how an eigenform can arise from a process of mutual reflection. The figure
shows a circle with a an arrow pointing to a rectangle and a rectangle with an arrow pointing toward a circle.
For this example, we take the rule that an arrow between two entities (P -----> Q) means that the second entity
will create an internal image of the first entity (Q will make an image of P). If P -----> Q and Q ------> P, then
each entity makes an image of the other. A recursion will ensue. Each of P and Q generates eigenforms in this
mutuality.

then

then

then

Figure 8

In this example we can denote the initial forms by C (for circle) and B (for box). We have C -----> B and B --
---> C. The rule of imaging is (symbolically): If P -----> Q then P -----> QP. If P < ------ Q, then PQ <------ Q. We
start with the mutual reference C < -----> B. This condition of mutual mirroring can be described by two
operators C and B: C(P)= CP corresponds to C -----> P. B(Q) = BQ corresponds to Q < ----- B. We are solving
the eigenform equations

C(Y) = X, (16a)
B(X) = Y. (16b)
We have the mirror-mirror solution

X = BCBCBCBC..., (17a)
Y = CBCBCBCB..., (17b)
just as in the Figure.
We are quite familiar with this form of mutual mirroring in the physical realm where one can have two
facing mirrors, and in the realm of human relations where the complexity of exchange (mutual mirroring)
between two individuals leads to the eigenform of their relationship.

REFLEXIVE DOMAINS
A reflexive domain D is an arena where actions and processes that transform the domain can also be seen
as the elements that compose the domain. Every element of the domain can be seen as a trans-formation of
the domain to itself. In actual practice an element of a domain may be a person or company (collective of
persons) or a physical object or mechanism that is seen to be in action. In actual practice we must note that
what are regarded as objects or entities depends upon the way in which observers inside or outside the
domain divide their worlds. It is very difficult to make a detailed mathematical model of such situations. Each
actor is an actor in more than one play. His actions undergo separate but related interpret-ations, depending
upon the others with whom he interacts. Mutual feedback of a multiplicity of ongoing processes is not easily
described in the Platonic terms of pure mathematics.
Nevertheless, we take as a general principle for a mathematical model that D is a certain set (possibly
evolving in time), and we let [D,D] denote a selected collection of mappings from D to D. An element F of
[D,D] is a mapping F:D ----->D. We shall assume that there is a 1-1 correspondence I:D -----> [D,D]. This is
the assumption of reflexivity. Every element of the reflexive domain is a transformation of that domain. Each
denizen of the reflexive domain has a dual role of actor and actant. Given an element g in D, I(g):D ----> D is
a mapping from D to D, and for every mapping F:D ----> D, there is an element g in D such that I(g) = F. The
reflexive domain embodies a perfect correspondence between actions, and entities that are the recipients of
these actions.
An important precursor to this notion of reflexive domain in mathematics is the notion of Goedel
numbering of texts. One chooses a method to encode a text as a specific natural number (a certain product of
prime powers). Then texts that speak about numbers can, in principle speak about other texts and even about
themselves. If a text is seen as a transformation on the field of numbers, then that text is itself a number (its
Goedelian code) and so can be transforming itself. The precision of this idea enabled Goedel to construct
mathematical systems that could talk about their own properties without contradiction and he showed that all
sufficiently rich mathematical systems have this property. In this way, these systems become self-limiting due
to the possibility of statements whose coded meaning becomes "This statement has no proof in the system
of mathematics in which it is written," while the surface meaning of the same statement is a discussion of the
properties of certain numerical relations. The domain of numerical
relations appears innocuous, and yet it sows the seeds of its own limitations through this ability to reflect
itself through the mirror of the Gödel coding.
The Goedelian example is not just a piece of mathematics. It is a reflection with mathematical precision of
the condition of our language, thought and action. We are always equipped to comment on our own doings
and in so doing to create new language about our old language and new language about our worlds. All our
apparent well-thought-out and directed actions in worlds that seem to extend outward from us in an objective
way are fraught with the circularity not just of our meta-comments, but also with the circular return of the
consequences of those actions and the influence of our very theories of the world on the properties of that
world itself.
We now prove a fundamental theorem about reflexive domains. We show that every mapping F:D -----> D
has a fixed point p, an element p in D such that F(p) = p. What does this mean? It means that there is another
way, in a reflexive domain, to associate a point to a transformation. The point can be seen as the fixed point of
a transformation and in that way, the points of the domain disappear into the self-referential nature of the
transformations. Let me tender persuasions. Suppose that p = F(p). Then we can regard this equation as an
expression of p in terms of F and itself and write

p = F(p)
= F(F(p) (18)
= F(F(F(p)))
=F(F(F(F(p))))

and continue in this fashion until the appearance of p on the right hand side is lost in the depths of the
composition of F upon itself. p = F(F(F(F(F(F(F(F(F(F(F(F(F(F(F(F(F(F(F(F(...))))))))))))))))))). The infinite
composition of F upon itself is invariant under one more composition with F and so F(p) = p is consistent
with this process.
To show that an entity p is a fixed point for a process F is to show that p can be confused with the infinite
concatenation of F upon itself. This is an image of the way objects become tokens for eigen-behaviours in
the language of Heinz von Foerster [ ]. Later in this paper we will discuss the production of many examples of
such eigenforms, fixed points of repeated transformations. For now, here is the proof of the fixed point
theorem for reflexive domains.
 Fixed Point Theorem. Let D be a reflexive domain with actor/actant correspondence F:D -----> [D,D].
Then every F in [D,D] has fixed point. That is, there exists a p in D such that F(p) = p.

Proof. Define G:D ----> D by the equation

Gx = F(I(x)x)for each x in D.
Since I:D -----> [D,D] is a 1-1 correspondence, we know that G = I(g) for some g in D.
Hence Gx = I(g)x = F(I(x)x) for all x in D.
Therefore, letting x = g,
I(g)g = F(I(g)g) and so p = I(g)g is a fixed point for F.
Q.E.D.

We shall discuss this proof and its meaning right now in a series of remarks, and later in the paper in regard
to examples that will be constructed.

Remark 1.
Suppose that we reduce the notational complexity of our description of the reflexive domain by simply saying
that for any two entities g and x in the domain there is a new entity gx that is the result of the interaction of g
and x. (We think of gx as I(g)x = I(g) applied to x.) In mathematical terms, we define

gx = I(g)x. (19)

Then the proof of the fixed point theorem appears in a simpler form: We define Gx = F(xx) and note that GG =
F(GG). Thus GG is the fixed point for F! I like to call G " F's Gremlin". According to Webster [Webster's New
Collegiate Dictionary , G. C. Merriam Publishers (1956)] a gremlin is "One of the impish foot-high gnomes
whimsically blamed by airmen for interfering with motors, instruments, machine guns, etc. ; hence any like
disruptive elf."
This is an apt description of our G. At first G looks quite harmless. Applying G to any A we just apply A
to itself and apply F to the result. GA = F(AA). The dangerous mixture is comes when it is possible to apply G
to itself! Then GG = F((GG) and GG is sitting right in there surrounded by F and you cannot stop the action.
Off goes the recursion

GG = F(GG)
= F(F(GG)) (20)
= F(F(F(F(GG))))
= F(F(F(F(F(F(F(F(GG))))))))

The diabolical nature of the Gremlin is that he represents a process that once started, is hard to stop.
Such are the processes by which we make the world into a field of tokens and symbols and forget the
behaviours and processes and reflexive spaces from which they came. Fixed points and self-references are
the unavoidable fruits of reflexivity, and reflexivity is the natural condition in a universe where there is no
complete separation of part from the whole.

Remark 2.
A reflexive domain is a place where actions and events coincide. An action as a mapping of the whole space,
because there is no intrinsic separation of the local and the global. Feedback is an attempt to handle the lack
of separation of part and whole by describing their mutual influence. When we define a new element g of D
via gx = F(x) for any mapping F:D---->D, and we have a notion of combination of elements of D: a,b -----> ab,
then we can define gx = F(xx) and so get gg = F(gg). Here we have not made a big separation between the
elements of D and the mappings, since each element g of D gives the mapping I(g)x = gx. But in fact, we could
define ab = I(a)b in a reflexive domain.
Whenever anyone comes up with a transformation, we make that transformation into an element of the
domain by the definition gx = F(x). We transmute verbs to nouns. The reflexive domain evolves. The space is
not given a priori. The space evolves in relation to actions and definitions. The road unfolds before us as we
travel.

Remark 3.
We create languages for evolving concepts. The outer reaches of set theory (and category theory ) lead to
clear concepts, but these concepts are not themselves sets or categories. A good example is the famous
Russellian concept of sets that are not members of themselves. Russell's concept is not a set. Another
example is the concept of set itself. There is no set that is the set of all sets.
This very limitation on the notion of set is its opening. It shows us that set theory is an evolving
language. Language and concepts expand in time. Here is a transformation on sets: F(X) = { X }. The
transform of a set X is the singleton set whose member is X. If X is not a member of itself, then F(X) is also
not a member of itself. But a fixed point of the transformation F is an entity U such that {U} = U. We have
shown that within the domain of sets that are not members of themselves, there is no fixed point for the
transformation X -----> {X}. This fragment of set theory (sets that are not members of themselves) is not yet a
reflexive domain. We shall at least allow sets that are members of themselves if we wish to have a set theory
with reflexivity.

Remark 4. Transcendence
The leap to infinity via self-reference. The production of the finity of a new level of infinity. The completion
of an incompletion. The emergence of eternity from the world of time.
How then is observation different from action? If observation is a form of recursion coupled with the
production of the finity of the limiting form, then observation is a transcendence to a new level. The model of
observation as simple eigen-vector must be shifted to observation as the production of eigenform. It is not
enough to produce eigenform. The fixed point is itself an active element and can itself engage in
transformation. In the creation of spaces of conversation for human beings, we partake of a reflexivity of
action and apparent object, where it is seen that every local manifestation of process, every seemingly fixed
entity in a moving world is an indicator of global transformation. The local and the global intertwine in a
reflexive and cybernetic unity.
Retuning (returning/tuning/retuning) to thoughts of reflexivity. One creates by going outside oneself, but
the creation returns in the form of a conversation with one's self. There is a feedback loop between the
person/designer and the world that she makes. Each acts in the creation of the other. Priorities may be
assigned, but it is the loop that interests us, and the possibility of stability (or at least temporal persistence)
of what is created in that loop.

KNOT SETS, TOPOLOGICAL EIGENFORMS, QUANDLES

AND RIGHT AND LEFT DISTRIBUTIVITY
We shall use knot and link diagrams to represent sets. More about this point of view can be found in the
author's paper "Knot Logic" [9]. In this notation the eigenset W satisfying the equation

W= {W} (21)

is a topological curl. If you travel along the curl you can start as a member and find that after a while you
have become the container. Further travel takes you back to being a member in an infinite round. In the
topological realm W does not have any associated paradox. This section is intended as an introduction to the
idea of topological eigenforms, a subject that we shall develop more fully elsewhere.
Set theory is about an asymmetric relation called membership. We write a e S to say that a is a member of
the set S. In this section we shall diagram the membership relation as follows:
 a
b
a εb
a
Figure 9

This is knot-set notation. In this notation, if b goes once under a, we write a={b}. If b goes twice under a, we
write a={b,b}. This means that the "sets" are multi-sets, allowing more than one appearance of a member. For
a deeper analysis of the knot-set structure see [ KL].
This knot-set notation allows us to have sets that are members of themselves,

Ω = {Ω}
ΩεΩ
Figure 10

and sets can be members of each other.

b
a={b}
b={a}
Figure 11

Here a mutual relationship of a and b is diagrammed as topological linking.

 a
a = {b,b}
b = {c,c}

c b c = {a,a}
Figure 12

Here are the Borromean Rings. The Rings have the property that if you remove any one of them, then the
other two are topologically unlinked. They form a topological tripartite relation. Their knot-set is described by
the three equations in the diagram. Thus we see that this representative knot-set is a "scissors -paper-stone"
pattern. Each component of the Rings lies over one other component, in a cyclic pattern. To go beyond this
first level of knot set theory we need to examine the formal structure of the relationships among the arcs on a
link diagram.

QUANDLES AND COLORINGS OF KNOT DIAGRAMS

There is an approach to studying knots and links that is very close to our knot sets, but starts from a
rather different premise. In this approach each arc of the diagram receives a label or "color". An arc of the
diagram is a continuous curve in the diagram that starts at one undercrossing and ends at another
undercrosssing. For example, the trefoil diagram below has three arcs Each arc corresponds to an element of a
"Trefoil Color Algebra" TRI = IQ(T) where T denotes the trefoil knot. We have that TRI is generated by
colors a,b and c with the relations
a*a = a,
b*b = b,
c*c = c, (22)
a*b = b*a = c,
b*c = c*b = a,
a*c = c*a = b.

T c
z
b
y
a x
b = a*c z=x*y
c = b*a
a = c*b
Figure 13
 Each of these relations in the diagram above is a description of one of the crossings in T. The full set of
relations describes the coloring rules for an algebra that contains these relations and allows any two elements
to be combined to a third element. This three-element algebra is particularly simple. If two colors are different,
they combine to form the remaining third color. If two colors are the same, they combine to form the same
color.
When we take an algebra of this sort, we want its coloring structure to be invariant under the
Reidemeister moves (illustrated below). This means that when you make a new diagram from the old diagram
by a topological move, the resulting new diagram inherits a unique coloring from the old diagram. Then one
can see from this that the trefoil must be knotted since all diagrams topologically equivalent to it will carry
three colors, while an unknotted diagram can carry only one color.
As the next diagram shows, invariance of the coloring rules under the Reidemeister moves implies the
following global relations on the algebra:

x*x = x
(x*y)*y= x (23)
(x*y)*z = (x*z)*(y*z)

for any x, y and z in the algebra (set of colors) IQ(K) for the knot or link K. An algebra that satisfies these
rules is called an Involutory Quandle [9], hence the initials IQ. Perhaps the most remarkable property of the
quandle is its right-distributive law corresponding to the third Reidemeister move, as illustrated below. The
reader will be interested to observe that in a multiplicative group G, the following operation satisfies all the
axioms for the quandle: g*h = hg-1h.
In an additive and commutative version of this axiom we can write a*b = 2b - a. Here the models that are
most useful to the knot theorist are to take a and b to be elements of the integers Z or elements of the modular
number system Z/dZ = Zd for some appropriate modulus d. The knot being analyzed restricts the modular
possibilities. In the case of the trefoil knot the only possibility is d = 3, and in the case of the Figure Eight
knot (shown after the Reidemeister moves below) the only possibility is d =5. This analysis then shows that
there cannot be any sequence of Reidemeister moves connecting the Trefoil and the Figure Eight. They are
distinct knot types.
Here is the example for the Figure Eight Knot.

2 x 1 -0 = 1
1 2
2 x 2 -1 = 3
2x3-1=5
3
0 -> 0 = 5
5

Z/5Z = {0,1,2,3,4} with 0 = 5.

Figure 14
 x*x x
x
I.

x x
x*x=x

(x*y)*y x
II.
x*y x x
y y
(x*y)*y = x

y z
x*y
III. x
(x*y)*z

y*z

(x*y)*z = (x*z)*(y*z)

y z
x (x*z)*(y*z)

x*z y*z

Figure 15

We have shown how an attempt to label the arcs of the knot according to the quandle rule

c = 2b -a = a*b

a
Figure 16

a*b = 2b -a, leads to a labeling of the Figure Eight knot in Z/5Z. In our illustration we have shown that there is
a compatible coloring using four out of the five elements of Z/5Z. If you apply Reidemeister moves to the
diagram for the Figure Eight knot you will see that other versions of the knot require all five colors. It is
interesting to prove that there is no diagram of the Figure Eight knot that can be colored in less than four
colors.
It should be noted that the knot diagrams give a remarkable picture of non-associative algebra structure
and that each arc-label a in a diagram is both an element of the algebra and a transformation of the algebra to
itself via the mapping Oa(x) = x*a . Note that the right distributivity of this operation has the equation

Oa(x*y) = (x*y)*a = (x*a)*(y*a) = Oa(x)*Oa(y) (24)

That is, we have

Oa(x*y) = Oa(x)*Oa(y). (25)

The right distributive law tells us that each quandle operation is a quandle homomorphism. That is, each
quandle operation is a structure preserving mapping of the quandle to itself. This is an underlying algebraic
meaning of the third Reidemeister move. Since the mappings Oa are invertible, we see that any quandle Q is
in 1-1 correspondence with a certain collection of automorphisms of itself. In this sense a quandle is a
reflexive domain with a limitation on the allowable collection of self-mappings. In fact we have a very simple
fixed point theorem for quandles since

Oa(a) = a*a = a. (26)

Every element of the quandle is fixed by its own automorphism. Since we take [Q,Q] to be the set of mappings
of Q to itself of the form Oa(x) = x*a, we see that any quandle is a reflexive domain
of a restricted sort. (Not every set theoretic mapping of Q to Q is realized in the above manner.)
How far is the quandle from being a reflexive space in the full sense of the word? Lets look at the fixed
point construction. We define G(x) = (x*x)*F for a given element F of the quandle . Is it then the case that
(x*x)*F = x*g for some g in the quandle? The answer is yes, but for very simple reason: We have x*x = x so
that (x*x)*F = x*F and consequently (F*F)*F = F*F. In fact F*F = F so F is already its own fixed point. We
see therefore that in a quandle the fixed point theorem is satisfied automatically due to the axiom x*x= x for all
x.
On the other hand if F:Q ---->Q is an arbitrary mapping from Q to Q, then we cannot expect that F will have
a fixed point. For example, in the trefoil quandle TRI , suppose we define F(a) = b, F(b) = c and F(c) = a. Then
F has no fixed point. Note that F is a structure preserving mapping. That is, we have F(x*y) = F(x)*F(y) for all
x and y in TRI. For example F(a*b) = F(c) = a = b*c = F(a)*F(b).
Left Distributivity
We have written the quandle as a right-distributive structure with invertible elements. It is mathematically
equivalent to use the formalism of a left distributive operation. In left distributive formalism we have A*(b*c)
= (A*b)*(A*c). This corresponds exactly to the interpretation that each element A in Q is a mapping of Q to
Q where the mapping A[x] = A*x is a structure preserving mapping from Q to Q.

A[b*c] = A[b]*A[c]. (27)

We can ask of a domain that every element of the domain is itself a structure preserving mapping of that
domain. This is very similar to the requirement of reflexivity and, as we have seen in the case of quandles,
can often be realized for small structures such as the Trefoil quandle. We call a domain M with an operation *
that is left distributive a magma. Magmas are more general than the link diagrammatic quandles. We take only
the analog of the third Reidemeister move and do not assume any other axioms. Even so there is much
structure here. A magma with no other relations than left-distributivity is called a free magma.
The search for structure preserving mappings can occur in rarefied contexts. See for example the work of
Laver and Dehornoy [21, 9] who studied mappings of set theory to itself that would preserve all definable
structure in the theory. Dehornoy realized that many of the problems he studied in relation to set theory were
accessible in more concrete ways via the use of knots and braids. Thus the knots and braids become a
language for understanding formal properties of self-embedded structure.
 Structure preserving mappings of set theory must begin as the identity mapping since the relations of
sets are quite rigid at the beginning. (You would not be able to map an empty set to a set that was not empty
for example, and so the empty set would have to go to itself.) The existence of non-trivial structure preserving
mappings of set theory questions the boundaries of definability and involves the postulation of sets of very
large size. See [16] for a good exposition of the philosophical issues about such embeddings and for an
approach to wholeness in physics that is based on these ideas.
It is worth making a remark here about sets. Consider the collection Aleph of all sets whose members are
themselves sets and such that any investigation into membership will just reveal more sets as members.
Typical elements of Aleph are the empty set { }, the set whose member is the empty set { { } } and of course
various curious constructs that have infinitely many members such as { { } , {{ }}, {{{ }}}, {{{{ }}}}, ... }
and we may even consider sets that are members of themselves (eigen-sets!) such as { { { { { ... } } } } }.
The key thing to understand about Aleph as a class of sets is that any member of Aleph is, by definition,
a subset of Aleph. And any subset of Aleph is by definition a member of Aleph. This is a beautiful property
of the class Aleph, and it is a paradoxical property if we imagine that Aleph is a set! For if Aleph is a set, then
we have just shown that Aleph is in 1-1 correspondence with the set of subsets P(Aleph) of Aleph. If X is
any set then we denote the set of subsets of X by P(X). Cantor's Theorem (proved here in Section VIII and
related in that section o the fixed point theory of reflexive domains) tells us that for any set X, P(X) is larger
than X.
This means that there cannot be a 1-1 correspondence between Aleph and P(Aleph) if Aleph is a set.
We can only conclude that Aleph is not a set. It is a class, to give it a name. It is an unbroken wholeness
whose particularities we can always consider, but whose totality will always elude us. The way that the
totality of Aleph eludes us is right before our eyes. Any particular element of Aleph is a set and it is a
collection of sets as well. But we cannot complete Aleph. Any attempt to approximate Aleph as a set will
always have some subsets that have not been tallied inside itself and so the set of subsets of the approx-
imation will grow beyond that approximation to a new and larger domain of sets. Philosophically, this
observation of the unreachability of Aleph, the set of all sets, as a set itself is very interesting and important.
We see here how a perfectly clear mathematical concept may always remain outside the bounds of the
formalities to which it refers and yet that concept is indeed composed of these formalities. It is the leading
presence of the ultimately huge and unattainable Aleph that leads us to consider exceeding large sets in the
pursuit of a flexibility in self-embeddings of set theory. Below we take an alternative view of Aleph and
consider what would have to change if Aleph were admitted to be a set.
I shall call a magma M reflexive if it has the property that every structure preserving mapping of the
algebra is realized by an element of the algebra and (x*x)*z = x*z for all x and z in M. A special case of this
last property would be where x*x = x for all x in M. Suppose that M is a reflexive magma. Does M satisfy the
fixed point theorem? We find that the answer is yes: Fixed Point Theorem for Reflexive Magmas. Let M be a
reflexive magma. Let F:M ----> M be a structure preserving mapping of M to itself. Then there exists an
element p in M such that F(p) = p.

Proof. Let F:M -----> M be any structure preserving mapping of the magma M to itself. This means
that we assume that F(x*y) = F(x)*F(y) for all x and y in M. Define G(x) = F(x*x) and regard
G:M ----> M. Is G structure preserving? We must compare
G(x*y) = F((x*y)*(x*y)) = F(x*(y*y)) with
G(x)*G(y) = F(x*x)*F(y*y) = F((x*x)*(y*y)).
Since (x*x)*z = x*z for all x and z in M, we conclude that
G(x*y) = G(x)*G(y) for all x and y In M.
Thus G is structure preserving and hence there is an element g of M
such that G(x) = g*x for all x in M. Therefore we have
g*x = F(x*x), whence g*g = F(g*g). For p = g*g, we have
p = F(p). This completes the proof. //

This analysis shows that the concept of a magma is very close to our notion of reflexive domain. The
examples of magmas related to knot theory, given above show that magmas are not just abstract structures,
but are related to directly to the properties of space and topology in the worlds of communication and
perception in which we live.

CHURCH AND CURRY

In this section we point out how the notion of a reflexive domain first appeared in the work of Alonzo
Church and Haskell Curry [1] in the 1930's. This method is commonly called the "lamb da calculus". The key to
lambda calculus is the construction of a self-reflexive language, a language that can refer and operate upon
itself. In this way eigenforms can be woven into the context of languages that are their own metalanguages,
hence into the context of natural language and observing systems. In the Church-Curry language (the lambda
calculus), there are two basic rules:

1. Naming. If you have an expression in the symbols in lambda calculus then there is always a single word
in the language that encodes this expression. The application of this word has the same effect as the
application of the expression itself.

2. Reflexivity. Given any two words A and B in the lambda calculus, there is permission to form their
concatenation AB, with the interpretation that A operates upon or qualifies B. In this way, every word in
the lambda calculus is both an operator and an operand. The calculus is inherently self-reflexive.

Here is an example. Let GA denote the process that creates two copies of A and puts them in a box.

GA = AA
Figure 17

In lambda calculus we are allowed to apply G to itself. The result is two copies of G next to one another,
inside the box.

GG = GG
Figure 18

This equation about GG exhibits GG directly as a solution to the eigenform equation

 X= X
Figure 19

thus producing the eigenform without an infinite limiting process.

More generally, we wish to find the eigenform for a process F. We want to find a J so that F(J) = J. We
create an operator G with the property that

GX = F(XX) (28)

for any X. When G operates on X, G makes a duplicate of X and allows X to act on its duplicate. Now comes
the kicker. Let G act on herself and look!

GG = F(GG) (29)

So GG is a fixed point for F.

We have solved the eigenform problem without the excursion to infinity. If you reflect on this magic trick
of Church and Curry you will see that it has come directly from the postulates of Naming and Reflexivity that
we have discussed above. These notions, that there should be a name for everything, and that words can be
applied to the description and production of other words, allow the language to refer to itself and to
produce itself from itself. The Church-Curry construction was devised for mathematical logic, but it is
fundamental to the logic of logic, the linguistics of linguistics and the cybernetics of cybernetics.
I like to call the construction of the intermediate operator G, the "gremlin" (See [10].) Gremlins seem
innocent. They just duplicate entities that they meet, and set up an operation of the duplicate on the
duplicand. But when you let a gremlin meet a gremlin then strange things can happen. It is a bit like the story
of the sorcerer's apprentice. A recursion may happen whether you like it or not.
An eigenform must be placed in a context in order for it to have human meaning. The struggle on the
mathematical side is to control recursions, bending them to desired ends. The struggle on the human side is
to cognize a world sensibly and communicate well and effectively with others. For each of us, there is a
continual manufacture of eigenforms (tokens for eigenbehaviour). Such tokens will not pass as the currency
of communication unless we achieve mutuality as well. Mutuality itself is a higher eigenform. As with all
eigenforms, the abstract version exists. Realization happens in the course of time.

CANTOR'S DIAGONAL ARGUMENT AND RUSSELL'S PARADOX

Let AB mean that B is a member of A.

Cantor's Theorem. Let S be any set (S can be finite or infinite).

Let P(S) be the set of subsets of S. Then P(S) is bigger than S in the sense that for any mapping F: S ----->
P(S) there will be subsets C of S (hence elements of F(S)) that are not of the form F(a) for any a in S. In
short ,the power set P(S) of any set S is larger than S.
 Proof. Suppose that you were given a way to associate to each element x of a set S a subset F(x) of S.
Then we can ask whether x is a member of F(x). Either it is or it isn't. So lets form the set of all x such
that x is not a member of F(x). Call this new set C. We have the defining equation for C :
Cx = ~F(x)x.
Is C =F(a) for some a in S?
If C=F(a) then for all x we have
F(a)x = ~F(x)x.
Take x =a. Then
F(a)a = ~F(a)a.

This says that a is a member of F(a) if and only if a is not a member of F(a). This shows that indeed C cannot
be of the form F(a), and we have proved that the set of subsets of a set is always larger than the set itself. //
Note that in the usual language, C = { x in X | x is not a member of F(x) }.
Note the problem that the assumption that C = F(a) gave us. If C = F(a), then F(a)a = ~F(a)a. We would
have a fixed point for negation. But there is no fixed point for negation in classical logic! If we had enlarged
the truth set to {T, F, I} where ~I=I is an eigenform for negation, then F(a)a would have value I. What does
this mean? It means that the index a of the set F(a) corresponding to it would have an oscillating membership
value. The element a would be like Groucho Marx who declared that he would not join any club that would
have him as a member. We would be propelled into sets that vary in time.
Note that our proof of Cantor's Theorem has exactly the same form as our earlier proof of the existence of
fixed points for a reflexive space. The mapping F:X -----> P(X) takes the role of the 1-1 correspondence
between D and [D,D]. The reader will enjoy thinking about this analogy. In the Cantor Theorem we have used
the non-existence of a fixed point for negation to deduce a difference between and set X and its power set
P(X). In the study of a reflexive domain we have shown the existence of fixed points, but we have seen that
such domains must be open to new elements and new transformations.
There are many points of view about Cantor's Theorem. Lets start again by considering the assemblage
(we shall not call it a set) Aleph of all sets whose members are sets that are members of Aleph. That is, a set S
is a member of Aleph if every member of S is a set and when you look at the members of the members, they
too are sets, and this process of finding sets continues to all depths. We allow the possibility of infinite
depth of membership and hence the possibility of self-membership for sets in Aleph. Note that Aleph is a
natural concept - the concept of sets that are made up from sets. But by definition, any set S that is a member
of Aleph is also a subset of Aleph. And by definition, any subset of Aleph is a member of Aleph! Thus
Aleph is identical with P(Aleph). According to Cantor's Theorem, Aleph is not a set.
What is the contradiction that Cantor's Theorem produces for Aleph? Cantor forms C = {x in Aleph| x is
not a member of x } since we can take F:Aleph -----> P(Aleph) to be the identity mapping. But is this a
contradiction?! It would be a contradiction if we knew that C is a set. Then C would be a member of itself if
and only if it was not a member of itself.
But C is not a set! C is itself a contradiction. C is the Russell paradox. We have that C is a member of C if
and only if C is not a member of C. Cantor's process applied to Aleph produces a set that is supposed to be a
new subset of Aleph, but in fact it is a paradoxical set. We could take the point of view that this shows that
there are cases where the Cantor definition C = {x in X| x is not in F(x)} leads to an undefined set, a set for
which one cannot actually decide on the membership of certain elements. In that viewpoint, Aleph may be
considered an example of a set to which Cantor's Theorem does not apply.
We say, how did this happen? Isn't it always clear whether or not x is in F(x)? You would think so. But in
the case at hand we have F(x) = x and the question becomes: does x belong to x? And then we see that as far
as C itself is concerned this question creates an iterant, an oscillation, a paradox. By applying Cantor's
argument to Aleph, we have found iterants and imaginary values at the very heart of set theory. The notion
that we can always specify a set by a definition in the form S = {x | P(x) } where P(x) is a logical proposition is
naive. The propositional statement provides a criterion of distinction, but it is possible that this criterion will
be circular or undecideable. So we have to keep attending to what we define, and find out when it makes the
sense. Why should such things be automatic?
 THE SECRET
What is the simplest language that is capable of self-reference? We are all familiar with the abilities of
natural language to refer to itself. Why this very sentence is an example of self-referentiality. The American
dollar bill declares "This bill is legal tender.". The sentence that you are now reading declares that you, the
reader, are complicit in its own act of reference. But what is the simplest language that can refer to itself?
The simplest language would have a simple alphabet. Let us say it has only the letter R. The words in this
language will be all strings of R's. Call the language LS. The words in LS are the following:

R,
RR,
RRR,
RRRR,
and so on.

Two words are equal if they have the same number of letter R's. Each word makes a meaningful statement of
reference via the rule:

If X is a word in LS, then RX refers to XX.

RX refers to XX, the repetition of X.

Thus RRR refers to RRRR (not to itself), and R refers to the empty word. There is a word in LS that refers to
itself. Can you find it?

Lets see.
RX refers to XX.
So we need XX = RX if RX would refer to RX.
If XX = RX, then X = R.
So we need X = R.
And RR refers to itself.

The little language LS looks like a pedantic triviality, but it is actually at the root of reflexivity, Gödel’s
incompleteness Theorem, recursion theory, Russell's paradox and the notion of self-observing and self-
referring systems. It seems paradoxical that what looks like a trick of repeating a symbol can be so important.
The trick is more than just a trick.
Just to show you how this works, consider Russell's paradox again. Russell asks us to consider the set of
all sets that are not members of themselves. Lets call this set B for "Bertrand Russell". Lets writeYX to mean
"X is a member of Y". And write ~YX to mean "X is not a member of Y". Ok? Then Russell's set is defined by
the equation

BX = ~XX. (30)

(= means "if and only if" in a logical context) Read it out loud: "X is a member of B if and only if X is not a
member of X". Exactly. What about B? Is B a member of B? Try it. Let X = B. Then

BB = ~BB. (31)

"B is a member of B if and only if B is not a member of B." This is the Russell paradox. You see that in the
form BX = ~XX the Russell paradox is an instance (in a slightly more complex language) of exactly our LS
trick of self-reference. The Russell paradox continues to act as a mystery at the center of our attempts to
relate syntax and semantics. In that center is a little trick of syntactical repetition. I would like to think that
when we eventually discover the true secret of the universe it will turn out to be this simple. The snake bites
its tail. The Universe is constructed in such a way that it can refer to itself. In so doing, the Universe must
divide itself into a part that refers and part to which it refers, a part that sees and a part that is seen.
Let us say that R is the part that refers and U is the referent. The divided universe is RX and RX = U and
RX refers to U (itself). Our solution suggests that the Universe divides itself into two identical parts each of
which refers to the universe as a whole. This is

RR. (32)

In other words, the universe can pretend that it is two and then let itself refer to the two, and find that it has
in the process referred only to the one, that is itself. The Universe plays hide and seek with herself,
pretending to divide herself into two when she is really only one. And that is the secret of the Universe and
that is the universal source of our trick of self-reference.

IN ZERMELO'S BAR
The section is a multi-logue about the attempts to solve the equation of the observer in relation to his/her
observation. We first encounter Mr. D, who has solved his own equation in such a way that he has no head
and instead has a great open space of possibility where his head was supposed to be. This requires a drink to
ingest and we go to Zermelo's Bar, where we find two mathematicians arguing over the solution to an
equation whose solution is the Golden Ratio, a proportion well known to the Greeks. The mathematicians are
a little hard to follow, but their discussion turns on all the essential issues of recursion, reality and infinity
that we will need for this adventure. Then Dr. Von F appears in the bar (we think you can guess who this is)
and explains the nature of eigenforms. He is followed by a character named Charlie and Dr. CC, a linguist and
logician, then by Dr. HM, a biologist. Later there appears a physicist, Dr. JB and finally Dr. R himself, the
source of the self-referential paradox. We hope that you will join in on this discussion yourself.

Infinite Recursion and Its Relatives

Our problem is to solve the equation

O(A) = A (33)

for A in terms of O.
For example, suppose that the observer O is Mr. D, a man who insists that he has no head. We interview
him. Well Mr. D, why do you say that you have no head? Mr. D. replies. Oh it is so simple, you will see at
once what I mean. In fact, consider what you yourself see. Look directly around. Do you see your head? No.
You see and feel a great open space of perception where your head is supposed to be, and a flow of thoughts
and feelings. But no head! The body comes in. Shoulders, arms, legs, shoes and the world. But no head.
Instead of a head there is a great teeming void of perception. Once I realized this, I knew that the relationship
of a self to reality was indeed deep and mysterious.
As we can see, Mr. D has discovered that what is constant for his visual observer is a body without a
head. He has solved the problem of finding himself as a solution of the equation of himself in terms of
himself. Perhaps we need a drink. We walk into Zermelo's Bar and two mathematicians appear on the scene.
One says to other: How do you solve this equation? I want a positive real solution.

1 + 1/A = A. (34)

The second one says: Nothing to it, we multiply both sides by the unknown A and rewrite as

A + 1 = A 2. (35)

Then, solving the quadratic equation, we find that

 A = (1 + v5)/2. (36)

The first mathematician says: Nice tricks you have there, but I prefer infinite reentry of the equation into
itself. Look here: If A = 1 + 1/A, then

A=
1 + 1/A =
1+1/(1+1/A) =
1+1/(1+1/(1+1/A)) =
1+1/(1+1/(1+1/(1+1/A)))

and I will take this reentry process to infinity and obtain the form

A = 1+ 1/(1+1/(1+1/(1+1/(1+ 1/(1+1/(1+... )))))). (37)

The second mathematician then says: Well I like your method. We can combine our answers and write a
beautiful formula!

(1+v5)/2 =
(38)
1+ 1/(1+1/(1+1/(1+1/(1+ 1/(1+1/(1+... ))))))

Why do you like this formula? says the second guy. Well, sez the first guy, the left hand side is a definite
irrational number and it is easy to see by squaring it that it satisfies the equation A 2 = A + 1 as we wanted it.
But irrational numbers have a curiously tenuous existence unless you know a way to calculate
approximations for them. On the other hand, your right hand side can be regarded as the limit of the fractions

1 = 1/1
1+1/1 = 2/1 = 2
1+1/(1+1/1) = 3/2
1+1/(1+1/(1+1/1)) = 5/3
1+1/(1+1/(1+1/(1+1/1))) = 8/5
1+1/(1+1/(1+1/(1+1/(1+1/1)))) = 13/8
1+1/(1+1/(1+1/(1+1/(1+1/(1+1/1))))) = 21/13

with the first few terms of this limit being

(1+v5)/2 = 1.618... (39)

On top of this your infinite formula actually does reenter itself as an infinite expression it really is of the form

A = 1 + 1/A. (40)

The first guy comes back with: Well it sounds to me like you really believe in the "actual" infinity of the
terms on the right-hand side. I also like to imagine that they are all there existing together in space with no
time. Right ! says the second guy. We know that this is an idealization, but it lets us actually reason to
correct answers and to put them in an aesthetically pleasing form. The bartender is listening to all of this, and
he leans over and says: You guys have to meet a couple of others on this score. There is Dr. Von F and Dr.
CC. They both have some ideas very similar to yours. Hey, here is Dr. Von F now. Dr. Von F, could you tell
these fellows about your eigenforms?
Jah! Of course! It is all very simple. We just combine this notion of recursion with the most general
possible situation. Suppose we have any observer O and we wish to find a fixed point for her. Well then we
just let the observer act without limit as in
 A = O(O(O(O(O(O(O(O(...))))))). (41)

After infinity, one more application of O does not change the result and we have

O(A) = A. (42)

This is very simple, no? And it shows how we make objects. These objects are the tokens of our repeated
behaviours in shaping a form from nothing but our own operations. As I have said before, the human identity
is precisely the fixed point of such a recursion. "I am the observed link between myself and observing
myself." [2] The first mathematician makes a comment: What you are doing is a precise generalization of my
infinite continued fraction! If I had defined

O(A) = 1 + 1/A (43)

then we would have

O(O(O(...))) = 1+ 1/(1+1/(1+1/(1+...))). (44)

But I am puzzled by your approach, for it would seem that you are willing that your solution A will have no
relation with how the process starts, and also it may not related to the original domain in which it was
constructed! For example, in my mathematics, I could consider the operator

O(A) = -1/A (45)

and this operator does not have a fixed point in the real numbers, but if we take A=i where i2 = -1 (the
simplest imaginary number), then O(i)=i. Are you suggesting that

i = -1/-1/-1/... ? (46)

Dr. Von F replies: Jah, Jah! This is very important! The fixed point can be a construction that breaks
ground into an entirely new domain! Actually, I am mainly interested in those fixed points that do break new
ground. We are looking for the places where new structures emerge. In your mathematics you have illustrated
this in two ways. In the first recursion, the values converge to an irrational number (the golden ratio). All the
finite approximations are rational fractions (ratios of Fibonacci numbers) but in the limit of the infinite
eigenform, you arrive at this beautiful new irrational number! And in your second example all the finite
approximations oscillate like a buzzer, or a paradox, between positive unity and negative unity, but the
eigenform is a true representative of the imaginary square root on minus one! And don't forget that this
"imaginary" quantity is fundamental to both logic and physics. The fully general eigenforms are fundamental
to the ontology of the world.
Suddenly the door to Zermelo's Bar opens and in walks a character that everyone calls "Charlie." Charlie!
say the barkeep, where have you been? We have a good discussion on signs going here. You have to hear
this stuff. Charlie says, Well I heard just about everything Dr. Von F said as I admit here to a bit of
eavesdropping on the other side of the door! These eigenforms of Von F are quite familiar to me as I have
thought continuously along these lines for many years. You see, any sign once you look at it in the context
of its reference and the continuous expansion of its interpretant becomes a growing complex of signs
referring to other signs, growing until the references close on themselves and, as Dr. Vo n F correctly
describes, these closures are the eigenforms, the tokens for apparently stable behaviours. As the complex of
signs grows, the complex itself is a sign and as the closures occur, that sign becomes a sign for itself. We
humans are in our very nature such signs for ourselves. Dr. Von F says: Well I always say that I am the
observed link between myself and observing myself. I am a sign for myself!
At this point Dr. CC chimes in: But Dr. Von F and Charlie, this excursion to recursion and infinity seems
quite excessive! It is all right for mathematicians to imagine such a thing, but we humans exist in language
and the finiteness of expressions. Surely you do not suggest that this profligate composition of the operator
and expansion of sign complexes actually happens! Well, Dr. CC, says Von F, I am really a physicist and well
aware of the speed of physical process in relation to the very slow pace of our verbal thought. Surely you
have stood between two facing mirrors and seen the near-instantaneous tunnel of reflections created by light
bouncing back and forth between the mirrors. Yes, I am seriously suggesting that the self-composition of the
observer is carried to high orders. These orders are sufficiently large and accomplished with such a high
speed that they appear infinite in the eyes of the observer. Now you may detect the beginning of a
paradoxical flight here. The very observer who is too slow to detect the difference between a large number
and infinity is yet so quick and subtle that he/she can produce this flight to infinity. But I beg your pardon,
this is still a matter of the interaction of slow thought and fast action. Wave your arm back and forth rapidly
in front of your eyes. For all practical purposes the arm appears to be in two places at the same time! You do
not deny that it is "you" that moves the arm, and it is "you" that perceives it.
I simply go further and suggest that every perception is based on such an illusion of permanency, based
on the self composition of your self. You do it all and you are surprised at the result. You do it all, but you
can not perceive all that you do! Charlie adds: I agree but do not have to rest on physics. Our shortsighted
view of our own nature arises from the difficulty in reckoning that our true nature is as signs for ourselves. It
is only at the limit of eigenbehaviours that such signs appear simple. We partake of the complexity of the
universe. Dr CC replies: Ah Charlie and Dr. Von F, I have been working in the linguistic and logical realm and
you will see that our points of view are mutually supporting. For I imagine the structure of the observer as a
big network of communicating entities. These entities have so much interrelation among themselves that their
identities begin to merge into one identity and that is the apparent identity of the self.
Charlie interrupts with: Yes! That is the essence of continuity. Dr. CC continues. I agree! The infinity in my
view is not with any one of them, but with the aggregate of them that has become so large as to begin to
merge into a continuity.
But let me explain: If A and B are entities in my "community of the self", then they can interact with each
other and with themselves. These processes of interaction produce new entities who exist at the same level
as the original entities. Can you imagine this? Of course you can, you are such an entity. For example, I
suggest to you that you are the self that thinks kindly of others, that you satisfy the equation SX = KX where
S is "you" and KX is the being "thinks kindly of X". Then that entity S exists. In the world of language, every
definable entity exists. The consequence is that S might even think kindly of herself as in SS = KS. That S
can think kindly of herself is, in this linguistic world, dependent on the condition that the kindly thinking
observer is an observer at the same level as any other observer. Now there are many such entities. Watch
this magic trick. Let

GX = O(XX). (47)

The entity G is the observer who observes an entity observing herself. What happens when G observes
herself? Then G observes herself observing herself and we have a fixed point, an eigenform!

GG = O(GG). (48)

I have constructed the eigenform without the infinite composition of the observer upon herself. Of course
once this self-reflexive construction comes into the being of language then it runs automatically to the level
of practical infinity and produces your recursion.

GG = O(GG) = O(O(GG)) = O(O(O(GG))) = ... (49)

I believe my linguistic construction provides the context for your observer's self interaction. The true infinity
in my world is a dis tributed infinity of beings each coming into being as a name for a process of observation.
This continues without end and is the basis of the coincidence of the language and the metalanguage in this
world.
At this point Dr. HM, a biologist, walks into the room. He remarks: I see that you have been discussing
the stability of perceptions from physical and linguistic principles. Let me tell you how I see these matters in
my domain. The beings you talk about are biological, not just logical. They exist in the evolutionary flow of
coordinations of coordinations that give rise to the mutual patternings that you call "language" and
"thought". It is not at all surprising that each such being, coordinated with the others in the deep flow of its
history in biological time will appear layered like an onion with the actions of each on each. The long time
history of mutual interaction and coordination will generate the appearance of the eigenforms. But there is no
"disembodied observer" who generates these forms from some abstract place. In biology there is no problem
of mind (abstract observer) and body. They are one. Mind and observer both refer to the conversational
domain that arises in the construction of the coordination of coordinations that is language. The
disembodied observer is a fantasy that is convenient for the mathematician or the physicist. In the biological
realm all forms are generated through time in an organic way.
And finally, Dr. JB enters the room, a very theoretical physicist. He says: Ah it is not surprising, but you
all have the business of objects and eigenforms quite wrong. Let me start with the views of the biologist Dr.
HM. You see, there is no time. None. Time is an illusion. Of course in order to tell you about this insight I
shall have to use words that appear to describe states in time. That is my fate to be so projected into
language. You must forgive me. Each moment of being is eternal, beyond time. I prefer to call such moments
"time capsules." Each moment contains that possibility that it can be interpreted in terms of a "history", a
story of events leading up to the "present moment" that constitutes the time capsule as a whole. But this
history is a pattern in eternity. That the history can be told with some coherence and that we manage to tell
the story of "past events" leads us to believe that these past events "actually happened". But in fact what
has happened is happening now and only now in the eternity of the time capsule whose richness derives
from the superposition of its quantum states. At this point the bartender chimes in: I'll drink to that. Time is a
grand illusion and a wee scotch from my bar will convince ye o' that in less time than it takes to wink an eye!
All well and good, says Dr. R, who just walked into the bar, but as I was telling my friend Frege, if there is
one thing that will give us trouble it is this notion of eternity and the non-existence of time. For as I told
Gottlob just the other day, you have only to imagine the timeless reality of the set of all sets that are not
members of themselves and you will have to leave logic behind! I gave up long ago my travails on this issue
with Professor Whitehead. We tried to make logic go first and it was a disaster. Now I let logic run along
behind and there is no problem at all. As far as fixed points are concerned my favorite is Omega, the set
whose only member is Omega herself. You see that the act of set formation is nothing but an act of reflection.
Omega finds herself in reflecting on herself.
Dr. CC retorts: Well, Russell, I hardly expected you to capitulate your position on logic. Your Type is
hardly likely to just slip away. I prefer to make a specimen of your famous set in the following way. I let AB
mean that "B is a member of A". Then I define your set of all sets that are not members of themselves" by the
equation

Rx = ~xx. (50)

Then we can pin the specimen to the board by substituting R for x as in

RR = ~RR. (51)

This RR is a fixed point for negation. It is neither true nor false. I do not leave logic behind. I imagine new
states of logical discourse that are beyond the true and the false. Your set performs this transition to
imaginary Boolean values.
Now Dr. HM says: Well I see you fellows are beginning to foment an argument. I feel that I must point out
to you that logical paradox occurs only in the domain of language. There is no such matter as the paradox of
the Russell set in the natural domain. In the natural domain, all apparent contradictions are only antimonies in
the eyes of some observer. Nature herself runs in the single valued logic of the evolutionary flow. This is
why I emphasize that it is only in the linguistic domain of coordinations of coordinations that the eigenforms
arise. At the biological level there are processes that can be seen as recursions, but this seeing is already at
the level of the coordinations. There is no mystery in this, but it is necessary to round out the mathematical
models with the prolific play and dynamics of the underlying biology. In this sense biology is prior to
physics as well as cognition.
 At this point a tremour shakes the bar and the lights go out. I am sorry folks, the bartender says from the
darkness, but this is another one of our natural events in the single valued logical flow of biological time -- a
small earthquake. I will have to ask you to leave now for your own safety. And so the discussion ended,
unfinished but perhaps that was for the best.

A Remark
The story in this section presents a number of different points of view about the cybernetics of fixed points.
Fixed points can be produced by infinite recursion, by direct self-reference, through the linguistics of lambda
calculus, and by approximation to infinites. Mr. D is a fictionalized version of Douglas Harding the man who
indeed realized that he did not have a head, and had the courage to write about it. The good Drs. at the bar
represent these points of view and are thinly disguised representatives of the viewpoints of Heinz von
Foerster, Alonzo Church and Haskell Curry (Dr. CC), Humberto Maturana and the physicist Julian Barbour.
Charlie represents the American mathematical philosopher Charles Sanders Peirce. All this is only the
beginning. The most famous fixed point of them all is the Universe herself, acted here by the bartender.

QUANTUM PHYSICS, EIGENVALUE AND EIGENFORM

There are two reasons for including a discussion of quantum mechanics in this essay. On the one hand the
quantum mechanics has been a powerful force in asking us to rethink our notions of objects and causality.
On the other hand, von Foerster's notion of eigenform is an outgrowth of his background as a quantum
physicist. We should ask what eigenforms might have to do with quantum theory and with the quantum
world.
In this section we meet the concurrence of the view of object as token for eigenbehavior and the
observation postulate of quantum mechanics. In quantum mechanics observation is modeled not by
eigenform but by its mathematical relative the eigenvector. The reader should recall that a vector is a quantity
with magnitude and direction, often pictured as an arrow in the plane or in three dimensional space.

V
A vector V
Figure 20

In quantum physics [11], the state of a physical system is modeled by a vector in a high-dimensional
space, called a Hilbert space. As time goes on the vector rotates in this high dimensional space. Observable
quantities correspond to (linear) operators H on these vectors v that have the property that the application of
H to v results in a new vector that is a multiple of v by a real factor l. (An operator is said to be linear if H(av
+w) = aH(v) + H(w) for vectors v and w, and any number a. Linearity is usually a simplifying assumption in
mathematical models, but it is an essential feature of quantum mechanics.) In symbols this has the form

Hv = lv. (52)

One says that v is an eigenvector for the operator H, and that l is the eigenvalue. The constant l is the
quantity that is observed (for example the energy of an electron). These are particular properties of the
mathematical context of quantum mechanics. The l can be eliminated by replacing H by G = H/l (when l is non
zero) so that

Gv = (H/l)v = (Hv)/l = lv/k = v. (53)

Thus
 Gv = v. (54)
In quantum mechanics observation is founded on the production of eigenvectors v with Gv=v where v is
a vector in a Hilbert space and G is a linear operator on that space.
Many of the strange and fascinating properties of quantum mechanics emanate directly from this model of
observation. In order to observe a quantum state, its vector is projected into an eigenvector for that particular
mode of observation. By projecting the vector into that mode and not another, one manages to make the
observation, but at the cost of losing information about the other possibilities inherent in the vector. This is
the source, in the mathematical model, of the complementarities that allow exact determination of the position
of a particle at the expense of nearly complete uncertainty about its momentum (or vice versa the
determination of momentum at the expense of knowledge of the position).
Observation and quantum evolution (the determinate rotation of the state vector in the high dimensional
Hilbert space) are interlocked. Each observation discontinuously projects the state vector to an eigenvector.
The intervals between observations allow the continuous evolution of the state vector. This tapestry of
interaction of the continuous and the discrete is the basis for the quantum mechanical description of the
world.
The theory of eigenforms is a sweeping generalization of quantum mechanics that creates a context for
understanding the remarkable effectiveness of that theory. If indeed the world of objects is a world of tokens
for eigenbehaviors, and if physics demands forms of observations that give numerical results, then a simplest
example of such observation is the observable in the quantum mechanical model.
Is the quantum model, in its details, a consequence of general principles about systems? This is an
exploration that needs to be made. We can only ask the question here. But the mysteries of the interpretation
of quantum mechanics all hinge on an assumption of a world external to the quantum language. Thinking in
terms of eigenform we can begin to look at how the physics of objects emerges from the model itself. Where
are the eigenforms in quantum physics? They are in the mathematics itself. For example, we have the simplest
wave-function
j(x,t) = ei(kx - wt). (55)

Since we know that the function E(x) = ex is an eigenform for operation of differentiation with respect to x,
j(x,t) is a special multiple eigenform from which the energy can be extracted by temporal differentiation, and
the momentum can be extracted by spatial differentiation. We see in j(x,t) the complexity of an individual who
presents many possible sides to the world. j(x,t) is an eigenform for more than one operator.
It is this internal complexity that is mirrored in the uncertainty relations of Heisenberg and the
complementarity of Bohr. The eigenforms themselves, as wave-functions, are inside the mathematical model,
on the other side of that which can be observed by the physicist.
We have seen eigenforms as the constructs of the observer, and in that sense they are on the side of the
observer, even if the process that generates them is outside the realm of his perception. This suggests that
we think again about the nature of the wave function in quantum mechanics. Is it also a construct of the
observer? To see quantum mechanics and the world in terms of eigenforms requires a turning around, a shift
of perception where indeed we shall find that the distinction between model and reality has disappeared into
the world of appearance.
This is a reversal of epistemology, a complete turning of the world upside down. Eigenform has tricked us
into considering the world of our experience and finding that it is our world, generated by our actions. It has
become objective through the self-generated stabilities of those actions.

A QUICK REVIEW OF QUANTUM MECHANICS

DeBroglie hypothesized two fundamental relationships: between energy and frequency, and between
momentum and wave number. These relationships are summarized in the equations, E = hw; p = hk, where E
denotes the energy associated with a wave and p denotes the momentum associated with the wave. Here h =
h/2p where h is Planck’s constant.
 Schrödinger answered the question: Where is the wave equation for DeBroglie’s waves? Writing an
elementary wave in complex form

y = y(x,t) = exp(i(kx - wt)), (56)

we see that we can extract DeBroglie’s energy and momentum by differentiating:

i∂y / ∂t = Ey and − i  ∂y / ∂x = Py (57)

This led Schrödinger to postulate the identification of dynamical variables with operators so that the first
equation ,
i ∂ y / ∂t = Ey (58)

is promoted to the status of an equation of motion while the second equation becomes the definition of
momentum as an operator:
p = −i ∂ / ∂ x (59)

Once p is identified as an operator, the numerical value of momentum is associated with an eigenvalue of this
operator, just as in the example above. In our example py = hky.
In this formulation, the position operator is just multiplication by x itself. Once we have fixed specific
operators for position and momentum, the operators for other physical quantities can be expressed in terms
of them. We obtain the energy operator by substitution of the momentum operator in the classical formula for
the energy:
E = (1/2)mv 2 + V
E = p 2/2m + V (60)
( )
E = − 2 /2m ∂ 2 / ∂x 2 + V

Here V is the potential energy, and its corresponding operator depends upon the details of the application.
With this operator identification for E, Schrödinger’s equation

ih?y/?t = -(h 2/2m)?2y/?x2 + Vy (61)

is an equation in the first derivatives of time and in second derivatives of space. In this form of the theory
one considers general solutions to the differential equation and this in turn leads to excellent results in a
myriad of applications. In quantum theory, observation is modeled by the concept of eigenvalues for
corresponding operators. The quantum model of an observation is a projection of the wave function into an
eigenstate. An energy spectrum {Ek} corresponds to wave functions y satisfying the Schrödinger equation,
such that there are constants E k with Ey = Eky. An observable (such as energy) E is a Hermitian operator on
a Hilbert space of wavefunctions. Since Hermitian operators have real eigenvalues, this provides the link with
measurement for the quantum theory.
It is important to notice that there is no mechanism postulated in this theory for how a wave function is
“sent” into an eigenstate by an observable. Just as mathematical logic need not demand causality behind an
implication between propositions, the logic of quantum mechanics does not demand a specified cause behind
an observation. This absence of an assumption of causality in logic does not obviate the possibility of
causality in the world. Similarly, the absence of causality in quantum observation does not obviate causality
in the physical world. Nevertheless, the debate over the interpretation of quantum theory has often led its
participants into asserting that causality has been demolished in physics.
 Note that the operators for position and momentum satisfy the equation xp - px = hi. This corresponds
directly to the equation obtained by Heisenberg, on other grounds, that dynamical variables can no longer
necessarily commute with one another. In this way, the points of view of DeBroglie, Schrödinger and
Heisenberg came together, and quantum mechanics was born. In the course of this development,
interpretations varied widely. Eventually, physicists came to regard the wave function not as a generalized
wave packet, but as a carrier of information about possible observations. In this way of thinking y*y (y*
denotes the complex conjugate of y) represents the probability of finding the “particle” (A particle is an
observable with local spatial characteristics.) at a given point in spacetime. Strictly speaking, it is the spatial
integral of y*y that is interpreted as a total probability with y*y the probability density. This way of thinking
is supported by the fact that the total spatial integral is time-invariant as a consequence of Schrödinger’s
equation!

ITERANTS, COMPLEX NUMBERS AND QUANTUM MECHANICS

We have seen that there are indeed eigenforms in quantum mechanics. The eigenforms in quantum
mechanics are the mathematical functions such as ex that are invariant under operators such as D = d/dx.
But we wish to examine the possibly deep relationship between recursion, reflexive spaces and the properties
of the quantum world. The hint we have received from the theory of the quantum is that we should begin with
the mathematics which is replete with eigenforms. In fact, this hint seems very rich when we consider that i,
the square root of minus one, is a key eigenform in our panoply of eigenforms and it is a key ingredient in
quantum mechanics.
Lets begin by looking at the simpler case of differentiation. Consider an operator D that removes a box
from around X.

D =

D =

D =

D =

J= ...

DJ = J

Figure 21
Our familiar infinite nest of boxes is an eigenform for the "differentiation" operator D. But we can go further.
Consider an infinite series E of nested boxes as shown below.

E= + + + + ...

Figure 22

Then extending D formally so that D(X + Y) = D(X) + D(Y), we see that D(E) = E since D shifts the first box to
void, the second box to the first box, the third box to the second box and so on.

CALCULUS AND THE MATHEMATICS OF EIGENFORMS

The exponential function is invariant under differentiation. Thus it is an eigenform for the operator
D=d/dt:

D(exp(t)) = exp(t) where D=d/dt. (62)

In fact,

exp(t) = 1 + t/1! + t 2/2! + t 3/3! + ... (63)

where D1 = 0, Dt (n+1)/(n+1)!= t n /n! from which it follows that D(exp(t)) = exp(t). If we think of the exponential
function as a nest of boxes, each of which corresponds to one of the terms tn /n! , then we see that the
invariance of the nest of boxes E (above) under the formal differentiation operator has exactly the form of the
invariance of exp(t) under differentiation in the calculus. Another simple example of this sort is the series S =
1 + x + x2 + x3 + x4 + x 5 + x 6 + ... Here we can write S = 1 + x(1 + x + x2 + x3 + x4 + x 5 + ...). Thus S = 1 + x S
and so S is an eigenform for the operator T(A) = 1 + xA. Now i is a close relative of this operator. If we define

R(A) = -1/A (64)

then R(i) = i since i2 = -1 is equivalent to i = -1/i. Using the infinite recursion we would then write (see the
discussion in Zermelo's Bar)

i = -1/-1/-1/-1/-1/... , (65)

making i an infinite reentry form for the operator R.

Lets choose a notation for abbreviating such forms. We will write i = [-1/*] where * denotes the reentry of
the whole form into that place in the right-hand part of the expression. Ok? Similarly, if F(x) = 1 + 1/x, then the
eigenform would be [1 + 1/*] and we could write

(1+v5)/2 = [1 + 1/*]. (66)

With this in place we can now consider wave functions in quantum mechanics such as
 y(x,t) = exp(i(kx - wt)) = exp([-1/*] (kx - wt)) (67)

and we can consider classical formulas in mathematics such as Euler's formula

exp([-1/*]j) = cos(j) + [-1/*] sin(j) (68)

in this light. Really, we must start here with Euler's formula, for this formula is the key relation between
complex numbers, i and waves and periodicity. We have to return to the finite nature of [-1/*]. This eigenform
is an oscillator between -1 and +1. It is only i in its idealization or in its appropriate synchronization that it has
the property that i = -1/i. As a real oscillator, the equation R(i) = -1/i tells us that when i is 1, then i is
transformed to -1 and when i is -1 then i is transformed to +1. There is no fixed point in the real domain. The
eigenform is achieved by leaving the real domain for a new and larger domain. We know that this larger
domain can be conceptualized as the plane with Euclidean rotational geometry, but we want to here explore
the larger domain in terms of eigenforms.
We are now going to do this exploration, but we have to warn the reader: We find that i itself is a
fundamental example of a discrete physical process, and it is in the "microworld"
of such discrete physical processes that not only quantum mechanics, but also classical mechanics is born.

ITERANTS AND ITERANT VIEWS

In order to think about i, consider an infinite oscillation between
+1 and -1:

... -1,+1,-1,+1,-1,+1,-1,+1,... (69)

This oscillation can be seen in two distinct ways. It can we seen as

[-1,+1] (a repetition in this order) or as [+1,-1] (a repetition in the opposite order). This suggests regarding an
infinite alternation such as

... a,b,a,b,a,b,a,b,a,b,a,b,a,b,.. (70)

as an entity that can be seen in two possible ways, indicated by the

ordered pairs [a,b] and [c,d]. We shall call the infinite alternation of a and b the iterant of a and b and denote
it by I{a,b}. Just as with a set {a,b}, the iterant is independent of the order of a and b.
We have I{a,b} = I{b,a}, but there are two distinct views of any iterant and these are denoted by [a,b] and
[b,a]. The key to iterants is that two representatives of an iterant can by themselves appear identical, but
taken together are seen to be different. For example, consider ... a,b,a,b,a,b,a,b,a,b,a,b,a,b,...and also
consider...b,a,b,a,b,a,b,a,b,a,b,a,b,a,...There is no way to tell the difference between these two iterants except
by a direct comparison as... a,b,a,b,a,b,a,b,a,b,a,b,a,b,..... b,a,b,a,b,a,b,a,b,a,b,a,b,a,...
In the direct comparison we see that if one of them is [a,b], then the other one should be [b,a]. Still, there
is no reason to assign one of them to be [a,b] and the other [b,a]. It is a strictly relative matter. The two
iterants are entangled (to borrow a term from quantum mechanics) and if one of them is observed to be [a,b],
then the other is necessarily observed to be [b,a].
Lets go back to the square root of minus one as an oscillatory eigenform.

... -1,+1,-1,+1,-1,+1,-1,+1,... (71)

What is the operation R(x) = -1/x in this case? We usually think of a starting value and then the new
operation shifts everything by one value with R(+1) = -1 and R(-1) = +1. Thus would suggest that
R(... -1,+1,-1,+1,-1,+1,-1,...) = ... +1,-1,+1,-1,+1,-1,+1,...
and these sequences will be different when we compare, them even though they are identical as individual
iterants.... -1,+1,-1,+1,-1,+1,-1,+1,...... +1,-1,+1,-1,+1,-1,+1,-1,...
However, we would like to take the eigenform/iterant concept and make a more finite algebraic model by
using the iterant views [-1,+1] and [+1,-1]. Certainly we should consider the transform P[a,b] = [b,a]
and we take -[a,b]=[-a, -b], so that -P[a,b] = [-b,-a]. Then -P[1,-1] = [1,-1]. In this sense the operation -P has
eigenforms [1,-1] and [-1,1]. You can think of P as the shift by one-half of a period in the process
...ababababab.... Then [-1,1] is an eigenform for the operator that combines negation and shift. We will take a
shorthand for the operator P via P[a,b] = [a,b]' = [b,a]. If x=[a,b] then x' = [b,a].
We can add and multiply iterant views by the combinations

[a,b][c,d] = [ac,bd],
[a,b] + [c,d] = [a+c, b+ d], (72)
k[a,b] = [ka,k,b]

when k is a number.
We take 1 = [1,1] and -1 = [-1,-1]. This is a natural algebra of iterant views, but note that [-1,+1][-1,+1] =
[1,1] = 1, so we do not yet have the square root of minus one. Consider [a,b] as representative of a process of
observation of the iterant I{a,b}. [a,b] is an iterant view. We wish to combine [a,b] and [c,d] as processes of
observation. Suppose that observing I{a,b} requires a step in time. That being the case, [a,b] will have
shifted to [b,a] in the course of the single time step. We need an algebraic structure to handle the temporality.
To this end, we introduce an operator h with the property that

[a,b]h= h[b,a] with h 2 = hh = 1 (73)

where 1 means the identity operator. You can think of h as a temporal shift operator that can act on a
sequence of individual observations. The algebra generated by iterant views and the operator h is taken to be
associative.
Here the interpretation is that XY denotes "first observe X, then observe Y". Thus XhYh = XY'hh = XY'
and we see that Y has been shifted by the presence of the operator h, just in accord with our temporal
interpretation above. We can now have a theory where i and its conjugate -i correspond to the two views of
the iterant I{-1,+1}. Let i = [1,-1]h and -i = [-1,1]h . We get a square root of minus one:

ii = [1,-1]h[1,-1]h = [1,-1][-1,1]hh = [-1,-1] = -[1,1] = -1. (74)

The square roots of minus one are iterant views coupled with temporal shift operators. Not so simple, but
not so complex either! If e = [1,-1] then e' = [-1,1] = -e and ee = [1,1] = 1 with ee' = -1, i = eh and ii = eheh =
ee'hh = ee' = -1 With this definition of i, we have an algebraic interpretation of complex numbers that allows
one to think of them as observations of discrete processes. This algebra contains more than just the complex
numbers. With x = [a,b] and y = [c,d], consider the products (xh)(yh) and (yh)(xh):

(xh)(yh) = [a,b]h[c,d]h = [a,b][d,c] = [ad,bc] (75)

(yh)(xh) = [c,d]h[a,b]h = [c,d][b,a] = [cb,da]. (76)

Thus (xh)(yh) - (yh)(xh) = [ad-bc, -(ad-bc)] = (ad -bc)[1,-1]. And thus xhyh - yhxh = (ad -bc)i h.
We see that, with temporal shifts, the algebra of observations is non-commutative. Note that for these
processes, represented by vectors [a,b], the commutator xhyh - yhxh = (ad -bc)ih is given by the determinant
of the matrix corresponding to two process vectors, and hence will be non-zero whenever the two process
vectors are non-zero and represent different spatial rays in the plane. There is more. The full algebra of
iterant views can be taken to be generated by elements of the form

[a,b] + [c,d]h (77)

and it is not hard to see that this is isomorphic with 2 x 2 matrix algebra with the correspondence given by
the diagram below.

a c
[a,b] + [c,d] η
d b
Figure 23

We see from this excursion that there is a full interpretation for the complex numbers (and indeed matrix
algebra) as an observational system taking into account time shifts for underlying iterant processes.
Let A = [a,b] and B = [c,d] and let C = [r,s], D = [t,u]. With A' = [b,a], we have (A + Bh)(C+Dh) = (AC + BD') +
(AD + BC')h. This writes 2 x 2 matrix algebra in the form of a hypercomplex number system. From the point of
view of iterants, the sum [a,b] + [b,c]h can be regarded as a superposition of two types of observation of the
iterants I{a,b} and I{c,d}. The operator-view [c,d]h includes the shift that will move the viewpoint from[c,d]
to [d,c], while [a,b] does not contain this shift. Thus a shift of viewpoint on [c,d] in this superposition does
not affect the values of [a,b]. One can think of the corresponding process as having the form .... a a a a a a a a
a a a a a a a ...... c d c d c d c d c d c d c d ...... b b b b b b b b b b b b b b ...
The snapshot [c,d] changes to [d,c] in the horizontal time-shift while the vertical snapshot [a,b] remains
invariant under the shift. It is interesting to note that in the spatial explication of the process we can imagine
the horizontal oscillation corresponding to [c,d]h as making a boundary (like a frieze pattern), while the
vertical iterant parts a and b mark the two sides of that boundary.

RETURNING TO QUANTUM MECHANICS

You can regard y(x,t) =exp(i(kx - wt)) as containing a micro-oscillatory system with the special
synchronizations of the iterant view i = [+1,-1]h . It is these synchronizations that make the big eigenform of
the exponential y(x,t) work correctly with respect to differentiation, allowing it to create the appearance of
rotational behaviour, wave behaviour and the semblance of the continuum. Note that
exp(ij) = cos(j) + i sin(j)
in this way of thinking is an infinite series involving powers of i. The exponentional is synchronized via i to
separate out its classical trigonometric parts. In the parts we have

cos(j) + i sin(j) = [cos(j), cos(j)] + [sin(j), -sin(j)]J,\ (78)

a superposition of the constant cosine interant and the oscillating sine iterant. Euler's formula is the result of
a synchronization of iterant process.
One can blend the classical geometrical view of the complex numbers with the iterant view by thinking of
a point that orbits the origin of the complex plane, intersecting the real axis periodically and producing, in the
real axis, a periodic oscillation in relation to its orbital movement in the higher dimensional space.

exp(i(kx-wt)) = cos(kx-wt)+isin(kx-wt)

-1 +1

-i
 Figure 24

The diagram above is the familiar depiction of a vector in the complex plane that represents the phase of a
wave-function. I hope that the reader can now look at this picture in a new way, seeing i = [+1,-1]h as a
discrete oscillation with built-in time shift and the exponential as a process oscillating between cos(kx-wt) +
sin(kx-wt) and cos(kx-wt)-sin(kx-wt). The exponential function takes the simple oscillation between + (kx-wt)
and -(kx-wt) and converts it by a complex of observations of this discrete process to the trigonometric wave-
forms. All this goes on beneath the surface of the Schrödinger equation. This is the production of the
eigenforms from which may be extracted the energy, position and momentum.
Higher Orders of Iterant Structure. What works for 2 x 2 matrices generalizes to n x n matrix algebra, but
then the operations on a vector [x1,x2,...,xn ] constitute all permutations of n objects. A generating element of
iterant algebra is now of the form x s = [x1,x2,...,xn ]s where s is an element of the symmetric group Sn . The
iterant algebra is the linear span of all elements x s, and we take the rule of multiplication as
x s y t = xy s st where y s denotes the vector obtained from y by permuting its coordinates via s ; xy is the
vector whose k-th coordinate is the product of the k-th coordinate of x and the k-th coordinate of y ; st is the
composition of the two permutations s and t .

HAMILTON'S QUATERNIONS
Here is an example. Hamilton's Quaternions are generated by the iterant views

I = [+1,-1,-1,+1]s
J= [+1,+1,-1,-1]l
K= [+1,-1,+1,-1]t

where

s =(12)(34)
l= (13)(24)
t =(14)(23).

Here we represent the permutations as products of transpositions (ij). The transposition (ij) interchanges i
and j, leaving all other elements of {1,2,...,n} fixed. One can verify that I2 = J2 = K2 = IJK = -1. For example,

I2 = [+1,-1,-1,+1]s [+1,-1,-1,+1]s
= [+1,-1,-1,+1][-1,+1,+1,-1]s s
= [-1,-1,-1,-1]
= -1.

And

IJ = [+1,-1,-1,+1]s [+1,+1,-1,-1]l
= [+1,-1,-1,+1][+1,+1,-1,-1] s l
= [+1,-1,+1,-1] (12)(34)(13)(24)
= [+1,-1,+1,-1] (14)(23)
= [+1,-1,+1,-1] t.

In a sequel to this paper, we will investigate this iterant approach to the quaternions and other algebras
related to fundamental physics. For now it suffices to point out that the quaternions of the form a + bI + cJ +
dK with a2 + b2 + c2 + d2 = 1 (a,b,c,d real numbers) constitute the group SU(2), ubiquitous in physics and
fundamental to quantum theory. Thus the formal structure of all processes in quantum mechanics can be
represented as actions of iterant viewpoints. Nevertheless, we must note that making an iterant interpretation
of an entity like I = [+1,-1,-1,+1]s is a conceptually natural departure from our original period two iterant
notion. Now we are considering iterants such as I{+1,-1,-1,+1} where the iterant is a multi-set and the
permutation group acts to produce all possible orderings of that multi-set. The iterant itself is not an
oscillation. It represents an implicate form that can be seen in any of its possible orders. Once seen, these
orders are subject to permutations that produce the possible views of the iterant. Algebraic structures such
as the quaternions appear in the explication of such implicate forms.
The reader will also note that we have moved into a different conceptual domain from the original
emphasis in this paper on eigenform in relation to recursion. Indeed, each generating quaternion is an
eigenform for the transformation R(x) = -1/x. The richness of the quaternions arises from the closed algebra
that arises with its infinity of eigenforms that satisfy this equation, all of the form U = aI + bJ + cK where a2 +
b 2 + c2 = 1.
This kind of significant extra structure in the eigenforms comes from paying attention to specific aspects
of implicate and explicate structure, relationships with geometry and ideas and inputs from the perceptual,
conceptual and physical worlds. Just as with our earlier examples (with cellular automata) of phenomena
arising in the course of the recursion, we see the same phenomena here in the evolution of mathematical and
theoretical physical structures in the course of the recursion that constitutes scientific conversation.

QUATERNIONS AND SU(2) USING COMPLEX NUMBER ITERANTS

Since complex numbers commute with one another, we could consider iterants whose values are in the
complex numbers. This is just like considering matrices whose entries are complex numbers.
For this purpose we shall allow given a version of i that commutes with the iterant shift operator h. Let this
commuting i be denoted by i (iota). Then we are assuming that

i2 = -1
hi=ih (79)
h 2 = +1.

We then consider iterant views of the form [a + bi, c+ di] and [a + bi , c + di ]h = h [c + di , a + bi ]. In

particular, we have e = [1,-1], and i = eh is quite distinct from i . Note, as before, that eh = -h e and that e2 = 1.
Now let

I = ie
J = eh (80)
K = ih .

We have used the commuting version of the square root of minus one in these definitions, and indeed we
find the quaternions once more.

I2 = ie ie = i i e e = (-1)(+1) = -1,
J2 = eh eh = e (-e) h h = -1,
K 2 = ih ih = i i h h = -1,
IJK = ie eh ih = i 1 i h h = i i = -1.

Thus
I2 = J2 = K2 = IJK = -1. (81)
This must look a bit cryptic at first glance, but the construction shows how the structure of the quaternions
comes directly from the non-commutative structure of our period two iterants. In other, words, quaternions
can be represented by 2 x 2 matrices. This is way it has been presented in standard language. The group
SU(2) of 2 x2 unitary matrices of determinant one is isomorphic to the quaternions of length one.

z w
= [ z, z]+[ ,w ] - w η
-w z

Figure 25

In the equation above, we indicate the matrix form of an element of SU(2) and its corresponding complex
valued iterant. You can easily verify that

1: z=1, w=0,
I: z=i, w =0,
J: z=0, w = 1,
K: z=0, w = i.

This gives the generators of the quaternions as we have indicated them above and also as generators of
SU(2). Similarly, H = [a,b] + [c + di, c-di]h represents a Hermitian 2 x 2 matrix and hence an observable for
quantum processes mediated by SU(2). Hermitian matrices have real eigenvalues. It is curious how certain
key iterant combinations turn out to be essential for the relations with quantum observation.

TIME SERIES AND DISCRETE PHYSICS

In this section we shall use the convention (outside of iterants) that successive observations, first A and
then B will be denoted BA rather than AB. This is to follow previous conventions that we have used. We
continue to interpret iterant observation sequences in the opposite order as in the previous section. This
section is based on our work in [20] but takes a different interpretation of the meaning of the diffusion
equation in relation to quantum mechanics. We have just reformulated the complex numbers and expanded
the context of matrix algebra to an interpretation of i as an oscillatory process and matrix elements as
combined spatial and temporal oscillatory processes (in the sense that [a,b] is not affected in its order by a
time step, while [a,b]h includes the time dynamic in its interactive capability, and 2 x 2 matrix algebra is the
algebra of iterant views [a,b] + [c,d]h). We now consider elementary discrete physics in one dimension.
Consider a time series of positions x(t), t = 0, Dt, 2Dt, 3Dt, ... . We can define the velocity v(t) by the
formula v(t) = (v(t+ D) - v(t))/Dt = Dx(t) where D denotes this discrete derivative. In order to obtain v(t) we
need at least one tick Dt of the discrete clock. Just as in the iterant algebra, we need a time-shift operator to
handle the fact that once we have observed v(t), the time has moved up by one tick. Thus we shall add an
operator J that in this context accomplishes the time shift:

x(t)J = Jx(t+Dt). (82)

We then redefine the derivative to include this shift:

Dx(t) = J(x(t+ D) - x(t))/Dt . (83)

 The result of this definition is that a successive observation of the form x(Dx) is distinct from an
observation of the form (Dx)x. In the first case, we observe the velocity and then x is measured at t + Dt . In
the second case, we measure x at t and then measure the velocity. Here are the two calculations:

x(Dx) = x(t) (J(x(t+ D) - x(t))/Dt ) = (J/D)(x(t+ Dt))(x(t+ Dt) - x(t)) = (J/Dt)(x(t+ Dt)2 - x(t+ Dt)x(t)). (84)

(Dx)x = (J(x(t+ Dt) - x(t))/Dt )x(t) = (J/Dt)(x(t+ Dt)x(t) - x(t)2). (85)

We measure the difference between these two results by taking a commutator [A,B] = AB - BA and we get
the following formula where we write Dx = x(t+ Dt) - x(t).

[x,(Dx)] = x(Dx) - (Dx)x

= (J/Dt)(x(t+ Dt) - x(t))2 (86)
= J (Dx)2/Dt

This final result is worth marking:

[x,(Dx)] = J (Dx)2/Dt. (87)

From this result we see that the commutator of x and Dx will be constant if (Dx) 2/Dt = K is a constant. For a
given time-step, this means that (Dx) 2 = K Dt so that Dx = + v(K Dt ) or - v(K Dt ). In other words, x(t + Dt ) =
x(t) + v(K Dt ) or x(t) - v(K Dt ). This is a Brownian process with diffusion constant equal to K.

DIGRESSION ON BROWIAN PROCESSES AND THE DIFUSION EQUATION

Assume, for the purpose of discussion that in the above process, at each next time, it is equally likely to
have + or - in the formulas

x(t + Dt ) = x(t) + v(K Dt ) or x(t) - v(K Dt ). (88)

Let P(x,t) denote the probability of the particle being at the location x at time t in this process. Then we have

P(x, t + Dt ) = (1/2)(P(x - Dx) + P(x + Dx)). (89)

Hence
(P(x, t + Dt ) - P(x,t))/Dt)
= ((Dx) /2Dt)(P(x - Dx) - 2P(x,t) + P(x + Dx,t))/(Dx) 2)
2 (90)
= (K/2)(P(x - Dx) - 2P(x,t) + P(x + Dx,t))/(Dx) 2).

Thus we see that P(x,t) satisfies the a discretization of the diffusion equation

∂P / ∂t = ( K / 2 ) ∂ 2P / ∂x 2 (91)

Compare the diffusion equation with the Schrödinger equation with zero potential shown below.

( )
i ∂y / ∂t = − 2 / 2 m ∂ 2 y / ∂x 2 (92)

In the Schrödinger equation we see that we can rewrite it in the form

 ∂y / ∂t = i (  / 2 m) ∂ 2 y / ∂x 2 (93)

Thus, if we were to make a literal comparison with the diffusion equation we would take K = i(h/m) and we
would identify
(Dx)2/Dt = i(h/m). (94)

Whence
Dx = ((1+i)/v2) v[(h/m)Dt] (95)

and the corresponding Brownian process is

x(t + Dt) = x + Dx or x - Dx. (96)

The process is a step-process along a diagonal line in the complex plane. We are looking at a Brownian
process with complex values! What can this possibly mean? Note that if we take this point of view, then x is a
complex variable and the partial derivative with respect to x is taken with respect to this complex variable. In
this view of a complexified version of the Schrödinger equation, the solutions for Dx as above are real
probabilities. We shall have to move the x variation to real x to get the usual Schrödinger equation, and this
will result in complex valued wave functions in its solutions.
In our context, the comp lex numbers are themselves oscillating and synchronized processes. We have i =
[1,-1]h where h is a shifter satisfying the rules of the last section, and [1,-1] is a view of the iterant that
oscillates between plus and minus one. Thus we are now observing that solutions to the Schrödinger
equation can be construed as Brownian paths in a more complicated discrete space that is populated by both
probabilistic and synchronized oscillations. This demands further discussion, which we now undertake.
The first comment that needs to be made is that since in the iterant context Dx is an oscillatory quantity it
does make sense to calculate the partial derivatives using the limits as Dx and Dt approach zero, but this
means that the interpretation of
the Schrödinger equation as a diffusion equation and the wave function as a probability is dependent on this
generalization of the derivative. If we take Dx to be real, then we will get complex solutions to Schrödinger’s
equation. In fact we can write

y(x, t + Dt) = (1-i)y(x, t ) + (i/2)y(x - Dx) + (i/2)y(x + Dx) (97)

and then we will have, in the limit,

∂y / ∂t = (  / 2m ) ∂2 y / ∂x 2 (98)
if we take (Dx) 2/Dt = (h/m).
It is interesting to compare these two choices. In one case we took (Dx)2/Dt = i(h/m) and obtained a
Brownian process with imaginary steps. In the other case we took (Dx)2/Dt = (h/m) and obtained a real
valued process with imaginary probability weights. These are complementary points of view about the same
structure. With (Dx)2/Dt = (h/m), y(x, t ) is no longer the classical probability for a simple Brownian process.
We can imagine that the coefficients (1-i) and (i/2) in the expansion of y(x, t + Dt) are somehow analogous to
probability weights, and that these weights would correspond to the generalized Brownian process where the
real-valued particle can move left or right by Dx or just stay put. Note that we have
(1-i) + (i/2) + (i/2) = 1, signaling a direct analogy with probability where the probability values are imaginary.
But this must be explored in the iterant epistemology!
Note that 1-i = [1,1] -[1,-1]h and so at any given time represents either [1,1] - [1,-1] = [0,2] or [1,1] - [-1,1] =
[2,0]. It is very peculiar to try to conceptualize this in terms of probability or amplitudes. Yet we know that in
the standard interpretations of quantum mechanics one derives probability from the products of complex
numbers and their conjugates. To this end it is worth seeing how the product of a+bi and a-bi works out:
 (a + bi)(a-bi) = aa + bia + a(-bi) + (bi)(-bi)
= aa + abi - abi - bbii
= aa - bb(-1)
= aa + bb.

It is really the rotational nature of exp(it) that comes in and makes this work. exp(it)exp(-it) = exp(it - it) = exp(0)
= 1 The structure is in the exponent. The additive combinatory properties of the complex numbers are all
under the wing of the rotation group.
A fundamental symmetry is at work, and that symmetry is a property of the synchronization of the
periodicities of underlying process. The fundamental iterant process of i disappears in the multiplication of a
complex number by its conjugate. In its place is a pattern of apparent actuality. It is actual just to the extent
that one regards i as only possibility. On making a reality of i itself we have removed the boundary between
mathematics and the reality that "it" is supposed to describe. There is no such boundary.

EPILOGUE
Finally, we arrive at the simplest place. Time and the square root of minus one are inseparable. One does not
have Dt. One has iDt, a combination of an interval and the elemental dynamic that is time.

We found that discrete observation led to the commutator equation

[x,(Dx)] = J (Dx)2/Dt (99)

which we will simplify to

[q, p/m] = (Dx) 2/Dt. (100)

taking q for the position x and p/m for velocity, the time derivative of position.
Understanding that Dt should be replaced by iDt, and that

(Dx)2/Dt = h/m, (101)

we have

[q, p/m] = (Dx) 2/iDt = -i h/m (102)

whence

[p,q] = ih. (103)

The problem that we have resolved in this paper is the problem to understand the nature of observation in
quantum mechanics. In fact, we hope that the problem is seen to disappear the more we enter into the present
viewpoint. A viewpoint is only on the periphery. The iterant from which the viewpoint emerges is in a
superposition of indistinguishables, and can only be approached by varying the viewpoint until one is
released from the particularities that each point of view contains.
It is not just the eigenvalues of Hermitian operators that are the structures of the observation, but rather
the eigenforms that populate the mathematical models at all levels. These forms are the indicators of process.
Mathematics, instead of being a descriptive symbol system for various algorithms, comes alive as an
interrelated orchestration of processes. It is these processes that become the exemplary operators and
elements of the mathematics that are put together to form the physical theory. We hope that the reader will be
unable, ever again, to look at Schrödinger’s equation or Heisenberg's commutator the same way, after reading
this argument.

REFERENCES
1. H. P. Barendregt, "The Lambda Calculus - Its Syntax and Semantics," North Holland Pub. (1981,1985).
2. H. Bortoft, The Whole - Counterfeit and Authentic, Systematics , vol. 9, No. 2, Sept. (1971), 43-73.
3. G. Spencer-Brown, "Laws of Form," George Allen and Unwin Ltd. (1969).
4. Heinz von Foerster, "Observing Systems," The Systems Inquiry Series, Intersystems Publications (1981).
5. Heinz von Foerster, Objects: tokens for (eigen-) behaviors, in "Observing Systems," The Systems Inquiry Series,
Intersystems Publications (1981), pp. 274 - 285.
6. Heinz von Foerster, Notes on an epistemology for living things, in "Observing Systems," The Systems Inquiry Series,
Intersystems Publications (1981), pp. 258 - 271.
7. Heinz von Foerster, On constructing a reality, in "Observing Systems," The Systems Inquiry Series, Intersystems
Publications (1981), pp. 288 - 309.
8. L. H. Kauffman, Self-reference and recursive forms, Journal of Social and Biological Structures (1987), 53-72.
9. L. H. Kauffman, Knot logic, in "Knots and Applications", ed. by L. H. Kauffman, World Scientific Pub. Co. (1995),
pp. 1-110.
10. L. H. Kauffman, The mathematics of Charles Sanders Peirce, in Cybernetics and Human Knowing, Volume 8, No. 1-
2, (2001), pp. 79-110.
11. Louis H. Kauffman, Eigenform, Kybernetes - The Intl J. of Systems and Cybernetics, Vol. 34, No. 1/2 (2005),
Emerald Group Publishing Ltd, p. 129-150.
12. Louis H. Kauffman, Eigenforms - Objects as Tokens for Eigenbehaviors, Cybernetics and Human Knowing, Vol. 10,
No. 3-4, 2003, pp. 73-90.
13. F.W. Lawvere, Introduction to "Toposes, Algebraic Geometry and Logic" Springer Lecture Notes on Mathematics
Vol. 274 (1970) , pp. 1-12.
14. B. B. Mandelbrot, "The Fractal Geometry of Nature", W. H. Freeman and Company (1977, 1982).
15. W. S. McCulloch, What is a number that a man may know it, and a man, that he may know a number?, in
"Embodiments of Mind", MIT Press (1965), pp. 1-18.
16. B. Piechocinska, Physics from Wholeness, PhD. Thesis, Uppsala
Universitet (2005).
17. J. J. Sakurai, Modern Quantum Mechanics, Benjamin/Cummings Publishing Company, Inc. (1985).
18. D. Scott, Relating theories of the lambda calculus, in "To H. B. Curry: Essays on Combinatory Logic, Lambda
Calculus and Formalism", (P. Seldin and R. Hindley eds.), Academic Press (1980),
pp. 403-450.
19. L. Wittgenstein, "Tractatus Logicus Philosophicus",
Routledge and Kegan Paul Ltd, London and New York (1922).
20. Louis H. Kauffman, Non-Commutative Worlds, New Journal of Physics, Vol. 6, (2004), 173 (47 pages).
21. Patrick DeHornoy, "Braids and Self-Distributivity", Birkhaurser (2000).
Further Evidence in Support of the Universal Nilpotent
Grammatical Computational Paradigm of Quantum
Physics
Peter J. Marcera and Peter Rowlandsb
a
55 rue Jean Jaures, 83600 Frejus, Var, France, marcerpeter@gmail.com
b
Department of Physics, University of Liverpool, Oliver Lodge Laboratory, Oxford St, Liverpool, L69 7ZE,
UK, p.rowlands@liverpool.ac.uk.

Abstract. Further evidence is presented in favour of the computational paradigm, conceived and constructed by
Rowlands and Diaz, as detailed in Rowlands’ book Zero to Infinity (2007) [2], and in particular the authors’
paper ‘The Grammatical Universe: the Laws of Thermodynamics and Quantum Entanglement’ [1]. The
paradigm, which has isomorphic group and algebraic quantum mechanical language interpretations, not only
predicts the well-established facts of quantum physics, the periodic table, chemistry / valence and of molecular
biology, whose understanding it extends; it also provides an elegant, simple solution to the unresolved quantum
measurement problem. In this fundamental paradigm, all the computational constructs / predictions that emerge,
follow from the simple fact, that, as in quantum mechanics, the wave function is defined only up to an arbitrary
fixed phase. This fixed phase provides a simple physical understanding of the quantum vacuum in quantum field
theory, where only relative phases, known to be able to encode 3+1 relativistic space-time geometries, can be
measured. It is the arbitrary fixed measurement standard, against which everything that follows is to be
measured, even though the standard itself cannot be, since nothing exists against which to measure it. The
standard, as an arbitrary fixed reference phase, functions as the holographic basis for a self-organized universal
quantum process of emergent novel fermion states of matter where, following each emergence, the arbitrary
standard is re-fixed anew so as to provide a complete history / holographic record or hologram of the current
fixed past, advancing an unending irreversible evolution, such as is the evidence of our senses. The fermion
states, in accord with the Pauli exclusion principle, each correspond to a unique nilpotent symbol in the infinite
alphabet (which specifies the grammar in this nilpotent universal computational rewrite system (NUCRS)
paradigm); and the alphabet, as Hill and Rowlands hypothesize on substantial evidence [26], includes that of the
RNA / DNA genetic code and, as holographic phase encodings / holograms, the 4D geometries of all living
systems as self-organised grammatical computational rewrite machines / machinery. Human brains, natural
grammatical (written symbol) languages, 4D geometric self-awareness and a totally new emergent property of
matter, human consciousness, can thus with some measure of confidence be postulated as further genetic
consequences which follow from this self-organizing fundamental rewrite NUCRS construction. For it, like
natural language, possesses a semantics and not just a syntax, where the initial symbol, i.e. the arbitrary fixed
phase measurement standard, is able to function as the template for the blueprints of the emergent 4D relativistic
real and virtual geometries to come, in a ‘from the Self Creation to the creation of the human self’ computational
rewrite process evolution.
Keywords: universal rewrite system, self organized grammatical universe, quantum measurement problem,
renormalization group, chemical valence, genetic code
PACS: 03.65Pm, 03.65Ud, 03.67AK, 03.67Lx, 04.20Gz, 04.60Pp, 05.65tb, 05.70Ce, 11.10Gh, 11.10Jj, 64.60ae,
74.40Kb, 85.35Be, 87.19if, 87.19iK, 87.19L, 87.19ll, 87.19K, 89.70Cf, 89.75Fb, 87.85, 98.80Cq, 98.80Qc
 INTRODUCTION

We have established in previous work [1, 2]:

i) that one algebraic interpretation of the nilpotent universal computational rewrite system (NUCRS)
describes quantum field theory (QFT), such that a single nilpotent Dirac creation operator (ikE + i p + j m)
delivers the entire quantum mechanical computational language apparatus, where k, i, j are quaternions units
and E, p, m are energy, momentum and rest mass; and
ii) that each emergent symbol of the NUCRS infinite rewrite alphabet represents a unique fermion state,
so formalizing a unique irreversible emergent computational process shown in conformity with the First,
Second and Third Laws of Thermodynamics [1]; and
iii) that this NUCRS / QFT alphabet is isomorphic to the complete permutation / symmetric group,
known as the Galois group, by means of which all the finite groups can be realized, and, if one identifies the
permutations with bijections on the symbol set (which in the NUCRS / QFT are creation, annihilation
operations on the empty set / vacuum state), that this remains true of all groups including the continuous and
Lie groups.
That is to say, this 'nilpotent group evolution [1], represented by the repeated sequential symmetry-
breaking of the Galois group, describes ‘a dynamic zero totality trace zero universe’ in terms of its emergent
fermion states, each of which, by Pauli exclusion, is unique and nonzero, and where, together with their
boson interactions, fermion states are recognized to define physics at the fundamental level. Each NUCRS /
QFT nondegenerate fermion state that emerges from this initially totally degenerate quantum physical state
represented by the Galois group, is thus a unique automorphism of the NUCRS / QFT automorphic field, in
a process which can be described, quantum physically, in terms of the thermodynamics of the Quantum
Carnot Engine (QCE) [3], such that quantum coherence / entanglement is completely mathematically
described by means of the automorphic nature of the field.
What is proposed, therefore, is an entirely quantum mechanical evolving universe, where quantum
entanglement is the very source of every newly emergent unique property / state of matter, each of which in
terms of the QCE Scully calls a phaseonium [3], and the quantum entanglement parametrization is phase ?.

NORMALIZATION

In this nilpotent NUCRS / QFT language, it follows as a consequence of the group axioms, since every
group element has an inverse and, for each group of elements there exists a unit image, that quantum
normalization is always possible. That is, this NUCRS group interpretation of quantum mechanical
computation is a natural universal interpretation, where the unique fermion states furnish the canonical
labeling Deutsch [4] cites as essential to define a unique output for every input / quantum preparation in
relation to each and every NUCRS / QFT language measurement problem, and where, as previously shown
[1, 2], the unique algebraic solutions are the ‘roots’ of the algebraic problems in question, and correspond to
a different nilpotent operator X ? 0 such that X2 = 0, defines the fermion state, in accordance with the Pauli
exclusion principle.
That is to say, Pauli exclusion is the principle upon which our paradigm of a self-organized universe is
founded, where, in no matter what circumstance, as is crucial to our understanding of the world, each
fermion state retains its fermion identity. And implicit in this NUCRS / QFT conclusion is the requirement
that Heisenberg uncertainty too always has an inverse / nilpotent or dual, as is known and proven to be the
case [5].

NUCRS / QFT HEISENBERG UNCERTAINTY

In NUCRS / QFT, Heisenberg uncertainty is a consequence of the nilpotent Lie algebra g of the 3D
Heisenberg Lie group G. It takes the form of the Robertson relations, known to Weyl in 1928. That is, the
inverse mapping / dual follows from the fact that for any Lie group there always exists an exponential
diffeomorphism / differentiable mapping which has a differentiable and therefore logarithmic inverse. This
says that, in the NUCRS paradigm, computation is not subject to a combinatorial explosion as might be the
case for the digital solution of an exponential problem. Known solutions, which follow from this duality, are
Synthetic Aperture Radars (SARS), Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) systems in worldwide use for
medical diagnosis and microscopy, and, as has been demonstrated in the laboratory, the optimal control of
uncertain quantum systems such as ‘teaching lasers to control molecules’ or quantum state holography,
described in terms of the Wigner function [6-11]. More recent examples are
a) third generation MRI tensor diffusion image tractography [12], which is able to show the signal
pathways in relation to the corpus callosum of the human brain, when described as a Levy stochastic process
in continuous time with independent and stationary increments, and
b) four dimensional electron microscopy [13] where the usual resolution wavelength limitations of the
classical electron microscope have been overcome, by exploitation of the quantum properties of the electron
wave packets. This last example is of great interest, because, as reported previously in Nature [14], the
working of the brain itself is known to exhibit stochastic resonance, when subject to ‘noise’, as do acoustic
waves when phase conjugately focused in the laboratory, as in medical use to break up gallstones inside the
human body [15].
The implication, therefore, is that Heisenberg uncertainty need no longer be the obstacle to quantum
computation as is generally thought to be the case, but the very means by which such computation can be
achieved.

FIGURE 1. Quantum wave collapse and re-expansion [16].

In MRI measurement the above implied re-expansion of wave function collapse, see Fig.1, is described
in terms of the recovery trajectory of the free induction decay Heisenberg group G helix off resonance,
losing amplitude due to a transverse relaxation effect, while regaining energy due to a dual longitudinal
relaxation effect [16]. That is, it concerns quantum wave amplitude / phase, absorber / emitter interchange,
so that MRI systems demonstrate the physical reality of quantum wave phenomena, such as happens, for
example, when light wave fronts impact on a needle eye, where images of the fronts can be made using
holographic techniques [17]. The ‘group’ normalization criterion above indicates that the nilpotent Dirac
operator, like its more well known Dirac delta d counterpart, defines a Heaviside operator (0, 1) step
function which is equivalent to the singular Green’s function (Schwarz distribution) that permits the
corresponding description of the same wave phenomenon by means of an integral formula. So that, if F(r, t)
is a field of particles at locations r in 3 dimensions at time t, where
 F(r, t ) = ??G(r, t, r', t') S(r', t') dr'dt'

and G(r, t, r', t') is the Green’s function, then, in the case of d, as Jessel has shown [18] on a surface S(r', t')

G(r, t, r', t') = d(t – t' – |r – r'| / c) / 4p |r – r'|,

where c is the velocity of propagation of signals and G can be interpreted as arising from the field bosons in
question.
Thus, the nilpotent Dirac creation operator defines what is known as the propagator of the NUCRS
quantum field, which we shall later show is that of a quantum unified field. The existence of such an
Heaviside operator, is appropriate to a generic mathematical description of any wave phenomenon
(including the quantum mechanical, and antiwaves) in terms of the formalization of Huygens’ principle of
secondary sources, where such operators, in the form of a Lie commutator, define the secondary sources of a
field F, in terms its sources, such that there exists an inverse Lie infinitesimal transformation of the field F.
We observe that Feynman [19] invokes Huygens’ principle of secondary sources [20] in his sum of
histories derivation of quantum mechanics, such that the wave function

? (r, t) = ??G(r, t, r', t') ? (r', t') dr'dt'

and its kernel Green's function G(r, t , r', t') is the (wave front) propagator/projection operator and the basis
of the well known Feynman diagram methodology. This shows that, for NUCRS / QFT, there must exis t
quantum mechanical operators P, where P(P – 1) = 0, known as the Von Neumann measurement projection
operators, are such that the nilpotent solution P = 0 is to be interpreted as concerning real quantum vacuum
field interactions.

NILPOTENCE, NOVEL STATES OF MATTER AND THE RE-

NORMALIZATION GROUP

Nilpotence, the NUCRS criterion of zero totality used by Rowlands to compute the correct Standard
Model quantizations of elementary particles and their strong, weak, and electromagnetic charge coupling
constants [2], is in accord with the concepts of Wilson’s renormalization group methodology [21, 22] for
calculation of material phase transitions, which identifies where and under what thermodynamic conditions
these transitions take place and the properties of the consequent emergent phases / states of matter that
result.
An example is the scale-free / invariant critical phase transition point of water, where water can no
longer be distinguished from steam, since on every scale from the microscopic to the macroscopic there exist
droplets of water containing bubbles of steam and bubbles of steam containing droplets of water. That is to
say, one can postulate that the initial NUCRS zero totality describes the grand unification of quantum
physics as the scale-free nilpotent critical point (from which evolution by means of symmetry-breaking
described by means the operations of Galois closure and extension, takes place [1]). It is an initial totality,
where all the parameters of the NUCRS-derived single nilpotent Dirac creation operator, which describes the
entire NUCRS quantum mechanical (QM ) rewrite language apparatus, identified as E the energy, p = (p x, p y,
p z ) the momentum, rest mass m, together with relativistic 3 + 1 space-time and the strong, weak and
electromagnetic charges, are indistinguis hable one from the other.
This critical point thus describes a totally degenerate QM state, which is represented by the initial
NUCRS symbol symbolizing its entire infinite alphabet of fermion states, where in the course of the
subsequent irreversible NUCRS ‘bootstrap’ evolution, by means of nilpotent spontaneous symmetry-
breaking, the generic criterion of nilpotence X2 = 0 determines the properties of all the further emergent
novel fermion states of matter such that X ? 0, for each X. The initial thermodynamic critical point is
identified in physics by the temperature of zero degrees Kelvin, where the NUCRS dynamic ‘ground’ state
of the universe, known as the quantum vacuum, is subject to the Third Law, that there can be no return to
this initial condition.
It is totally scale-free because, as the NUCRS tells us above, at this initial point of the evolution, space,
time, energy and matter have each no distinguishable existence. That is to say, the NUCRS predicts that all
further physical entities and their properties will become distinguishable in the course of the subsequent self
organized rewrite construction in accordance with the criterion of a nilpotent Dirac creation operator X' ? 0,
where the generic NUCRS derived nilpotent Dirac operator X trace transform X2 = 0, describes the entire
NUCRS quantum mechanical language apparatus, over all X'.

FIGURE 2. Graph of the canonical equation of chaos showing the universal fractal attractor of dimension 2 [23].
That is, there exis ts a relative zero totality for every X' (of the NUCRS infinite alphabet) signifying the
existence of a dual (X')2 = 0 and of a spontaneous breaking of symmetry which brings some new property X'
into existence at each stage of the NUCRS evolution. Each such stage is, the NUCRS says, identifiable with
the emergence of a novel fermion state / system, with a new unique property of matter / energy, in
accordance with the requirements of the Pauli exclusion principle. It is a process of evolution in complete
accord with that of the thermodynamics of the quantum Carnot engine, consisting of a single heat bath in
which the ensemble(s) of elementary particles retains a small amount of quantum coherence phase ?, so as to
constitute new emergent states of matter, which is called by Sully et al. [3] a ‘phaseonium’. That is to say,
each X2 signifies a return (in terms of a corresponding unique dual Dirac annihilation operator) to the
quantum mechanical vacuum state which takes the form of a universal attractor of fractal dimension 2 as
above, see Fig. 2 [23], where the uniqueness of each of the nilpotent quantum mechanical Dirac operators is
carried by means of quantum phase, in the form a unique gauge invariant Berry / geometric phase able to
encode the requisite relativistic 3+1 space time geometric information about the unique fermion state vector,
and is ‘scale free’.
This Berry phase / geometric action can indeed be demonstrated to be the case in actual MRI quantum
holography, where there is geometric encoding and decoding of 3D spatial information by means of phase,
and where the production of 3D / 2D images of fermion spin ensembles would not be possible without the
existence of an encoding / decoding duality; as described above in terms of the nilpotent Lie algebra g of the
3D Heisenberg Lie Group G. And, as already cited, this nilpotent algebra and its Lie dual can be shown to
describe the collapse and restoration of the spin ensemble wavefunction, such that the MRI free
thermodynamic decay (measurement!) process results in a wave diffraction pattern (left), see Fig. 3 [6], from
which image reconstruction (right) is performed by means of symplectic Fourier transform action, and the
quantum holographic nature of the pattern.

FIGURE 3. Three views of a single quantum wave diffraction pattern (left) exhibiting its holographic property (right) –
notice the difference from that of a classical hologram which is degenerate rather than nondegenerate [6].

Further proof concerning the emergence of such new states of matter corresponding to, for example, each
chemical element of the Periodic Table, appears in Weyl’s 1929 book The Theory of Groups and Quantum
Mechanics [24], in the chapters respectively headed ‘The Permutation Group’, section §10, entitled ‘The
Pauli Exclusion Principle and the Periodic Table’ (pp. 242- 246) and ‘The Symmetric Permutation Group
and the algebra of symmetric transformations’, section §15 entitled ‘Spin and valence – Group theoretic
Classification of Atomic Spectra’ (pp. 369-377), where Weyl gives a mathematical group theoretic
derivation for the Periodic Table of elements and of chemical valence. He points out that the electrons
(fermions) in the atomic electronic shell structure of any element can be interchanged one for another
without altering the element’s chemical properties. That is, just as the case for the roots of an algebraic
equation as treated by Galois, they form a group, and he is thus able to derive the chemical behaviour of the
elements of the periodic table from the shell structure of the hydrogen atom by simply adding to the positive
charge on its atomic nucleus, charge by charge. This shows incidentally that the hydrogen atom (made up a
dual of the hydrogen ion / positive proton and the negative electron) can be considered as a rewrite machine
/ symbol for the entire NUCRS infinite ‘chemical’ alphabet corresponding to, in this case, all chemical
properties held in the dual forms of the elements also as positive ions and negative electron shells, etc.
 It is also clear in this book that, mathematically, Weyl anticipated the existence of quantum field theory,
by the unreserved inclusion in his group treatment of not just finite groups but also continuous groups and in
particular the Lie groups in view of the importance of their group algebras (as now demonstrated by Lie
algebras in relation to conventional Standard Model of elementary particle theory), and the need, for
example, to include the Lorentz group so as be able to deal with both special and general relativistic
considerations. (This is critically important in the NUCRS since it provides the 4D relativistic geometries
with the metric they must have, if they are to be realized as actual quantum machinery.) We note on p. 219,
that the action integral as used in the general theory of relativity is invariant under arbitrary (infinitesimal)
transformations of coordinates. And of the further need to erect a normal set of coordinate axes at each point
P of space-time, consisting of four mutually perpendicular directions at P (called the orthogonal ennuple by
Weyl), in order to be able to fix the metric at P so as to describe the wave quantity ? in terms of its
components, so that all permissible normal sets at P are obtainable from each other by local Lorentz
transformation and leave P invariant. This is the normal set structure that arises in Rowlands’ NUCRS
derivation [2].
Thus, following Weyl, if for the vector field X = (X1 (x, y, z, t), X2 (x, y, z, t), X3 (x, y, z, t), X4 (x, y, z, t)) on
the surface S(x, y, z, t), these infinitesimals exist, then there is an infinitesimal Lie transformation L
derivative LX = X1 ?/?x + X2 ?/?y + X3 ?/?z + X4 ?/?t exists such that the invariant path curves on S may be
found by solving the Pfaffian system dx/X1 = dy/X2 = dz/X3 = dt/X4 [25]. These are the straight lines in space-
time (x, y, z, t), i.e. the geodesics of general relativity. This derivation contradicts the generally held
scientific opinion that quantum mechanics and general relativity are incompatible, by showing that that they
are compatible in relation to the NUCRS nilpotent quantum field.
And Weyl (p. 245) cites Millikan, as reported in ‘Recent developments in Spectroscopy’, Proc. Am. Phil.
Soc., 66, 211 (1927): ‘as to the speed of change from complete obscurity and unintelligibility to full
illumination and predictability in the field of spectroscopy since the year 1913 effected by the theory of
groups. A description, which we now propose, be extended to cover not just the whole of physics and
chemistry but molecular biology and all the life sciences, too.’
It would seem, in principle, that the RNA / DNA genetic code can be seen as complex molecular
chemistry in which the above cited process of emergence of new properties of matter continues onward from
the elements of the periodic table in the way that NUCRS dictates as cited above in relation to chemical
valence; and it becomes clear from the above that in NUCRS each chemical bond signifies quantum emitter
emission / adsorption of an electron. Evidence from biology that this is a correct conclusion comes from
experiments into the phenomena of photosynthesis [26], for this work concludes that the superefficient
harvesting of light / photons by chlorophyll in plants is dependent on quantum coherence, and that ‘nature
has already implemented room temperature quantum computing in plants’. It seems likely to us that the
ubiquitous harvesting of photons in plants will be replicated in animal life by the harvesting of oxygen in the
blood, since, if one replaces the magnesium atom at the heart of chlorophyll by iron, then one has a molecule
very close to that of haemoglobin. And these facts supplement Hill and Rowlands’ conclusion that the RND
/ DNA genetic code is indeed a further universal rewrite at a higher level of molecular complexity of the
NUCRS / QFT [27, 2, chapter 19].

A ONE FERMION THEORY OF THE UNIVERSE

Wheeler’s ‘one-electron theory of the universe’, if extended to a ‘single fermion theory’, provides a
particularly interesting representation of quantum mechanics, with the single fermion in different spatial and
temporal states being equivalent to many fermions appearing simultaneously. All the other fermions after the
first are this fermion in different space and time states (+ and –). This has a particular relevance for nilpotent
theory in that each single fermion sees all other fermions as constituting a vacuum which is a mirror image
of itself. Crucially, in the nilpotent representation, the usual objections against the one-fermion theory no
longer apply, as the total fermion structure requires equal numbers of fermions and antifermions existing
simultaneously in two different but completely dual vector spaces – ‘real’ or observed space and vacuum
space. In addition to exact equality between fermions and antifermions, the dual spaces also ensure that there
is no mutual annihilation.
One of several consequences of this representation is that we can take an ensemble of fermions as a
single fermion, and so justify applying the nilpotent condition in some form to the larger structures, as is
also evident from the fact that a version of the nilpotent Dirac equation using a discrete version of calculus
(involving commutators rather than differentials) applies to classically discrete, as well as quantum systems.
The scale-independence of the single fermion / ensemble duality also fits exactly with the renormalization
group procedure.
An ensemble is not localised as narrowly as a single fermion, so its vacuum will not be quite as nonlocal.
Now, if we take the whole universe to be a fermion, we can imagine all the possible space and time
conditions (and bit flips in the terminology of Seth Lloyd) [28] as constituting this universe – which is what
we have called vacuum. This includes all the states to which the single fermion could possibly aspire over
time. In other words a real single fermion includes the entire possible history of the universe (within its
event horizon), making sense of our thermodynamics and evolutionary theory, in terms of canonical
labelling. However, this does not require determinism because we can only define the entire history if we
localize the fermion exactly, which of course we cannot do. It is only an ideal. So, we have an exact idea of
what we mean by nonlocal, as all the other potential states, in space and time, which would of course be
determined by the real states. The symmetry is perfect. Fixing a particular moment in time is localizing in
time, in the same way as we localize in space.

DUALITY AND NATURE’S CODE

From the above and the extensive work published by Hill and Rowlands on ‘Nature’s Code’ [2, chapter
19], plus later work [27], we may with confidence undertake the renormalization group approach to describe
the genetic code, where the NUCRS continues the nilpotent process of repeated symmetry breaking with
respect to a scale free universe from its initial state symbolized as ‘zero’.
Thus nilpotence with respect to the genetic code has the following NUCRS algebraic / geometric
interpretation, for example, that my DNA / RNA is the nilpotent of ‘me’ – i.e. is the physical message /
encoding of the scale invariant / free ‘me’, such that RNA (me) = X ? 0, where DNA (me) is such that X2 =
0, expressed as a double helix in the form of a trace transform. That is, this DNA du(al)plication (which
under the right circumstances, implies and results in a spontaneous symmetr- breaking emergent process
leading to the construction of my embryo) is such that the 3/(3+1)D geometry of my embryo has in my
DNA, been reduced to a canonical series of gauge invariant geometric Berry phases, which are effectively
carried by the RNA / DNA molecular (bond) base pairings where A = T or U and G = C or C = G, and
where it is clear that all these structures have their appropriate duals as is required.
This hypothesis would not only explain why DNA is so stable, for it consists of its own phase conjugate
3D Heisenberg group G helix dual, but also why the NUCRS nilpotent Dirac operator applies throughout,
allowing each of the encoded canonical gauge invariant geometric Berry phases to be decoded into their 3+1
D dual / equivalent geometric chemical structures possessing energy E, momentum p, mass m and electric /
weak / strong charges at every stage of the NUCRS Nature’s Code genetic rewrite process that generates the
individual living organism.
Remarkably too, the base pairings above, actually appear to be a symbolization of the dual creation and
annihilation NUCRS operations respectively (where the NUCRS rewrite process of annihilation is
essentially one of ‘proof reading’ which ensures that each property of matter / new symbol is compatible
with all those which preceded it (so as to ensure the cardinality of NUCRS symbol field). That is firstly, as
above, the pairing consists of adding a new symbol U (in place of T) so as to extend the NUCRS infinite
alphabet, where there is commutativity, or secondly the pairing consists of the nilpotent closure of a sub-
alphabet when there is anticommutativity, resulting in the emergence of a new fermion state.
For as Weyl also shows (pp. 239-240) there is a decomposition of the quantum space R into its
commutative [ , ] and anti commutative { , } parts so R2 = {R2 } + [R2 ] and the hypothesis above is supported
in quantum holography [5] where the Haar measure / metric for the pair chemical bonding = is
mathematically described by the Lesbesgue measure dx.dy.dz and the dot . stands for tensor multiplication,
while in the case of the pair bonding = the corresponding measures / metrics consist of on the left of
da.dß/a 2 and on the right of da.dß/a, of the irreducible unitary linear representations of the non-unimodular
affine Lie group (at + ß), where a > 0 and ß e R the real line, where such affine wavelets are, for example,
useful code primitives for describing voice speech decomposition [29] and phonons would be the QM
analogue, such that a may be hypothesized as a scaling factor, which gives rise to the major and minor
grooves found in the DNA helix structure.
A symbolic example is the case of the Dirac quantum mechanical bra ket notation, where one [20] can
represent the NUCRS symmetry breaking process by

0 = <0' | 0''> = <0' | 0''><0''' | 0''''> = <0' | 0''><0''' | 0''''>< 0''''' ........ etc,

and 0 ,0' 0'', 0''' ..... are the symbols of the infinite alphabet. This process can also be described by means of
the (2n + 1) real Heisenberg Lie group Gn with nilpotent Lie algebra g n (following Schempp [29]) in terms
of Gn s one dimensional centre CZ, since gn has the known basis {Pj , Qj , Z; = j < n} for all n = 1, 2, 3 ... ; for
these satisfy the Lie commutation relations [Pj , Qj ] = Z, and G1 = G and g 1 = g form the 3D Heisenberg Lie
Group G and nilpotent algebra g respectively and all other commutation relations are zero. This harmonic
analysis on G, such that for each {P, Q, Z} there is a natural Lie diffeomorphism exp g onto G, says that the
DNA QM field may be expressed as number states |n k> which are quantum states with n k quanta occupying
mode k, where these are associated with:
i) the number operator Nk = a.a*,
ii) the Lie commutator [a, a*] with the quantum mechanical harmonic operator and
iii) the annihilation / creation operators a / a*of the boson quantum field. These may be expressed
respectively as a = U1 (R) and a* = U1 (R*) in terms of complex mode co-ordinates R and R*, such that R = ½
(Pj + Qj ) and R* = ½ (Pj – Qj ), where , conventionally, U1 is the Schrödinger representation of the angular
momentum. The complex mode co-ordinates thus form the link between the geometric quantization
procedure and the canonical quantization of the electromagnetic field on the one hand and the cooperatively
synchronized emitter absorber transaction mode of quantum dynamics on the whole real line on the other.

DUALITY AND NATURE’S RULES

Thus my own DNA NUCRS signature / trace transform of fermion states would be such that, in relation
to my brain / cerebral cortex, the on-going mental development / learning from a state of no mental
knowledge, could, in principle, actually be seen to change (over a period of months / years if not weeks)
using MRI tensor diffusion tomography. This is now able to reveal / map in 3D the brain’s neural signal
pathways, where NUCRS cardinality indicates that the properties of quantum coherence / entanglement
provide a basis for quantum parallelism / synchronicity with respect to sensory signal read in and read out to
memory [30]. This memory would be the neural extension of the trace transform X, where (it can be
hypothesized) it must also include the body’s nervous system in relation to its sensory signal path
mechanisms, such that the scale free / invariant nature of the quantum holographic signals would offer clear
4D image processing advantages for 4D image comparison without the need for prior image scaling as this is
automatically included within the processing modus operandi. And these operandi include the potential for
creative thought via the possible Galois extensions to the existing fields of such thought processes , for the
NUCRS rewrite system’s universal Dirac operator is a creation operator that would leads naturally to new
meaning and new properties of matter / neural machinery that may have never before existed.
An example of such a ‘parametric’ methodology permitting real time computation is that used in ‘chaotic
automata’, where tuning the parameters of the canonical equation of chaos, results in more rapid
simulations on logarithmic timescales; and in ‘quantum automata’ (living cells?), where, in the case of
quantum holography, Heisenberg uncertainty itself takes the parametric form of its nilpotent Heisenberg Lie
algebra or the geometric Berry phase and can be similarly used to achieve such logarithmic or even log-log
timescales, etc. The well known Fig. 4 shows the above use of ‘chaos’ to encode a 2D picture into a ‘fractal
hologram’, and then decode it again.
It would therefore seem, as Rowlands has already shown in respect of the quantizations of the
elementary particles [2], that, in respect of the electromagnetic charge, the electron and the proton will play
the role of nilpotent duals which give rise to the periodic table of the elements and each element’s unique
chemical properties. This would explain why the ratio of the mass of the electron to that of the proton is
fixed (with respect to the vacuum) and why there must be a law of conservation of electric charge that holds
throughout the whole universe. It is also to say the elements of the periodic table are nilpotent and have a
duality in the form of the positively charged ion that forms the atomic nucleus, and their negatively charged
electron shell structure. This ion / electron shell duality is in line with the papers of Nobili [31, 32] and the
experimental evidence presented to support the thesis of ‘Ionic waves in animal tissues’ as the basis, for
example, of Schrödinger wave holography in the glial tissues of the brain cortex. For this duality (the ionic)
would, as one half of the brain’s nervous system, perfectly complement, as its other half, that of a quantum
neural network also working by quantum holography [30, 20].
This is because, under suitable assumptions, what Nobili proposes concerns the active transport of Na+
K+ ions through the brain cortex and in animal tissue more generally by means of ATPase
(adenosinetriohosphatase) pumps, where theoretical wave patterns and their general features are in excellent
agreement with the EEG (electroencephalogram) patterns detected on brain cortices and on scalps. Nobili
emphasizes the need for a ‘reference wave’ recruiting device and of a receptor arrangement for holographic
information recovery for the signal sources. This leads to brain organization models in good agreement with
data and diagrams reported by neurophysiologists.

FIGURE 4. Fractal transform recursively applied showing its 'holographic' properties (Pour la Science, February
1987).
 It also suggests that just like the dual hemispheres of the human brain [33], the human species itself must
be characterized by a duality for which the obvious candidates are male and female and their chromosomes,
i.e. in the latter the chromosomes do not in fact in general consist of identical pairs of elements but rather of
a dual pairing in the form of the XX female chromosome and of a Y male chromosome. These would then
play the same role as proposed here, in relation to the fundamental genetic code base pairings, of Galois
closure and extension. That is to say that the Y chromosome represents extension, i.e. the possible new
genetic material that must be added to XX fe male genetic traits to produce a new offspring, as the human
species requires if it is to be able to solve the new problems evolution of its environment will inevitably face
it with.

CONCLUSION

These examples all provide further substantial evidence that a self-adaptive organizational principle, as
now formalized by means of the NUCRS discovered by Rowlands and Diaz [2], underlies quantum
mechanics, informatics, the genetic code and AI. It could account for the evolution of human intelligence as
was originally proposed by the BCS Cybernetic Machine specialist Group in its premise and mission
statement ‘In Science, Nature sets the rules, but it must never be forgotten that it is only because life has
exploited these rules successfully for billions of years to our evolutionary advantage that human brains are
able to understand them. The mission at the physical foundation of computing/information processing if one
accepts the premise is therefore to identify how the rules were exploited to achieve this end.’ [34]

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We are pleased to acknowledge the support of the British Computer Society's Specialist Groups
programme over the many years in helping the Group advance the knowledge and research reported here.

REFERENCES
1. P. J. Marcer and P. Rowlands, ‘The Grammatical Universe and the Laws of Thermodynamics and Quantum
Entanglement’ in CASYS 2009 edited by D. Dubois, AIP Conference Proceedings (in press).
2. P. Rowlands, Zero to Infinity: The Foundations of Physics, Singapore and Hackensack, NJ: World Scientific, 2007.
3. M. O. Scully, S. Zubairy, G. S. Agarwal and H. Walther, ‘Extracting work from a single heat bath via vanishing
quantum coherence’, Science, 299, 862-864 (2003).
4. D. Deutsch, ‘Quantum theory, the Church-Turing Principle and the universal quantum computer’, Proc. Roy. Soc.,
400 A, 97-117 (1985).
5. W. Schempp, ‘Quantum Holography and Neuro-computer Architectures’. Journal of Mathematical Imaging and
Vision: 2, 279-326 (1992).
6. W. Schempp, Harmonic Analysis on the Heisenberg Group with Applications in signal theory. Pitman Notes in
Mathematics. London, Longman Scientific and Technical. 1986.
7. W. Schempp, Magnetic Resonance Imaging , New York: John Wiley (1998).
8. M. Dahleh, A. P. Pierce and H. Rabitz, ‘Optimal Control of Uncertain Quantum Systems’, Physics Review A 42(3).
647-687 (1986).
9. R. S. Judson and H. Rabitz, ‘Teaching Lasers to Control Molecules’, Physics Review Letters, 68, 10, 1500-1503
(1992).
10. S. A. Rice, ‘New Ideas for Guiding the Evolution of a Quantum System’, Science, 258, 412-413 (1992).
11. C.Leichte, W. P. Scheich, I. S. Averbukh and M. Shapiro, ‘Quantum State Holography’, Physics Review Letters,
80(7), 1418-1421 (1998).
12. W. Schempp, Diffusion Tensor Tomography and Ceberal White Matter Tractography ’ in CASYS 2009 edited by D.
 Dubois, AIP Conference Proceedings (in press).
13. H. A. Zewail, ‘Four-Dimensional Electron Microscopy, a Review’, Science, 328, 187-193 (2010).
14. F. Moss and X. Pei, ‘Neurons in Parallel’, Nature, 376, 211-212 (1995).
15. M. Fink, ‘Time Reversed Acoustics’, Physics Today, March 1997, 34-40.
16. W. Schempp, reference 7 above, p. 134, fig. 22.
17. N. Abramson, ‘Light-in Flight recording by Holography ’, Applied Optics, 28(10) (1989) shown at 3D in Media,
Montreal, Canada, 30 May /1 June 1989
18. B. E. P. Clement, P. V. Coveney, M. Jessel and P. J. Marcer, “The Brain as a Huygens Machine”, Informatica, 23,
389-398, (1999)
19. R. P. Feynman. and B. Hibbs, Quantum Mechanics and Path Integrals. New York: McGraw-Hill,, 1965.
20. M. Perus and H. Bischof, ‘The Most Natural Procedure for Quantum Image Processing’,. International Journal of
Computing Anticipatory Systems, 2003, 246-257.
21. P. W. Anderson, ‘The 1982 Nobel Prize in Physics’, Science, 218, 763-764 (1982).
22. K. G. Wilson K.G. ‘The Renormalization Group and Critical Phenomena’. Reviews of Modern Physics, 55, no. 3,
583-600 (1983).
23. P. Marcer, Kyberetes, 21, 2, 60-61 (1992).
24. H. Weyl, Theory of Groups and Quantum Mechanics. Dover Publications, 1931.
25. W. C. Hoffman, ‘Some reasons why algebraic topology is important in neuropsychology: perceptual and cognitive
systems as fibrations’, International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 22, 613-650, 618 (1985).
26. E. Collini, C. Y. Wong, E. Krystyna, P. M. Wilk, P. M. G. Curmi, P. Brumer and G. D. Scholes, ‘Coherently Wired
Light-Harvesting in Photosynthetic Marine algae at ambient temperature at ambient temperature’, Nature, 463, 644-
647 (2010).
27. V. Hill and P. Rowlands, ‘Nature’s Code’, AIP Conference Proceedings, 1051, 117-126 (2008).
28. S. Lloyd, Computational Capacity of the Universe. Phys. Rev. Lett., 88 (23), 237901, 2002.
29. W. Schempp, ‘Bohr’s Indetermincy Principle in Quantum Holography, Self-adaptive Neural Network Architectures,
Cortical Self-Organization, Molecular Computers, Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Solitonic Nanotechnology ’.
Nanobiology, 2, 109-164 (1983).
30. P. Marcer and P. Rowlands, ‘How Intelligence Evolved?’ In Quantum Interaction, AAAI Technical Report SS-07-
08, 46-51 (2007)
31. R. Noboli, ‘Schrödinger Wave Holography in the Brain Cortex’, Physical Review A, 32(6), 3618-3636 (1985).
32. R. Noboli, ‘Ionic Waves in Animal Tissue’, Physical Review A, 35(4), 1901-1922 (1987).
33. P. Marcer and W. Schempp, ‘The Brain as a Conscious System’, International Journal of General Systems, 27(1-3),
231-248 (1998).
34. http://www.bcs.org.uk/cybergroup.htm.
 &7 4 
 /
? 3 

3+& 
40 0 
!+ 5 !) !*0 5
  !+ !6 7' 8
+9%:+99$9

4  .&9              ( 
             .&9   (      "   #
   4            :    ( 
             &  +  [    (
"*%))  E            

    ( ( 9 (  ( "*%))( E 
  -.1@( -.1@?( -.1@L( -.1@&( -/ -0'( ,,,-0( ,,,-D( ,,.-)( ,,.-?( , /-&

0!"#$%&'#!%"&!"!"8&')  
4          (  .&9        
      N    D
       
 "   #                 
 " (      (             
     #               $  [  
 ( "*%))( E ( 
P  N     " *       .&9#   2  $    C G
 : -  
 : -       
    
, 
   N            G
! =   
! =        
    
, 

  N           "    #(     2  $ (   
   1/ G
 : -  : -  ,
! =  ! = 
! =  ! = 
:! := : :! :! :
-! -= - -! -= -
4        9  (   J (           
     ?  V 
 (        J       
          (  V,( V ( V .  6,( 6 ( 6 .
4    9 (   ( (    "N  J   #       
 1/(    +  @   4(      
 ! !: !- =
4         (       (  
          "(  #        N "(  # 
    5,&,.6

   (  (       N  "    #     
 N  (      4     N  "   #    (
   (          4      
  4     F >           I   
 D (         4        
        F>    (         ( ( 
 (       "(     #

1#"!)%#"+%"&!#!%"
4 N                  
                     (    
       4               
 ! !: !- =
      ' "        #
       
(   (       '( + ( +0( +"  &(    (   
"' ; !+ ; !:+0 ; !-+" ; =&# "' ; !+ ; !:+0 ; !-+" ; =&# ! -
              )  9  

     ' &        F>  4    
          ' (          "    
  ( #        N  F    >(    (   
        N  (   &N   (     
O           
=         (     N       (    (
        N      "       # 
                        
(    (                       
 >  4  F  >      (     
  "4      (   (          N   
 (             # ?     
             5,/6(           
                L(       
3     5,@6
=                 N  )  
' $ + $ & ! -
    
"\ '\4&# "\ '\4&# ! -
D(       N                      
N                 !!(  !=(  !(  ( (     
  =    '     N(  (     (  9  G
߲
൬‫ ׏࢏݅ ט ࢑ט‬൅ ࢐݉൰ ሺേ݅࢑‫ ܧ‬േ ࢏‫ ܘ‬൅ ࢐݉ሻ ݁ ି௜ሺா௧ି‫ܘ‬Ǥ‫ܚ‬ሻ ൌ ͲǤ
߲‫ݐ‬
         '  4           
ሺേ݅࢑‫ ܧ‬േ ࢏‫ ܘ‬൅ ࢐݉ሻሺേ݅࢑‫ ܧ‬േ ࢏‫ ܘ‬൅ ࢐݉ሻ ݁ ି௜ሺா௧ି‫ܘ‬Ǥ‫ܚ‬ሻ ൌ ͲǤ
4            
 H      '  4   (         " w : w
2 I 2 ( $ ’ $  2 #(               4  
"\ '\4&# "\ '\4&# o -
   4           (        
     

 (                 (   
   (          
"\ '\4&#
4          N     4     
     3           9  (      
      # !  ! -
=        (    (   (        
       G
"'24&#    
"'$4&#
& + %
"$'2 4&#     
"$'$4&#    
    ( 4: '        "$4# : "$'#(     
 "4# : "$'#  "$4# : "'# 4                   
            4          =
              4     (  ( 
    
4 (  (                  
9    F  > 4       N    (   '
 4          >   4        
 (        0 + 

2')!>)' !%"?&! $#&!$"#!#!%""&7''(

4                (       
            (       
        4     N    
    
 >          +  '( 4  & 
     ( ( (  N          
=            ? (        
  \,\,   '  +     ?         
   "\ ,\ $ \ \ ,#G
"\ ',\4,&,# "\ ' \4 & # $ "\ ' \4 & # "\ ',\4,&,#
! /4,4 $ /4 4, ! C  4, u 4 ! $ C  4 u 4,
   
"\ ,\ $ \ \ ,# ! $"\ \ , $ \ ,\ #
      N      (     (  ( 
       4      " N   F>#   

   

 4                    4
      (        &)  ) (  
        
D(             
        
              ( (       '( 4  & "
    ( !( =#(             ( :( -
   (  4
     
&      (       '  4 


    (         "   $&#    
  "           &#(        ' & "   
        ' ! +#I          (   (  
        (  '( +       $'( $+
 H  F>        (    7 5,16( 
݀
ൌ ሾ‫ܨ‬ǡ ‫ܪ‬ሿ ൌ ሾ‫ܨ‬ǡ ‫ܧ‬ሿ
݀‫ݐ‬
߲
ൌ ሾ‫ܨ‬ǡ ܲ௜ ሿ
߲ܺ௜
                     D(    
  
\! ' 2 4, 2 :4 2 -4. 2 &
   
డ డ డ డ
ൌ ݅࢑ െ ࢏ܑ െ ࢏‫ܒ‬ െ ࢏‫ ܓ‬
డ௧ డ௑భ డ௑మ డ௑య
 
߲
ൌ ሾ\ǡ ‫ܪ‬ሿ ൌ ሾ\ǡ ‫ܧ‬ሿ
߲‫ݐ‬

߲
ൌ ሾ\ǡ ܲ௜ ሿǤ
߲ܺ௜
       (   
\! \"' 2 4, 2 :4 2 -4. 2 &# 2 "' 2 4, 2 :4 2 -4. 2 &#\ $ "' $ 4, $ 4 $ 4. $ & #
  \  ( 
డ
\! ቀ࢑ ൅ ݅࢏‫׏‬ቁ \ ൌ ͲǤ
డ௧
4   9      0     (    \  /&
 ( 
డ
\! ቀേ࢑ േ ݅࢏‫׏‬ቁ ሺേ݅࢑‫ ܧ‬േ ࢏‹‹ܲଵ േ ࢏ŒŒܲଶ േ ࢏ ܲଷ ൅ ࢐ሻ ൌ Ͳ
డ௧
      9     
+        <    (         
'    (   (         
      F>(
        (                
    
                  
 ( '     F>            
   
     (       &     
4                     
    =  (         G   8 +     
   * (  (     (              
     P       F > \
 4  F >      
F >     $\
 4          2 F >  \
$ \
 -(   
    $\
\
       4     ?      
          (  F>    F >     
    D (       4      \
   
           F >  N    "    
       #(          $\

+ ( (      (     
      4     
      =  F   >             
        4                  
          + (      ?      
         "      # = '         
       +*    
        
                   
=         +0 (       
4          F >   (    F>   
         F >         F > 4 F > 
          "r ' r 4  &#(   F  >  
   = & F   >            D (  
        
   
 (      F>(    
      
      &N(     
  (  
" #     
          

3


"&*$$+ 

4  [                  5V V( (6    D  ( ! "4&#(
       V V! $0(                
4
                  (   
   [       N            N   
   
=   N (                       9
   (  ! $0 4            &    
    *         >   5,B6 4 "*%))
         >    
     

      &              >
 9   "*%))       "    # 
       (   2  $        
   5,C6 4               N      
  4      (        ' (   
      (   N        4 
  "*%))                   
7*%))                 &   
         =         E    5,A6
       &              
       (   (    "*  #   "U&4 #(
  F >        4   (         "=  &
E  #     " D #
      E    
   (                &  &
                F>
 (      
(      &  (     E 

                  E I    
      (       (           
 4       E            
(         Y          &
                        
            J (        
      
             ( 
              
         
 "         & #         ( 
   '  4     ( (      (    )    
  "   =  &E  #    4        H 
   (      '  +               
    & 

9#'"&("#)!"#$#!%" 
O             "   (    
  #    0 + 
&  +       
        0             4
        *   (   (        
    4    (   (           (  
        4 (          (    
     G
 ‫ܣ‬ ߲ ͳ ݆ ൅ ͳΤʹ
൭േ࢑ ൬‫ ܧ‬൅ ൰ േ ‹ ቆ ൅ േ ൅ ݅Œ݉ቇ൱
‫ݎ‬ ߲‫ݎ ݎ‬ ‫ݎ‬

         (             
J (       (                  , :   
       , :       + (   + 0&&0     
(        :      ' 9               
  
4         (                
    4                     
N           *     "   ( # 4    (  (
   4                  
                
݁ ି௔௥ ‫ ݎ‬J ෍ ܽQ ‫ ݎ‬Q
Qୀ଴
    "(         (    N     #(  
    ' (   
ଶ ଶ
‫ ܣ‬ଶ J Q ͳ ݆ ൅ ͳΤʹ J Q ͳ ݆ ൅ ͳΤʹ
Ͷ ൬‫ ܧ‬൅ ൰ ൌ െʹ ቆെܽ ൅ ൅ ൅ } ൅ ൅ ݅ ቇ െ ʹ ቆെܽ ൅ ൅ ൅ } ൅ െ ݅ ቇ ൅ Ͷ݉ଶ Ǥ
‫ݎ‬ ‫ݎ ݎ‬ ‫ݎ‬ ‫ݎ‬ ‫ݎ ݎ‬ ‫ݎ‬ ‫ݎ‬
)   (  G
ܽ ൌ ඥ݉ଶ െ ‫ ܧ‬ଶ Ǥ
)   , :  (  Q ! -G
J ൌ െͳ ൅ ඥሺ݆ ൅ ͳΤʹሻଶ െ ‫ܣ‬ଶ Ǥ
=       Z(      ,:    ! ZG
െʹ‫ ܣܧ‬ൌ െʹξ݉ െ ‫ܧ‬ሺJ ൅ ͳ ൅ ݊Ԣሻ
=
‫ܧ‬ ͳ ͳ
ൌ ൌ
݉ ‫ܣ‬ଶ
‫ܣ‬ଶ
ඨͳ ൅ ඨͳ ൅ ଶ
ሺJ ൅ ͳ ൅ ݊Ԣሻଶ ൫ඥሺ݆ ൅ ͳΤʹሻଶ െ ‫ܣ‬ଶ ൅ ݊Ԣ൯
 ! 7    F   >      1 ]

                "#    
   =       "(  ( N(  #   *  
 " ",# #     (          (  
      "'( 4( &#       4        
     
    7>        
           ",#  5,16

;*% %"! ## 

4            (   (  O    
        (  &   &       
4  "'24&#  ! "'$4&#
 "'24&#  ! "$'24&#
- $ "'24&#  ! "$'$4&#

       -4 { ( - { 4( 4 { -(  -4 {  -       4  (

      (         4    
                         
4   "    -#    (            
      4                  
      ( '( 4  &(       N        
4      /& (            F> 
(  (  4&( &  -&      (         
                 F >   
 (            =         
     (                 F >(
(   F >      F> (            
        &N  +                
     ( (     / (      G
+ ,   G
"'24&# "$ '24&# 
+ -   G
"'24&# "$ '$4&# -
 &  $ E &)   : E ( G
"'24&# "'$4&# 4
4               (   /     (  
N   &    G
"'24&# " '$4&# ! "'24&# "$ 4#
"'$4&# "'24&# ! "'$4&# " 4#
"$ '24&# "$ '$4&# ! "$ '24&# "$ 4#
"$ '$4&# "$ '24&# ! "$ '$4&# " 4#
*(     &   '  &    -(   / u "$4#" 4# ! C+ (    
" '  ,# +(   ,       
"'24# "$ '24# ^ -
   -    " 0   : D#   
"'24# "$ '$4# ! -
4                 D (   &
   ( (   (   *  ( 
"'24# "'$4# ^ -
4 N                     
 (               4        
  E  (       &  (      N  ( 
    N  (     N        (   (
       "*  #        (       
    "( v , : $(   t # +      "      #( 
      (           (    4
     " # (  ( (      r    
    '(    "*%))(             

      &                 N
 (       N    &    &
 
   (      -        4      +
"*%))           (        
  (    (   0     =2+(    N(    

 (  "*%))         N         (
  &   N           N      
   [& 

@*$+%" "&# #$%"8!"#$#!%"

    *    N             
(  "#  &N    "#     /&   "*%)) 4   
        (              ' 
"4  (    (           &# =    (
     >  (           4 
    N   
  4  (          .&   E         .&
        N( 
"' 2 4 2 &# "' 2 4 2 &# "' 2 4 2 &# ! -
D (          G
"' 2 4 2 &# "' 2 &# "' 2 &# o "' 2 4 2 &#
 "' 2 &# "' 2 4 2 &# "' 2 &# o "' $ 4 2 &#
"' 2 &# "' 2 &# "' 2 4 2 &# o "' 2 4 2 &#

         ' .&               4   
    "2  $#
=       (   4   G
"' \ + 2 &# "' \ :+0 2 &# "' \ -+" 2 &#
     (  
4 ! \ + ( 4 ! \ :+0 ( 4 ! \ -+"
E    )) (  (      = (     '( 4( &
          (       4 1     
  ".# (  C  (  N       FN>G
"' A  + 2  &# "' 2 _ 2  &# "' 2 _ 2  &# 21
"' B + 2  &# "' $ _ 2  &# "' $ _ 2  &# $1
"' 2 _ 2  &# "' A  :+0 2  &# "' 2 _ 2  &# 21
"' $ _ 2  &# "' B :+0 2  &# "' $ _ 2  &# $1
"' 2 _ 2  &# "' 2 _ 2  &# "' A  -+" 2  &# 21
"' $ _ 2  &# "' $ _ 2  &# "' B  -+" 2  &# $1
4    r 4                  
     ' 
4                       G
"' > + # "> ' > :+0#
              G
"' > + # "> ' > + #
4  (   (          N     
 4 ".#            4 (      4
             .             
      "  F >#              =  
            (            
  =                 *       
          &N        
      4   &N              
           
        
            (            
  4

C$#!#!%"!"8#7''(

 (                   " (
    #         H(    (  
         " #            
   (  (   F >           
        G  "( ",#(      
        #I   " ( ".#(         
   #I   " ( " #(             
 &  &#
                    
        "\ '\4&#     4      "   #   
"    #G
"'24&#    
"'$4&#     
"$'24&#     
"$'$4&#    
E           4    F >(      
   
         (       "    
 #(      F>        ' (      
 4       N  
  N "'24&#     
"'24&#
  "'24&#
 "'24&#
   "'24&#(     4          +  
&+                 ( (   
 "      #      " &N# 
 (   (  (     
    N(     (       " # 
  $"' 2 4 2 &#(      ' &  (     (   
       (           '(
4  &
  (     F> N(      ' (    
 '         ( N   F>(       
  G
"' 2 4 2 &# N     
 "' 2 4 2 &#      
 "' 2 4 2 &#     : 
"4   $    $             N    
  #
      .             .    G
N  ,
"' 2 4 2 &# "' 2 4 2 &# "' 2 4 2 &# "' 2 4 2 &# _
"' 2 4 2 &# "$' 2 4 2 &# "' 2 4 2 &# "$' 2 4 2 &# _
  -
"' 2 4 2 &# "' 2 4 2 &# "' 2 4 2 &# "' 2 4 2 &# _
"' 2 4 2 &# "$ ' $ 4 2 &# "' 2 4 2 &# "$ ' $ 4 2 &# _
     
"' 2 4 2 &# "' 2 4 2 &# "' 2 4 2 &# "' 2 4 2 &# _
"' 2 4 2 &# "' $ 4 2 &# "' 2 4 2 &# "' $ 4 2 &# _
4                     
           "   '( 4( &#    H(
     >   '  "     #    I
       4             
4         &   /    5,A6
ଶ
ͳ ͳ ͳ ݉௝ଶ ݉௝ଶ
ሺെͳሻଶ௝ ሺʹ݆ ൅ ͳሻ න ݀ ଷ ݇ ට݇ ଷ ൅ ݉௝ଶ ൌ ሺെͳሻଶ௝ ሺʹ݆ ൅ ͳሻ න ݀ ଷ ݇ ඥ݇ ଶ ൭ͳ ൅ െ ቆ ቇ ൅ ‫ ڮ‬൱Ǥ
ʹ ʹ ʹ ݇ଶ ݇ଶ
4    (     (    
෍ሺെͳሻଶ௝ ሺʹ݆ ൅ ͳሻ ൌ Ͳ
௝

෍ሺെͳሻଶ௝ ሺʹ݆ ൅ ͳሻ݉௝ଶ ൌ Ͳ

௝

෍ሺെͳሻଶ௝ ሺʹ݆ ൅ ͳሻ݉௝ସ ൌ Ͳ

௝

   / ! \ [         / ! \ ,        ( 

"$# / " / 2 ,# / ! $   / ! [
"$# / " / 2 ,# / ! .   / ! ,
"$# / " / 2 ,# / ! -   / ! $[
"$# / " / 2 ,# / ! $,   / ! $,
    
෍ሺെͳሻଶ௝ ሺʹ݆ ൅ ͳሻ ൌ െʹ ൅ ͵ ൅ Ͳ ൌ Ͳ
௝
 
 4 (           (      D    4
               4      4 
    2 '  $ '             
       =   (       & &    
       (     

D&')!#+"&#"!)%#"# #$'#'$
4          G     I    I
      I    I     I  N   N 
=     (      (        4  
                  
    
     &  $             
         4          
"*%)) H     (  "r 'r42&#   /& (  /  " 
   #      :     4 F>  "      # 
     '  4     4     N  F >  ( 
            4(   -    4   
      .&  F>(       J  
 
4           "*%)) H     (
  "r ' r 4 2 &#   /& (  /  "     #      :  
  4 F>  "      #       '  4   
 4     N  F >  (         
    4(   -    4          .&
  F>(       J      4 F>(  
 (   (        (       
   
?        (:( -
?       !(=( 
E               G   
   [ 
   
     4     (:( -
   4    "#  !(=( 

  (   

        9    (:( -
    &  !(=( 

        (    F>            
    
     (:( -
         !(=( 
4                     
          
      /&      (   
             4  /&9         
(         ? >   "    (       
# 4         (             
 4      /&9           .&9   (  
      D (         "   (
           /&9#            
              9         
   (      
4               
 (   N   
   &       D (          
      (               
   (    J (      "\ ' \ 42 &#    
 ,-&9     "        D (     
F >#G @    '( 4( &  @    ( (  "  (
( =# +    "  '  4#
   4     C  ` /      &    ,   
4        &         
   &
                    (
      &     

$$" 
, ? 3 ( 7  
0?  . 
40( + G   +( --B
 ? 3 ( F=        G =    U 9 ) > >( +9 9
9 0@( BA& C ",AA/#
. ? 3 ( F+      9 >( +9 9 ( 0D( /.&@, ",AA1#
/ ? 3 ( F4           9  >(  0 D( + U(  U&? L
"#( -0  !0  # 40  &0? 5+ @  4*  ".&
 
40(   AB( 9 G 7 = ?( ,AAC( .AB&/- 
@ ? 3   U ? *( F4      D&J N  (  9    
>( A 40 ;C3( B,.&@ " --,#
1 ? 3 ( F4   9         >( aG&:-.-,-B,
B ? 3 ( F+ N     9  >( 4 -
 4)( @0C( ,- &,,@ " --/#
C ? 3 ( F4   >( (0+&+ A&*  1&0  40( 1( AB&,,, " --/#
A ? 3 ( F3  3    >( a -@-B,CC
,- ? 3 ( F             >( 4 -
 4)( C.A( @&
.@ " --1#
,, ? 3 ( F=        >( (0+&+ A&*  1&0  40( 3( ,"B#(
,/,&,@.( --B
,  ? 3 ( F  8>( aG -C,-- /
,. ? 3 ( F?
   J  T >( aG ,--/,@ .
,/ 3 ? ( F4  T'    *  +>( 9 B9 9 40 0( 1,&AA ",A1C#
,@ 3 ? (    0( P  G U  *( --/
,@ P D 7( FJ &   >( A% B 
40 ;( &/1 " --/#
,1 ? =  9(  4+ 
@& #(     *  ?( O ( ,A@C
,B ) +b( Fc  Nd E    T&N>( "9 49 $9 C9 4092
#9 813(/,C& C ",A.-#
,C  L E( 49 9 9 !9 2D1 /@&@B ",AC/#
,A ? (   +0&&0  +)0( + G   +( ,AC1(  ,@
- 0 > D ( F9  3   T 0>(  = =( U )  + 3&9 "#( &
(
+ G   + ,AA.(  C/&A1
, P +N( B9 #9 40( 2;( 1.B ",AA@#


 INSTANT RANDOM INFORMATION

Nils H. Abramson
Industrial Metrology, Royal Institute of Technology Stockholm 10044, Sweden

Keywords: Relativity, speed of light, superluminocity interferometry, non locality, random

Abstract. Information is carried by matter or by energy and thus Einstein stated that “no information can
travel faster than light.” He also was very critical to the “Spooky action at distance” as described in
Quantum Physics. However, many verified experiments have proven that the ”Spooky actions” not only
work at distance but also that they travel at a velocity faster than light, probably at infinite velocity.
Examples are Young´s fringes at low light levels or entanglements. My explanation is that this
information is without energy. In the following I will refer to this spooky information as exformation,
where “ex-“ refers to existence, the information is not transported in any way, it simply exists. Thus
Einstein might have been wrong when he stated that no information can travel faster than light. But he
was right in that no detectable information can travel faster than light. Phenomena connected to
entanglement appear at first to be exceptions, but in those cases the information can not be reconstructed
until energy is later sent in the form of correlation using ordinary information at the velocity of light. In
entanglement we see that even if the exformation can not be detected directly because its luck of energy it
still can influence what happens at random, because in Quantum Physics there is by definition no energy
difference between two states that happen randomly.

INTRODUCTION

The “string theory of holography was first used in 1968 in combination with short coherence length. One end of a
string was fixed at the source of the laser light and the other at the hologram plate. If both the reference mirror and
the object were reached by that string the holographic configuration was optimised. Knots on that string could
either represent coherence length or wavelengths. In the latter case an object movement of one knot produced one
interference fringe. Lengthening the string by many knots and drawing a pencil along the string resulted in a set of
ellipses (or in 3-D: ellipsoids):”the holo-diagram”.The ellipsoids themselves have been visualized by light-in-
flight recordings. If the separation between laser and hologram plate is zero the ellipses become circles. However,
if the hologram recording is made in a laboratory aboard a train, the separation will be greater the faster the train is
moving. At a velocity close to the speed of light we say that the “spheres of observation” are transformed into
“ellipsoids of observation”. This is an alternative explanation to the “Lorentz contraction” as explained by
Einstein´s Special Relativity Theory [1].

CONSTRUCTING THE HOLODIAGRAM

Let (A) be a point source from a

laser producing light with short Fig. 1.The object beam M
pulse time (or limited coherence
c
ACB and the reference c
length), (B) is a point of beam AMB will meet
observation (a point sink of simultaneously only if C
light), (C) an object and (M) a is situated on an ellipse.
A B
mirror. A holographic recording
[2] at (B) is optimised if the distances ACB and AMB are
equal.
 Thus, only objects situated at an ellipsoid with (A) and (B) as focal points are recorded in the hologram. In Fig.1
a hologram is recording a space filled with smoke or dust particles, but as the laserpulse is ultrashort with a
length of only e.g only 10-12 sec = c:a 3mm particles on an ellipsoid are recorded. In the following we will
mention the two dimensional ellipses of the figures while we in reality refer to the three dimensional ellipsoids.
This ellipse can be realized by nailing on a blackboard the two ends of a string at (A) respective (B), and
drawing a chalk along the string while all the time keeping it stretched Fig. 2. With this method we produced in
1968 the holodiagram based on a set of ellipses each with the string length increased by a distance representing
either the pulse length or the wave length of the laser light.

Fig. 2: Drawing an ellipse using a

string of constant length.

.Fig.3 shows the holodiagram as it was presented in 1968

[3]. It was produced for the making and evaluation of Fig. 3 The Holodiagra used to optimise holographic
holograms. The separation of the ellipses (d) is constant recordings and to evaluate interference fringes
along arcs of circles passing through (A) and (B) because
there the angle 1 is constant. The value of d/cos 1 is in the diagram named (k) and printed at the circles. In
holographic interferometry the deformation of an object is found by multiplying the number of fringes by (k). The
larger the angle 1 (half the angle ACB ) the larger is (k) and thus the separation of the ellipses and the apparent
wavelength of light becomes k23

Thus the apparent velocity of light (c) is increased to kc resulting in superluminosity.

An exampleof apparently increased 3 is that a rough surface appears more mirror like the more oblique is the
observation.
Another example of our discussion is found within astronomy where rings of ”light echo” appear to expand at the
superluminosity [4].

MOIRÉ ANALOGY
Another way to derive the holodiagram is to draw two sets of concentric equally spaced circles and study their
intersection as shown in Fig.4. The Moiré effect of the circles representing illumination respectively observation
produces one set of hyperbolas and one set of ellipses of which the latter represents the holodiagram. If (A) and (B)
both represent centers of expanding spherical waves, the hyperbolas will stay stationary while the ellipses expand
with a velocity higher than light, superluminosity. If one set of spheres is expanding while the other is converging
the hyperbolas will move with a velocity higher than light, superluminocity, while the ellipses are stationary. The
latter represents the holographic situation where (A) is the point source of light while (B) is a
point of observation made phase sensitve by the reference beam.

Fig.4. The holodiagram produced by two sets

of concentric circles. The moiré fringes form
one set of ellipses and one set of circles.
Fig. 5: Wavefronts of light focused by
a lens is recorded as it intersects a flat
screen. The photo is from a set of
frames in a film made by light- in-flight
recording by holography

LIGHT-IN-FLIGHT RECORDING
A hologram can be recorded using ultrashort pulses (Pulselength or coherence length of about one mm). For that
case the following statement was made:”When a hologram is made the light is divided into two components
traveling different distances to the photographic plate. Interference fringes can be formed on this only if the two
components illuminate the plate at the same time.” [5,6] The shorter the laser pulse is, the more important it is
that the pathlength for the light of the object beam, from laser to hologram plate via object, is similar to that of the
reference beam, from laser to hologram plate via a mirror. In this paper a short pulse is, for all practical purposes,
equivalent to a short coherence length. To make the recording the short reference pulse passes from left to right
over the hologram plate and works as an ultrafast shutter. When the reference pulse front is not normal to the plate
its intersection will move faster than light and thus it will function as a shutter faster than light, a superluminal
curtain shutter.

As already mentioned the ellipsoids can be recorded if air is full of small particles e.g. smoke that scatter the light
in all directions (Fig 1). Placing a flat screen among the ellipsoids results in a bright recording of an ellipse
representing the screens intersection by one of the ellipsoids. If the screen were normal to the line of sight this
intersection will represent the wavefront or pulsefront of the laserlight,”Light in Flight recording by Holography”,
a world record in high speed photography (Fig.5).

Thus, in this way the ellipses of the Holodiagram can be visualized where (A) and (B) are the focal points of an
ellipse passing through the reference mirror (fig.2) Thus the pathlength (string-length) will be the same for all
points on the ellipse. In the diagram of Fig. 3 we see what objects can be recorded even with a short pulse length.
If the drawing of Fig.3 could be made in space instead of being limited to the flat board the ellipse would become
a rotational ellipsoid (egg shaped). If the laser light from (A) was spherical and if the observation at (B) could be
made in all directions, then any particle or object at the surface of the ellipsoid through the reference mirror (R)
could be recorded. When we study the reconstruction of such a recording made in a room filled with small
particles (e.g dust) we would find ourselves inside an ellipsoidal shell of illuminated particles, while all particles
inside or outside this shell would be in darkness.
Using the such holographic methods we have produced still pictures and motion pictures of short light pulses as
they move along a screen. To avoid the apparent deformation of the spherical waves we placed the flat screen
perpendicular to the line of sight from the observation point (B) and far away from this point. This was the type of
set up used when we produced the picture of light focused by a lens (Fig. 5). [6]. In that case the light illuminated
the screen almost parallel to its surface, while the pathlength from screen to observation point was approximately
constant. Therefore the whole screen was observed almost simultaneously and Fig. 5 represents a true image of
the pulsefront.

We have now described how light-in-flight recordings can be used to measure the unknown shape of a wavefront
by intersecting it with a wellknown (flat) object surface. The method can just as well be used the other way around
to measure the unknown shape of an object surface by intersecting it with a wavefront of wellknown shape.
Light-in-flight can therefore be used to measure the three-dimensional shape of objects.

ELLIPSOIDS OF INFORMATION
In Fig. 1 it is seen that even if the pathlengths from (A) to (B) via the objects are constant (AC + CB = constant)
the different objects are illuminated by the pulse at different points of time (RA) /c and seen at different distances
producing different time delays of (CB /c). Therefore all the particles are not recorded as they were at the same
time. But when we, during reconstruction with a continuous laser, see them at the same time illuminated by the
same pulse we could easily interpret them as recorded simultaneously.

Thus, we have found the following results for the recording of an ultrashort pulse:
If the point of illumination (A) and that of observation (B) are close together a spherical wave appears to be a
sphere, which we name the sphere of observation or a sphere of information. If the point of illumination (A) and
that of observation (B) are separated, a spherical wave appears ellipsoidal. We say that the “sphere of information”
by the separation of is transformed into an “ellipsoid of infomation”. However, different object points are
recorded at different points of time so that objects moving at ultrafast velocities will appear deformed and
displaced in relation to each other. This would of course be true also if we record light itself, e.g. a wavefront or
pulsefront. However, as we studied our Light-in-Flight recordings of a flat screen intersected by a spherical
wavefront the intersection always produced a circle independent of the angle of the screen. Why did the ellipsoid
never produce an ellipse on that screen? This strange phenomenon is explained mathematically in Ref.7.

SUPERLUMINAL INFORMATION IN QUANTUM PHYSICS

We have now studied some examples of superluminality in connection to the holodiagram which carries
information about how light behaves. Are there other examples of how information moves faster than light?
Information is carried by matter or by energy and thus Einstein stated that “no information can travel faster than
light.” He also was very critical to the “Spooky action at distance” as described in Quantum Physics. However,
many verified experiments have proven that the ”Spooky actions” not only work at distance but also that they
travel at a velocity faster than light, probably at infinite velocity. Examples are Young´s fringes at low light levels
or entanglements. My explanation is that this information is without energy. In the following I will refer to this
spooky information as exformation, where “ex-“ refers to existence, the information is not transported in any way,
it simply exists Thus Einstein might have been wrong when he stated that no information can travel faster than
light. But he was right in that no detectable information can travel faster than light. Phenomena connected to
entanglement appear at first to be exceptions, but in those cases the information can not be reconstructed until
energy is later sent in the form of correlation using ordinary information at the velocity of light. In entanglement
we see that even if the exformation can not be detected directly because its luck of energy it still can influence
what happens at random, because in Quantum Physics there is by definition no energy difference between two
states that happen randomly.
 REFERENCES
1. A. Einstein, "On the Eelectrodynamics of moving bodies"(1905), in The Principle of Relativity, Dover, New
York, 1952, pp. 37-65.
2. E. Leith and J. Upatnieks, “Wavefront reconstruction with diffused illumination and three-dimensional
objects” J. Opt. Soc. Am,1295-1301 (1964).
3. N. Abramson, “The Holo-diagram: a practical device for the evaluation of holograms”, Proceedings from
Applications of Holography, Strathclyde, Glasgow, 45-55 (1968).
4. D.I. Staselko, Y.N. Denisyuk and A.G. Smirnow, “Holographic recording of the time coherence pattern of a
wave train from a pulsed laser source”, Opt. Spectros. 26, 413 (1969)
5. D. Malin and D. Allen, “Echoes of the supernova” Sky and Telescopes,January,22-25 (1990).
6 N. Abramson,”Light-in-flight recording: high-speed holographic motion pictures of ultrafast phenomena”,
Applied Opt.22,215-232 (1983).
7. N. Abramson, J .Boman, B. Bonnevier,”Plane intersections of rotational ellipsoids”Amer.Math.Monthly 119
(4),336-339 (2006).
 Appearance of Objects at Relativistic Velocities,
a Holographic Approach

Nils H. Abramson
Industrial Metrology, Royal Institute of Technology,Stockholm 10044, Sweden

Keywords: Holography, coherence, gated viewing, interferometry,relativity

Abstract. A diagram borrowed from holographic interferometry has been applied to visualize phenomena in Special
Relativity. It displays how a sphere of observation is by velocity elongated into an ellipsoid of observation and
produces graphically all the well accepted equations of Einsteins Special Relativity. The Lorentz contraction,
however, is explained as an elongation of the measuring rod, the meter, which by definition is based on either a
specific number of wavelengths or the velocity of light multiplied by time. The diagram displays the total apparent
object distortions including not only the Lorentz contraction but also larger apparent contractions and elongations
caused by the classic Doppler Effect. The reasons of these deformations are the delays caused by variations in
distance from observer to different parts of the moving object. In this paper we do not discuss the meaning of
apparent, as compared to real, deformation.

THE HOLODIAGRAM

In Holographic Interferometry the sensitivity has been defined as:

2
n3 3
d6 6 kn (1)
7 cos 1 2 7

where (d) is displacement, (k) a sensitivity factor introduced by me[1], (n) is number of fringes, (34 is wavelength
and (14 is found in Fig.1 where (A) is a point source of laser light, (B) is a point of observation behind a
holographic plate illuminated by a reference beam.

From Fig. 1 we find: a2 = c2 - b2 . Thus:

1 c c 1
k6 6 6 6 (2)
cos 1 a c 5b
2 2
b2
15 2
c
C
1 c
a The interferometric sensitivity direction is normal to ellipsoids
having (A) and (B) as focal points as described by the
A O b B “holodiagram” [1], which in a graphic way visualizes the evaluation
of holographic fringes. As eq.2 is very similar to equations (eq.4)
found in Einsteins´ Special Relativity Theory (SRT) it was thought
FIG 1. Ellipse of the holodiagram. that the holodiagram might be a useful tool even in that field. The
(A) is a light source and (B) is a point main difference is that the separation of (A) and (B) in holography is
of observation. static while in relativity it is dynamic, caused by velocity. In both
situations gated viewing (e.g. Light in Flight Recording by Holography) [2] results in that a sphere of observation
is elongated into an ellipsoid of observation. [3].

RELATIVITY AND LORENTZ CONTRACTION

In Fig.2a a light pulse is sent from (O) reflected at (C) back to (O). The time from emission to detection is 2t0. In
Fig.2b we are stationary and see the s00ame situation happening on board a fast moving rocket at velocity (v).
Referring to Einsteins Special Relativity Theory (SRT) [4] the measured speed of light (c) is independent of the
velocity of light source (A) or the point of observation (B). The distance (C-B) is longer than (C-O) and (c) is
constant, thus tv is longer than t0, where index (0) and (v) refer to velocity. From geometry we know that (A-C-B) is
equal to (D-E). From Fig 2b we find:

(3)
8ct v 42 5 8vt v 42 6 8ct 0 42

t0 (4)
tv 6
Thus: v2
15
c2

C C C
12
ct0 ctv
D E
O O vtv O
A B
L L L
F F F
v
Fig.2a: Sphere of Fig. 2b: Ellipsoid of observation Fig. 2c: Ellipsoid of
observation seen by a stationary observer (the observation seen by the
rester). travelling observer (the
traveler)

Where (c) is speed of light, (v) is velocity and (t) is time. The indexes (v) and (0) refers to velocities. Fig.2
demonstrates how the sphere of observation (Fig.2a) by velocity is elongated into an ellipsoid of observation
(Fig.2b). This fact is not seen by the traveller according to Einsteins statement that in a closed laboratory a uniform
velocity can not be detected by any measurement [4]. Thus the traveller does not know about the elongation [5,6],
but thinks he is all the time using for measurement his sphere of observation.(Fig.2c) Because his measuring tool is
elongated the stationary object (L) appears to him to be contracted resulting in exactly the same equations as
described by the Lorentz contraction in SRT.

Lv v2 (5)
6 15 2
L0 c

The ellipsoids of observation also represent ellipsoids of simultaneity and our reasoning is in accordance with the
generally accepted Lorentz transformations
 DISCUSSION

The common explanation of Lorentz contraction:

A moving rod is measured by an observer who is stationary and uses his stationary measuring rod.
The explanation introduced here:
A stationary rod is measured by an observer who is moving and uses his moving measuring rod.

These two situations are identical because only the relative velocity between rod and observer is of importance. It
does, however, like in Quantum Theory, produce a more active role by the observer
The observers moving rod is by me replaced by the length unit the METER which is generally defined as a certain
number of light wavelengths (since 1983) or as the speed of light multiplied by a certain fraction of a second.
(since 1960). Thus the moving meter is by time dilation and by redshift elongated by velocity resulting in an
apparent contraction of the measured object. This way of deriving the contraction is identical to the common
explanation and results in exactly the same equations as described by the Lorentz contraction in the Special
Relativity Theory. It simplifies, however, understanding the observation of one object by several observers at
different velocities.
In Fig.3 we make a comparison between the results of SRT and those derived from the holodiagram: HOLO .

69
1 DE
To simplify we set: 6 (6)
v2 CF
15 2
c

SRT HOLO
tv = t0 x 9228seconds are elongated) tv = t0 x 9228seconds are elongated)
mv = m0 x 922 2 2 mv = m0 x 92
ev = e0 x 92 2 2 ev = e0 x 92
3v = 30 x 9 (relativistic transvers 3v = 30 x 9 (relativistic transvers
Doppler ratio) Doppler ratio)
lv = l0 /292(objects are contracted) lv = l0 x292(meters are elongated)

Fig.3: Comparison between the results of SRT and those from the
holodiagram: HOLO

In Fig.3 a table shows the comparison between the results of SRT and those derived from the holodiagram:
HOLO. The label (t) is time, (m) is mass, (e) is energy, (l) is length and (3) is wavelength. The indexes (v) and (0)
refer to velocity.
Einsteins Special Relativity Theory is rather difficult to visualize, while the steps are rather small from
interferometry to holographic interferometry to Light-in-Flight to the holodiagram to relativity. The holodiagram
produces a more coherent result as all transformations caused by velocity are identically to 9 (represented by
DE/CF of Fig.2b) Further on, as a bonus we see from Fig. 2b that no velocity can be greater than (c) because sin 1
is always less than unity.

APPARENT LENGTH CHANGES CAUSED BY CLASSIC DOPPLER

EFFECT.

In Fig.4 a train is approaching at a velocity (v) resulting in a blueshiftt, a shortening of the wavelength:
Could this shortening of the wavelength caused by (v/c) produce an influence on the meter similar to that (v2/c2)
produces in relativity?
3v v
6 15 (7)
30 c

In that case the apparent length of the train should be the inverted value of eq. 7. The train is moving towards us
and the light from its back has to travel a longer distance to our eye than that from its front. Thus, the light from its
back has to leave the train earlier when the train was further away resulting in that the train appears longer.

tv v L0
O

;2
v
Lv = tv c

Fig. 4: Apparent elongation of approaching train

From Fig.4 we find t v c 6 L0 : t v v

L0 L0c
Thus: tv 6 and; Lv 6 t v c 6 Resulting in:
c5v c5v

Lv 1
6 (8)
L0 1 5 v
c

It is rewarding and perhaps unexpected that even the classic Doppler effect produces an apparent change in object
length which is the inverted value of the wavelength. Because it is a function of (v) instead of (v2) it is sign
dependent. A velocity away from the observer results in an apparent contraction, while a velocity towards
produces an apparent elongation of the moving object. This apparent elongation is against the classical thought
that a meson, which at high speed moves towards earth "sees" a contracted atmosphere. However it agrees with the
results of R.Weinstein [7].
 RELATIVISTIC DOPPLER EFFECT

Let us study if there is a relation between the Dopplershifted wavelength and the distance from (B) to any point (Q)
on the ellipsoid of the holodiagram. In Fig.5 we calculate the distance from observer (B) to any place on the
ellipsoid surface e.g. (Q), using the following equations:
v2
(QB) 2 6 (OB 5 OR ) 2 : (QR) 2 6 t 0 29 2 (v 2 : c 2 cos2 ; 5 2vc cos; : c 2 (1 5 2
) sin 2 ; )
c

C Q C

ct 0 R0
Rv
;
D E v
A R B O
O

Fig, 5: Calculation of distances from observer (B) to any place on the

ellipsoidal surface e.g. (Q).
Resulting in:

v cos;
15
QB t 09 (c 5 v cos; ) c
6 6 (9)
CO t0c v2
15 2
c

The accepted value [8] for the general case of relativistic wavelength ratio is:

v cos;
3 v 15 c ; (10)
6
30 v2
15 2
c
Thus, we have shown that the distance from observer (B) to any place on the ellipsoidal surface of the
holodiagram e.g. (Q) represents the relativistic total Doppler ratio 3v/30. Thus, the total apparent change in object
length Lv/L0 is the inverted value of eq. 10:

Lv v2 1
6 15 2 ? (11)
L0 c v cos;
15
c
Lorentz Doppler

We have already shown that the ratio of apparent length of objects to the true length is the inverted value of the
ratio of wavelength 3v/30. In Fig.5 and eq.12 we see that a velocity towards the observer results in an apparent
elongation, while a velocity away produces an apparent contraction of the moving object. Only when ;2is 900 the
objects appear Lorentz contracted. When the angle ; is such that QB = OC there is zero Doppler shift and thus the
apparent length is equal to Lorentz contracted length (Lv=L0 /9). For smaller ;22there is a blue shift and for larger2;
a redshift resulting in a predominant redshift in the universe. [9]

When the fast moving traveler studies the stationary world around him he will see it intersected by his ellipsoids of
travels by a straight rod S-S it will in his sphere of observation to him appear distorted into a hyperbola. Drawing
horizontal lines from the ellipses to corresponding points on the circles find this distortion (Fig. 6). Finally we
show in Fig. 7 the distortion of an orthogonal coordinate system first published in[10] and later verified in [11].

Fig. 6: The traveller emits short pulses at A1 to A2 and then makes a

single observation at (B). A straight rod in stationary space appears to
him deformed

Fig. 7: Using the method of Fig.6 we have produced the distribution of apparent
distortions of stationary orthogonal coordinate system (a). In (b) it is seen by the
stationary observer at (O) as the coordinate system moves from left to right.

CONCLUSION

The methods based on “ellipsoids of observation” produces all the accepted equations of Special Relativity.
Besides these second order results it includes first order effects such as apparent object distortions, elongations and
rotations [3,10]. When 3v is shorter than 30 an approaching train appears elongated. The influence from (v/c) is
many orders greater than that from (v/c)2. For e.g. the approaching Space Shuttle the influences are about 1mm
elongation and 0,02@m contraction. It is my personal opinion that the apparent Doppler influence is just as real as
the relativistic Lorentz contraction.
In summery we state that the apparent change in object length can be written:

Lv /L0 = Ro/Rv = fv/f0

(12)
The distance Q – B = R of Fig.5 represents the wavelength of light moving that distance. Therefore the
length of the meter varies with R and thus with velocity and the angle2;A The result is that L is proportional to the
frequence of the light.

This result is independent of whether fv/f0 is caused by relativistic or classic Doppler effect. Lv /L0 is also in the
holodiagram of Fig.5 represented by OC/BQ
The concept of ellipsoids of observation simplifies understanding of many unsolved problems such as e.g the
problem of the two spheres: A short flash of light is emitted at a point (A) on earth. For an observer (B) close to
(A) the expanding sphere of light appears all the time centred at (A). To an observer in space this centre appears to
leave (A) which is fixed to the moving earth. Instead it appears fixed to the place in space where (A) was during
the emission. How is this possible? Answer: They both are at focalpoints of an ellipsoid of light, which from
thoose points appears spherical. However the greatest advantage of the holodiagram is that it opens up the
possibility to all those graphic visualizations of transformations in Special Relativity that are described in
[12].

I am thankful to prof. Bo Lehnert and my colleague Jonny Gustafsson who have both contributed with
many interesting and fruitful discussions.

REFERENCES

1. N. Abramson, “The holo-diagram, a practical device for the making and evaluation of holograms,” Appl. Opt.
8, 1235-1240 (1969).
2. N. Abramson, “Light-in-Flight recording: high-speed holographic motion pictures of ultrafast phenomena”
Appl. Opt.22, 215-232 (1983).
3. N. Abramson, “Light-in-flight recording 3: Compensation for optical relativistic effects” Appl. Opt. 23, 400-
4014 (1984).
4. A. Einstein, "On the Eelectrodynamics of moving bodies"(1905), in The Principle of Relativity, Dover, New
York, 1952, pp. 37-65
5. N. Abramson, “Holography, relativity and the spooky ellipsoids” Proceeding of the 7th International
Symposium on Display Holography, 228-235, Centre of Modern Optics, Wales (2006)
6. N. Abramson, J. Boman, B.Bonnevier, Plane Intersections of rotational ellipsoids, Amer. Math. Monthly 119
(4), 336-339 (2006)
7. R. Weinstein, “Observation of Length by a Single Observer,” Am. J. Phys. 28, 607-610 (1960)
8. P.A.Tipler, Physics for Scientists and Engineers, Worth Publishers Inc, (1993)
pp.1119.
9. N. Abramson, “Separation of transverse and radial motions at relativistic
velocities,” Spec. Sci. Technol. 8, 101-107 (1984)
10. Abramson, “Light-in-flight recording 4: visualizing optical relativistic phenomena” Appl. Opt. 24, 3323-3329
(1985)
11. Mork and T. Vargish, Inside Relativity, Princeton University Press (1987).
12. Abramson, Light in Flight or the holodiagram-the Columb iEgg of Optics,
Vol. PM27, SPIE Press, 1996.
 Entropy, Reversibility, Irreversibility And
Thermodynamic Cycles

D. Sandsa and J. Dunning-Daviesa

a
Department of Physical Sciences (Physics),University of Hull,Hull HU6 7RX,England.

Dedicated to the memory of

P. T. Landsberg (1922 – 2010),
one of the modern fathers of thermodynamics.

Abstract. Following thoughts occasioned by the writings of Tait during the nineteenth century, attention here returns to
the importance of cycles in the development of thermodynamics. Considering its practically-based beginnings, it sometimes
seems surprising that so many students experience so much difficulty with this subject. Some, at least, of the confusion seems
to arise through the introduction of the notion of entropy into the development of the subject – this the one quantity to which,
within thermodynamics, it is difficult to give a physical interpretation. In this article, the development of thermodynamics is
reviewed in an attempt to highlight the problems arising and offer some insight into their possible resolution. Problems
associated with terms such as reversibility and irreversibility are addressed also and, once again, attention is drawn to those
extremely lucid writings of earlier years. An appendix is included also in which the whole problem of reversibility and
irreversibility such as emerges from the writings of Clausius and Tait is examined.
Keywords: Thermodynamics, the First Law, the Second Law, reversible and irreversible processes.
PACS: 05.70a and 05.70Ln

INTRODUCTION.

Although thermodynamics is a subject based on phenomena with which all students are familiar, it is,
nevertheless, a topic which causes many worries and concerns. Much of this centres around the concept of entropy,
possibly because it is the one quantity in the introduction to the subject which is not in any way part of people’s
everyday experience. Hence, as such, an aura of mystery surrounds this quantity for most people. If people are more
mathematically inclined, the problem is less severe since, whatever the approach adopted, the entropy is seen to
enter the theory merely as the name given to a total derivative, where that total derivative equals an inexact
differential of the heat multiplied by its integrating factor which is the reciprocal of the absolute temperature. The
problem is exacerbated in all probability by at least two modern occurrences:
(i) the modern tendency to drift away from the origins of the subject and so, cease to stress the importance of
cycles in the development; and
(ii) possible confusion caused by the link between thermodynamics and statistical mechanics.
As far as the first of these is concerned, it must always be remembered that the founding fathers of
thermodynamics were closely involved with the working of heat engines. The only place in the early development
where cycles were not involved was in the observations of Rumford. Apart from that, people like Carnot derived
their inspiration from the practical work of men like Watt and Trevithick who were concerned with improving the
efficiency of heat engines for use in, amongst other places, the Cornish tin mines. Some of Carnot’s inspiration came
from a desire to help the French catch up with the British in this area of production of heat engines. Hence, cycles
were a vitally important part of the beginnings of thermodynamics and the people who pushed it forward and began
to give the topic a firm theoretical foundation – Thomson (Lord Kelvin), Tait, Clausius [1] – based their work on
engines working in cycles. It should be noted that the two modern versions of the famous statements of the Second
Law, that due to Thomson :
It is impossible to transform an amount of heat completely
into work in a cyclic process in the absence of other effects
and that due to Clausius:
It is impossible for heat to be transferred by a cyclic process from
a body to one warmer than itself in the absence of other effects,
both stress the notion of cyclic processes as well as the absence of effects other than those specifically mentioned. It
might be noted also that these are the fundamental forms of the Second Law. In what follows, mention will be made
of the possibility of entropy increasing in an irreversible change. It should be noted that the property of entropy
increase, even if true, is not a statement of the Second Law of Thermodynamics; at best, it is merely a deduction
from that law.
Another major point of difficulty for modern students is probably the complete absence of discussion of the
notion of the mechanical equivalent of heat these days. This is due, of course, to the modern systems of units
employed, but the fact remains that much of Joule’s pioneering experimental work, which was so important at the
birth of this subject and which is so crucial in the writings of Thomson and Tait, is now largely ignored. In fact, it
comes as a shock to some to see the quantity denoted by J in the writings of these pioneers; it takes a while to realise
that it actually represents the mechanical equivalent of heat. The problem introduced by this is that people nowadays
remain blissfully unaware of this equivalence of work and heat.
The link between thermodynamics and statistical mechanics can lead to problems also since, normally, the
entropy of thermodynamics is immediately equated with the entropy of statistical mechanics. It is obvious to see
why such an identification should be made, but a moment’s reflection immediately identifies serious problems.
When the question is considered, it is realised at once that the backgrounds of the two entropies are somewhat
different; that from thermodynamics is purely due to a change in heat, but that in statistical mechanics, at first sight
at least, is a function related to the statistical distribution of the particles under consideration. Consideration of this
question also raises a query about the inequality, dS > dcQ/T, which supposedly holds for so-called non-static
processes.
These then are some of the topics to be considered here in an attempt to introduce a higher level of
straightforward logic into considerations of the basics of thermodynamics. It is, after all, a branch of physics which
affects most, if not all, other branches and, therefore, a true understanding is vital for all.

REVERSIBILITY
Consider the situation described so graphically in the book ‘Thermodynamics’ by P. T. Landsberg [2]. In
question 1 on page 95, the following statements are listed:
a) reversible processes are really not processes at all, but sequences of equilibrium states
b) the real criterion for reversibility is that no changes of any kind must remain in the surroundings of
a system when the given process is followed by the same process taken in the opposite sense, (Surely this
must imply also that, at the end of both processes being run one after the other, there are no changes of any
kind in the system itself either?)
c) a process which is reversible must take place infinitely slowly. However, a process which takes
place infinitely slowly need not be reversible; an example being provided by the discharge of a condenser
through a very high resistance.
(a) is the notion used by Landsberg throughout his book. He continually talks of sequences of equilibrium states
rather than actual reversible processes. (b) is the common definition of reversibility but Landsberg doesn’t believe it
equivalent to (a), or to (c) for that matter. As he points out, any simple mechanical system without dissipation of
energy, such as a bouncing, perfectly elastic ball or a swinging pendulum, conforms to (b), but not to (a) or (c). The
example quoted under (c) shows that (a) and (c) are not equivalent either: an infinitely slow process need not be
quasistatic.
It follows that, until or unless the contrary is established, (a), (b) and (c) must be regarded as referring to three
different types of process. In fact, the introduction of the whole notion of reversibility into thermodynamics always
presents a very serious problem of definition. However, if attention is restricted to reversible cycles, where by the
term reversible cycle is meant a cyclic process which may be run either in the forward or reverse direction, is there
still a problem? It is possible to make a distinction between reversible cycles and reversible cyclic processes, which
we do in the appendix, but it’s not necessary here. Reversible cyclic process do not, it seems, need to occur infinitely
slowly nor would there seem to be any need to restrict attention to sequences of equilibrium states.
The approach in the book alluded to above is to derive the basic equations via a modification of the
mathematical formalism introduced by Carathéodory, a formalism which has been refined even more since this book
first appeared. Hence, ‘reversible’ processes are not discussed and Carnot cycles do not enter at all. One
consequence of this, as noted by Landsberg, is that Carnot cycles – and heat engines in general - must be discussed
separately at a later stage. This he does but initially attention is restricted to what he terms Forward Carnot Cycles
or, in other words, Carnot cycles run as heat engines – which was what was being considered in the first instance by
Carnot himself. Later, having duly noted the problems alluded to above relating to the exact meaning of the notion
of reversibility, Landsberg separately examines the Carnot cycle run in the reverse direction – a Reverse Carnot
Cycle. He quite specifically rules out the use of the term reversible engine and, instead, examines in detail what
happens in each particular case. This means that he avoids all problems of meaning of reversibility. However, the
working fluid in the two cycles considered starts from the same state and ends up back in that state in both cases.
What happens in between is, however, not quite the same in the two cases. In the forward cycle, using Landsberg’s
terminology, heat Q1 is withdrawn from the large heat reservoir at temperature T1 and heat Q2 is delivered to a large
heat reservoir at temperature T2, where T2  T1. The difference between these two quantities of heat is the work done
by the working fluid on its surroundings. However, in the reverse cycle, heat Q2 is absorbed by the working fluid
from the large heat reservoir at temperature T2 and heat Q1 is rejected into the large heat reservoir at temperature T1,
with the difference being the work done on the working fluid. The two cycles are complete cycles and, while one is
run in one direction, the other is simply run in the other, or reverse, direction. This is fundamentally what occurs in
practice; in the forward direction, the engine is a heat engine and does work; in the reverse direction, the engine acts
as a refrigerator.
Hence, in this approach, direct use of the notion of reversibility is avoided and all the problems associated with
the meaning and use of that term are avoided also. The question which arises now, although he didn’t make any
categorical statements about it, is did Landsberg recognise that many of the difficulties arising in classical
thermodynamics seem to revolve around the use of the notions of reversibility and irreversibility – particularly the
first of these two terms? He certainly shows that neither notion is required when considering the operation of a
Carnot engine – whether run in the forward or reverse directions. It must follow that there must be a question
hanging over the use of the notion in any approach to classical thermodynamics. It is certainly the case that a totally
different initial approach is used when discussing Non-Equilibrium Thermodynamics or The Thermodynamics of
Irreversible Process [3]. However, in the modern version of the Carathéodory approach [4], the idea of a process
being capable of being run in the reverse direction is used and, at first sight at least, its use actually seems essential
to the development of the topic. Here the idea of running an adiabatic change in one of two directions is in mind
since it is used in the derivation of the vitally important relation

d ' Q TdS (1)

particularly in the stage which shows how the Kelvin form of the Second Law implies that the thermodynamic phase
space may be split up into a family of level surfaces. In this derivation, though, it is the notion of being able to
progress from one state to another by an adiabatic process, progress from that state to another along a line of
constant deformation by suitable means, and then back to the original state along a different adiabatic path which is
important. It is merely being able to go to and from the line of constant deformation by adiabatic means which is
important; the actual adiabatic paths are not assumed – nor do they need to be – reversible.
In fact, is not the basic idea with the Carathéodory approach simply that two states on a line of constant
deformation cannot be accessible one from the other by adiabatic means in both directions? It is conceivable that
one-way accessibility is allowable but not two-way as that would lead to violation of Kelvin’s form of the Second
Law. It would be that the state at higher internal energy would be accessible from the other state by adiabatic means
because that way around would involve work being done on the system to raise the internal energy; so it would be
work being completely converted into heat in a cyclic process with no other effects, and that is allowable. This line
of argument would lead to thermodynamic phase space being split into a family of level surfaces because it follows
that only one state on a second line of constant deformation could be accessible from any one point on the first line
of constant deformation for exactly the same reason as that outlined above. States on different lines would normally
possess different values of the internal energy and, from the first law:

d'Q dU  d ' W Ÿ dU d ' Q  d 'W (2)

It follows that this difference in internal energy could be overcome by a combination of heat and work and, as in the
above case, the cycle could be completed by an adiabatic process. However, in this case, the cycle could be run in
either direction and there would be no contradiction since something other than the conversion of an amount of heat
completely into work would be occurring in each cycle – that is, the one part of the cycle concerned with the system
being taken between states with different internal energy values would involve not only the giving of a quantity of
heat to the system but also some work being done to overcome the fact that the two states lie on different lines of
constant deformation. Hence, for two states lying on different lines of constant deformation, the cycle may be run
forwards and in reverse. These two arguments may be combined and the result is that the thermodynamic phase
space is seen to be divided up into a family of level surfaces. Hence, Landsberg’s argument may be modified to
depend only on the notion of running a cycle forwards and in reverse, rather than introducing the notion of a
‘reversible change’ or of a ‘quasistatic change’ which could be run in reverse. This heralds a return to Carnot who
stressed the idea of reversible cycles, a notion discussed widely in 19th century books on thermodynamics. Also, by a
reversible cycle was meant one which could be run forwards and in reverse – in just the same way as Landsberg
discusses the Carnot cycle in his 1961 book.
It seems that this sees the removal of the difficult notion of a reversible process from the modified Carathéodory
approach to the fundamentals of thermodynamics and appears to bring it more into line with the original approach
via Carnot cycles. Hence, Born’s worry concerning too much dependence on engineering concepts is overcome but
everything now depends on cycles as, possibly, it should.
It is interesting and informative to read the account of Carnot’s work in, for example, Classical Thermodynamics
by Arnold Münster [5]. In the work relating to Carnot’s theorem and the Carnot cycle, Münster constantly refers to a
‘reversible cyclic process’, never to simply a reversible process. The two concepts are obviously totally different
and it seems especially important to reflect on the fact that it may be possible to run a cyclic sequence of events in
reverse, even though the individual processes are not necessarily each reversible individually. This view is not
accepted by everyone, since some refer to the Carnot engine utilising a reversible cycle and by this is meant a series
of reversible processes that take a substance from an initial equilibrium state through many other equilibrium states
and return it again to the same initial state. When Münster refers specifically to an irreversible process, it is, for
example, to the irreversible process of heat conduction. Such a reference does not seem unreasonable. Heat
conduction is a truly irreversible process and such terminology seems appropriate. The problems seem to arise when
talk of reversible processes occurs – processes which are not cyclic! Hence, Landsberg’s apparent reticence, referred
to above, seems entirely justified and sensible. It seems wise to consider forward and reverse Carnot cycles
separately; in that way, it seems there should be reduced confusion. Also, once again the question of whether or not
the notion of a reversible process is needed is raised; - the answer would appear to be in the negative.
Support for this view seems to be available in Porter’s little Methuen monograph entitled Thermodynamics [6].
In it, when referring to the work of Carnot, he points out that Carnot introduced the requirement that the cycle of
change necessary be a reversible one; ‘by which is meant that, by making only an infinitesimal change in the
temperatures and pressures of the surroundings, the cycle may be traversed either in a clockwise or an anticlockwise
sense: in other words, at each instant the substance must be indefinitely near to an equilibrium state, both as regards
pressure and heat flow. This, of course, describes an unattainable limit, because it would require an infinite time to
effect any change.’ Once again, as pointed out above, the indication is that what is required is something which
works in a cycle and may be run both forwards and backwards. Reversibility in this sense is a perfectly reasonable
idea and is one occurring naturally – there are engines which when run in the forward direction act as normal heat
engines but, when run in reverse, act as refrigerators.
Porter also points out that no actual motion of a body can occur without frictional effects and this ensures that
such changes must be irreversible. He then claims that, to ensure reversibility, only infinitesimal changes in the
neighbourhood of an equilibrium state are to be allowed. He interestingly likens this to the virtual displacements
made in mechanics in the calculation of virtual work. This restriction ensures that changes in kinetic energy then
don’t enter into the discussion because they are of second order in small quantities when the displacements are of the
first order.
Where do all these considerations appear to be pointing? It does seem that the notion which is of use and
importance in thermodynamics is that of a reversible cycle or reversible cyclic change and that is certainly not the
same thing as a reversible change because in any random change the end state is not the original state. Making this
differentiation may seem pedantic but the crucial point, pedagogically at least, is that the only notion occurring in the
actual development of thermodynamics is that of a reversible cyclic change; talking separately of reversible changes
and generally of reversibility serves only to create unnecessary confusion.

THOUGHTS ON IRREVERSIBLE THERMODYNAMICS

In orthodox reversible (quasi-static) thermodynamics, the first law gives

d'Q dU  d ' W . (3)

where the d cW term contains all possible contributions to the work done on, or by, the system. The second law then
gives

TdS d ' Q. (4)

again for reversible (quasi-static) processes. Combining these two equations gives

TdS d'Q dU  d ' W . (5)

This is quite straightforward and well-known. However, when irreversible or non-equilibrium processes become
involved, this equation is replaced by

TdS t d ' Q dU  d ' W (6)

There are at least two important points to be noted about this inequality. Firstly, it should be noted that the inequality
actually derived is

dS t 0 (7)

and that it is derived purely for an irreversible adiabatic process. One technique for illustrating this is as follows [4].
Consider a system possessing three independent variables T, V1 and V2 and let this system be taken around the
cycle illustrated in figure 1.

FIGURE 1. A closed cycle around the space of three independent variables

Suppose the initial state of this system is i and suppose it undergoes a non-static adiabatic process to a state f, where
i and f are both assumed to be equilibrium states of the system. Then, the entropy change is

'S S f  Si (8)

During this process, a temperature change may, or may not, have occurred. Whether it has or not, now suppose the
system undergoes a quasistatic adiabatic process f o k to bring its temperature to that of some arbitrary heat
reservoir at temperature Tc. Since Sf and Sk are equal,

'S S k  Si (9)

The system may be brought into contact with the reservoir and caused to undergo an isothermal process k o j until
its entropy is the same as it was initially. A quasistatic adiabatic process j o i returns the system to its initial state
and, since Sj and Si are equal

'S Sk  S j (10)

The only heat transfer, Q, that has taken place in the cycle is during the isothermal process where

Q T ( S j  Sk ) (11)

Also, a net amount of work, W, has been done in the cycle where

W Q (12)

From the Second Law, it is clear that the heat Q cannot have entered the system - that is, Q cannot be positive - for
then, the cyclic process would have been such as to produce no effect other than the extraction of heat from a
reservoir and the performance of an equivalent amount of work. Hence,

Q0 (13)

from which it follows that

T ( S j  Sk ) d 0 (14)

Or

'S Sk  S j t 0 (15)

Here, it has been assumed that an entropy change is associated with the original non-static adiabatic process. If
this were not so, it would be possible to return the system to state i by one quasistatic adiabatic process. Since the net
heat transferred in this cycle is zero, the net work would be zero also. Under these circumstances, the system and its
surroundings would have been restored to their initial states without producing changes elsewhere - implying that the
original process was quasistatic. This is contrary to the original assertion, and so the entropy of the system cannot
remain unchanged.
Again, the system considered was assumed homogeneous and of uniform temperature and pressure. If this were
not so, it would be necessary to subdivide the system into parts - each one infinitesimal in an extreme case - and to
ascribe a definite temperature and pressure to each part, so that each part would have a definite entropy depending
on its coordinates. The entropy of the system as a whole would be defined to be the sum of the entropies of the
various parts. If it is possible to return each part to its initial state in the manner described earlier, using the same
reservoir for each part, it follows that 'S is positive for the whole system.
The final result is that the entropy of a system in a given state cannot be decreased adiabatically for a
thermodynamics in which the absolute temperature is positive and heat tends to flow from high to low absolute
temperatures. This is a statement of the principle of the increase of entropy of systems in adiabatic enclosures. It is
this result that is often used in cosmological applications of thermodynamics. It is often assumed that the Universe is
a thermodynamically closed system; that is, it is assumed that heat may neither enter nor leave the Universe. Hence,
the Universe is often assumed to be an adiabatic enclosure and so this principle of increase of entropy is assumed to
apply.
The so-called basic inequality of thermodynamics,

TdS t d ' Q (16)

is really an assumed extension of this result which is clearly restricted to adiabatic processes. It should be noted that
the derivation of the original inequality is dependent crucially on the assumption that irreversible adiabatic processes
actually occur in nature. There is also a tacit assumption that the entropy is a function of state, although this point is
rarely, if ever, raised. Secondly, it is vitally important to note that only the first equality is replaced by an inequality;
that is, the equality

d 'Q dU  d 'W (17)

representing the First Law or, alternatively, the Law of Conservation of Energy, still holds.

FURTHER THOUGHTS BASED ON CYCLES.

Following the lead given by such as Tait [1], attention now returns specifically to cycles. It is supposed at this
point that equation (4) has been derived; whether by the methods of Carnot or those of Carathéodory does not
matter. Now, though, consider a Carnot engine operating between two temperatures T1 and T2, where T1 ! T2. The
efficiency of such an engine is given by

Q T
K 1 2 1 2 (18)
Q1 T1

as usual, with Q1 and Q2 having their normal meanings. However, the usual theory explains that any other engine
operating between the same two temperatures will have a lower efficiency than this, unless that engine may be run in
reverse like the Carnot engine – in which case it will possess the same efficiency. If the efficiency of this new engine
is Kc and if the respective quantities of heat involved are Q1c and Q2c, then

Q ' Q T
K' 1 2 d K 1 2 1 2 (19)
Q1 ' Q1 T1

Hence, it follows that

Q2 ' Q1 '
t (20)
T2 T1

If the heat entering the system is taken as positive, then

¦T
Q'
d0 (21)

Obviously, this can be extended to the case where the summation is replaced by an integral,

dQ'
³ T
d0 (22)

Here the equality holds only for engines which may be run in reverse. It might be noted also that, in addition, this
implies that the quantity dQc/T does not represent a state variable in general.
Further, for engines which may be run in reverse, a new variable S may be introduced via the relation

dQ
dS (23)
T

and, for this particular situation, this new function is seen to be a function of state in that integrating dS between two
points is found to be independent of the path chosen, This, however, is only for situations which may be run in
reverse. If a situation is considered which cannot be run in reverse, it may be likened to a closed path in which the
part of the path between two points taken in one direction, say A to B, is one way whereas another path from B to A
may be possible in both directions. In such a case

dQ B dQ A dQ
³T ³ A(irrev ) T
 ³ B ( rev ) T
d0 (24)

or

B dQ B dQ
³
A(irrev ) T
d ³A( rev ) T
(25)

But, from the earlier results,

B dQ
³ A( rev ) T
SB  S A (26)

Therefore, provided SB ³ SA,

B dQ
³ A(irrev ) T
d SB  S A (27)

or

dQ
dS t (28)
T

for the irreversible change envisaged. However, in this case the validity of the inequality is not restricted to adiabatic
processes only but it is restricted to the special case mentioned. If SB µ SA, then the above inequality becomes

B dQ
dS d  ³
A(irrev ) T
(29)

This may be interpreted as indicating that there is an entropy decrease when a system loses a quantity of heat.
Once again, attention has been restricted to an examination of a cycle. Here, however, it is assumed that one leg
of the cycle may be performed in either direction while the other leg may be performed in one direction only. It is, as
usual, important to identify all assumptions made – however unimportant they may seem at first sight. The
implication of one assumption in this case may be seen as quite far-reaching in that it implies that there is an entropy
increase or decrease for a one-way process linking two states of a system provided those two states may be linked by
a two-way process also. It then follows that the entropy change for the one-way process must be the same as that for
the two-way process. However, both processes must be possible for this to be the case. Also, it indicates that it is
theoretically possible to have processes in which the entropy decreases. In retrospect, this might be expected since it
is well-known that, in a Carnot cycle the entropies changes associated with the two isothermal processes add to zero;
this immediately means that one entropy change must be positive, the other negative. In other words, there are
processes in nature in which entropy decreases but, as was seen previously, these will not be adiabatic processes.
The second hidden assumption is that the quantity termed entropy is a function of state. However, it should be noted
that an alternative explanation for the inequality result is that this function is simply not a function of state in
general, although it may appear as one and even behave as one in some specific circumstances.

CONSEQUENCES FOR THE FIRST LAW.

If TdS is greater than or equal to d cQ , it must follow that

 TdS dU  d 'W  Td) (30)

where Td) simply represents the amount by which TdS exceeds d’Q. This raises a further spectre in that Td) must
have the dimensions of energy but doesn’t appear in the equation representing the First Law of Thermodynamics;
that is, it doesn’t appear in the equation of Conservation of Energy. Hence, precisely what does this term represent?
It seems that all the thermodynamic effects are included in the terms dU and d’W so, once again, what does the term
Td) actually represent?
The argument presented here certainly seems to indicate that this additional term, which occurs when irreversible
or non-equilibrium situations are under consideration, is not thermodynamic in origin. This immediately raises the
question of whether it is linked to ideas of information. However, far more importantly, it resurrects the question of
what precisely is entropy? Here it might well be remembered that, within thermodynamics, the idea of entropy arises
as a result of a mathematical manipulation – one which results in the production of an integrating factor for an
incomplete differential. Hence, entropy does not arise in thermodynamics with any truly physical interpretation. In
fact, until statistical mechanics is introduced, the entropy of thermodynamics has no semblance of a physical
interpretation. However, it is thermodynamics which is under consideration here and the above does seem to indicate
doubt over a thermodynamic origin for the extra contribution to TdS in irreversible or non-equilibrium situations
where thermodynamic reasoning simply indicates that it is greater than or equal to d’Q=dU+d’W.
It seems that the Td) term must relate to the incremental change in heat due purely to the irreversible, or non-
equilibrium, nature of some of the processes under consideration; it is a thermodynamic term like all the others. The
crucial point to realise is that, in the presence of irreversible, or non-equilibrium, processes, the dQ in

TdS t dQ (31)

refers to the incremental change of heat due purely to the reversible, or quasi-static, processes. This crucial point
does not seem to come across in most presentations of the subject. It does, however, possibly link up with the notion
often appearing in discussions of irreversible, or non-equilibrium, thermodynamics [3] of there being two
contributions to the entropy change:

dS d e S  di S (32)

where deS is the entropy supplied to the system by its surroundings and diS is the entropy produced inside the
system. It is this first term on the right-hand side which must equal d’Q/T by the Second Law. However, the big
question of where all this fits in with Conservation of Energy remains and is a topic to which attention must return.
This final point is not covered explicitly in, for example, de Groot’s book [3] but he does offer a cogent
explanation of his thinking on the two terms appearing on the right-hand side of

dQ
dS d e S  di S  di S (33)
T

for the total incremental change in entropy for a system undergoing an irreversible process. It is pointed out that deS
is the entropy and dQ the heat supplied to the system, whereas diS is the entropy produced inside the system by
irreversible processes. It is also noted that the external supply of entropy, deS may be positive, zero or negative, but
the internal production of entropy, diS is necessarily positive definite or zero. If zero, the equality in equation (23)
results; if positive, the inequality

dQ
dS ! (34)
T
for irreversible processes results.
If this explanation is accepted, then it appears to agree with sentiments expressed here that the extra contribution
to the entropy change occurring in irreversible processes is not thermodynamic in origin. We shall show in the
appendix that the aforementioned difficulty with the First Law, which is not overcome by de Groot’s explanation,
was evident in Clausius’ work. Moreover, we shall also argue that the idea of a reversible cyclic process implies that
thermodynamic entropy should be crucially associated with changes in heat, which reinforces the idea expressed
above that entropy increases in irreversible thermodynamic processes are not thermodynamic in nature. Our
contention here, of course, is that that is precisely what is deduced from the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

FINAL COMMENTS.
It should be realised that, while these considerations are of fundamental importance in thermodynamics and in
the understanding of that subject by students, the ramifications reach into many areas of modern science. Due
especially to questions raised concerning the meaning of the word ‘entropy’ and whether or not the various forms of
entropy – thermodynamic, statistical, information, etc. – are equivalent and, if so, under what conditions this
equivalence occurs, grave questions are raised concerning the influence even in areas of biology. In this seemingly
unlikely topic, entropy and thermodynamic ideas are utilised quite widely in discussions of evolution [7,8]. Worries
about this area of application have been raised already [9], but this present study makes the worry even greater.
It seems appropriate at this point to draw attention to the fact that many of the concerns and worries with the
basics of thermodynamics voiced here were raised, albeit indirectly, by Landsberg in his 1961 book [2]. It is
probably a great pity that he only hinted at these problems then because, if he had been more direct, it is quite
possible that much of the confusion concerning thermodynamics which lies in the minds of so many – not just
students – might have been avoided. Nevertheless, it should not go unnoticed that Landsberg did draw attention to
many of these questions more than forty years ago.
It is worth noting also that the considerations outlined above, imply several extremely important conclusions
for thermodynamics. It is quite clear from the examination of the Carnot cycle that, in each of the two non-adiabatic
stages, there is an entropy change. Since it is crucial to return to the original state at the end of the cycle, it must
follow that in one of these two stages the entropy change is positive, while in the other it is negative but of
magnitude equal to that of the first stage. Hence, it follows immediately that it is not a universal truism that entropy
cannot ever decrease. Here is a cycle, which may be run in reverse, and it contains two stages which harbour entropy
changes of different signs. This deduction is, of course, in line with the writing of such as de Groot(3). Pedagogically,
as well as academically, this is a very important point. Pedagogically, it is one which causes genuine worry and
confusion for students, who end up feeling thermodynamics a subject they will never understand. Academically it is
always vital to attempt to get to the heart of matters and find the truth. This fairly simple argument raises immediate
questions over all claims to have found a violation of the Second Law by seeming to have found a change in which
there is an entropy decrease.
Again, an examination of the argument leading to the result

B dQ
³A(irrev ) T
d SB  S A (35)

raises serious questions for students. In the original introduction of the notion of entropy into thermodynamics, a
change in entropy is linked irrevocably to equality with the ratio of a change in heat and the absolute temperature.
Hence, in this case where a so-called irreversible change makes an appearance, what physical quantity constitutes
the extra contribution to the entropy change? This has to be a genuinely serious pedagogical point. It might be
remembered that, in deriving this inequality, several seemingly innocuous assumptions were made regarding the
possibility of states being linked by a one-way adiabatic process or by both one-way and two-way adiabatic
processes but do such situations exist in reality? If they do, then the question asked by so many students remains
unanswered but, if a complete understanding of the physical situation is to be achieved, the answer must be found.
On top of all this, the question of what the entropy is physically remains. As noted earlier, there are
explanations offered within other areas of physics but, within thermodynamics where, in one sense, it first appeared,
no really satisfactory explanation has been offered as yet; any change in entropy is still viewed by many as simply
the ratio of an infinitesimal change in heat and the absolute temperature at which that change took place. Those of a
mathematical disposition may readily take refuge in this explanation; those dependent on a more directly physical
understanding of things are left pondering. It is a question deserving of an answer.

REFERENCES
1. P. G. Tait, Sketch of Thermodynamics, David Douglas, Edinburgh, 1877; P. G. Tait, Lectures on Physical Science,
Macmillan & Co., London, 1885; W. F. Magie, The Second Law of Thermodynamics, Kessinger Publishing, Whitefish, 1899.
2. P. T. Landsberg, Thermodynamics, Interscience, New York, 1961.
3. S. R. De Groot, Thermodynamics of Irreversible Processes, North Holland, Amsterdam, 1966.
4. J. Dunning-Davies, Concise Thermodynamics, Horwood, Chichester, 2007.
5. A. Munster, Classical Thermodynamics, Wiley, New York, 1970.
6. A. W. Porter, Thermodynamics, Methuen & Co., London, 1946.
7. D. R. Brookes & E. O. Wiley, Evolution as Entropy, Univ. Of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1988.
8. H. P. Yockey, Information Theory and Molecular Biology, C.U.P., Cambridge, 1992.
9. J. Dunning-Davies, Hadronic Journal, 24, 1 – 10 (2001).

APPENDIX: REVERSIBILITY, IRREVERSIBILITY, CLAUSIUS AND TAIT.

Although it is undoubtedly the case that the first major work leading eventually to the modern subject of
Thermodynamics was Sadi Carnot’s Reflexions on the Motive Power of Fire [1], the subject was brought to a wider
audience and put into a more immediately acceptable scientific form by the work of men such as Mayer, Thompson
and Clausius. Much of what they achieved is recorded in books by Clausius himself [2,3] and, as far as the British
contribution is concerned, by Tait [4,5]. Of course, many of the original papers are still in existence and two vitally
important ones, one by Clausius and the other by Thompson (Lord Kelvin), are reprinted in the book by Magie [1].
A detailed perusal of both versions of the Mechanical Theory of Heat by Clausius [2,3], as well as of two of
Tait’s books[4,5], leads to an understanding of the enormous confusion surrounding the notions of reversibility and
irreversibility, as well as that of entropy.
Clausius defines an irreversible cycle as one in which the sum of all entropy changes is not zero, whereas Tait
defines a reversible cycle as one in which the working fluid is either in contact with a body at the same temperature
as the working fluid or thermally isolated. These might be considered equivalent, but only if the entropy changes are
associated with the reservoir rather than the working fluid. This is an important distinction, because in places,
especially in his Sixth Memoir of 1862, Clausius refers to cycles in which some processes may be reversible, some
not and defines a reversible process as essentially what is called today a quasi-static process, associated with which
is an entropy increase in the working fluid. The justification for this does not seem to have a solid foundation, as
Clausius draws on dubious comparisons between the Carnot cycle and other processes; note not between the Carnot
cycle and other cycles, but between the Carnot cycle and other processes, leading to the impression that he may be
confusing cycles and processes. The Carnot cycle has the following properties:
1. Isothermal transitions occur,
2. The work done during the Carnot cycle is maximised, such that it represents the most work that
can possibly be obtained from an engine working between the two given temperatures.
Clausius appears to transfer these properties directly to individual processes, describing for example reversible
heat flow as occurring between two bodies at the same temperature. He acknowledges that, strictly, this cannot occur
but stresses that we can consider isothermal heat transfer to be the ideal case. By direct comparison almost, he then
describes reversible work as occurring at an internal pressure equal to the external pressure, whilst at the same time
admitting that, strictly, this cannot occur either. By undertaking work in this way, however, the work done by the gas
is maximised.
It is here that Clausius seems to reveal a confusion about the nature of energy that doesn’t appear to have been
recognised and it raises serious doubts about whether Clausius truly understood the first law in its most general
form; that is, that energy is conserved. Clausius writes that if a gas at pressure p1 expands against a gas at pressure
p2, the net work done is (p1-p2)dV, which of course is only possible if the excess energy is given to the piston.
Clausius makes no mention of this, and indeed doesn’t mention the piston at all. It may be that he recognises the
situation and simply hasn’t included it in the argument but, on the face of it, his argument is not physically correct. If
the kinetic energy imparted to the piston is taken into account the work done by the expanding gas is p1dV during
the expansion but something else in equilibrium as the energy of the piston is dissipated. The suspicion is that
Clausius doesn’t fully appreciate the nature of energy.
Similar doubts are raised about his concept of disgregation; this concept appears in his 1867 version of the
Mechanical Theory of Heat, but it appears to be entirely absent from Browne’s translation of the 1879 book of the
same name [2]. Although both books have the same name the later work, by over 20 years, has been re-ordered to
bring out the nature of the subject, whereas the earlier book is simply a reprinting of Clausius’ papers on the subject.
It is tempting to think that disgregation was not accepted by his peers and was therefore dropped by Clausius but,
whatever the reason, the omission of this idea from the later text only adds to the confusion because it is no longer
clear why Clausius takes the view that he does. Reading the later work, nothing stands out as being immediately
wrong, but in fact it was his thinking on disgregation that led Clausius to switch attention away from the reservoir to
the working fluid and this is the view that Clausius still seems to hold in the later work. Disgregation appears to
violate the first law, however. Clausius defined the change in the disgregation, dZ, as depending only on the final
and initial states of a gas rather than the work done to transform from one state to another. Hence, in the modern
notation

dW
dZ t (1)
T

The equality applies to a “reversible” process, which for Clausius meant a quasi-static process as this maximises the
work done.
For any process in an ideal gas, the First Law can be written as

dU  (dQ  dW ) 0 (2)

where here dW denotes an increment of work done by the system and is therefore negative. However, the total
entropy change, that is of both reservoir and body, was written by Clausius as

dU  dQ
 dZ t 0 (3)
T

For a free expansion dU, dQ, and dW are all identically zero but the entropy of the body, defined as dU
T
 dZ , is
greater then zero. Clausius justified this on the basis that in an irreversible cycle there exist what he called
“uncompensated” transformations, hence a non-zero entropy change, and so in an irreversible process there must
also be uncompensated transformations. Hence, in a quasi-static isothermal transformation, the entropy change in the
 dQ
reservoir, T
compensates the entropy change in the body, dZ, but in an irreversible process, for which
dZ t dW
T
the nett entropy change must be positive. Clausius has thus invented a quantity, TdZ, which is a property of
the body rather than the reservoir, has the units of energy but changes when the change in internal energy, the heat
flow, and the work done are all zero, and as such, lies outside the First Law.
If we look at Tait, on the other hand, he recognises, and discusses lucidly and at length, the concept of energy
and its conservation. His emphasis is very clearly on the reservoir, though he does refer to Rankine’s work in which
the entropy appears to be a function of the state of the gas. Incidentally, in describing both Clausius and Rankine,
Tait also makes the point that both are somewhat difficult to understand, a point borne out in Clausius’ case by the
failure to recognise his definition of entropy even though it was first published in 1862 and again in 1867.
Maxwell’s first edition of The Theory of Heat made no mention of Clausius’ definition of entropy and Clausius took
Maxwell to task in a letter to The Philosophical Magazine in 1872 [6] In this letter Clausius makes it clear in a way
which his Sixth Memoir does not what is meant by the entropy of the body. Later editions of Maxwell’s book
referred to entropy in these terms.
It’s not just Clausius’ writing style which is confusing, though, it is the very nature of his ideas. For example, one
gains the impression on reading Clausius that he believes that isothermal heat conduction is actually a reversible
process, rather than being one process in a reversible cycle. One also wonders how Clausius thinks about isothermal
heat flow in the context of the Carnot cycle. It should be clear from kinetic theory that the causal chain is as follows;
gas molecules collide with the piston, lose energy to it, thereby lower the temperature of the gas, leading to heat flow
from the reservoir. Isothermal heat flow in this context is an idealisation; it is effectively an assumption that the
thermal contact between reservoir and system is perfect, or at least so good that the delay between the loss of
internal energy to work on the piston and the subsequent replenishment of that energy by heat flow from the
reservoir is negligible. There is, therefore, no distinction between isothermal heat flow and normal heat flow.
Certainly at the kinetic level it has nothing to do with reversibility or irreversibility, so when Clausius talks about
cycles comprised of some reversible processes and some irreversible processes, one has to wonder, does he regard
isothermal heat flow as being somehow different from normal heat flow?
As we have described in the body of the paper, a precise definition of thermodynamic reversibility is
troublesome, but early writers on thermodynamics, including both Clausius and Tait, were quite clear as to which
processes were irreversible. Friction, heat conduction, and the free expansion were the three most commonly
described. Friction is self-evident. The free expansion can only occur in one direction. Heat conduction is more
problematic. We have seen Clausius’ peculiar view; Tait probably had in mind a loss of heat, but it is possible to
imagine reversible cycles in which heat conduction is intrinsic to their operation. This then leads to the interesting
question as to whether the entropy change is considered to occur in the reservoir or in the working fluid and brings
in to focus the distinction between a reversible cycle and a reversible cyclic process

P
adiabatics

2
4

3
1

FIGURE A1. Adiabatic transformations between in ideal gases at either constant pressure (4o2, 1o3) or at constant volume
(1o2)

Consider the following in figure A1: There are two adiabats. If entropy is a function of the state of a gas then the
transitions 1o2, 4o2 and 1o3 should all have the same entropy change. In fact, this is the case provided,
Ta dQ
x The entropy of the working fluid is defined as ³
Ta T
between points a and b.

x 1o2 occurs by constant volume heating

x 4o2 occurs by constant pressure heating
x 1o3 occurs by constant pressure heating

Therefore, any number of cycles may be envisaged involving these processes in which the sum of all entropy
changes in the working fluid is zero. Therefore these cycles are all reversible. Moreover, the speed at which these
processes occur doesn’t matter. It would appear, even, that the individual processes are reversible in the sense that
one is the reverse of the other. For example, 4o2 can be achieved simply be heating at constant pressure. Its reverse
is achieved by cooling at constant pressure. Unlike the free expansion, one is the reverse of the other.
To illustrate this point, consider the following cycles. A working fluid is cycled between two adiabatics, either
in the order 1o2o3o4o1 or in the order 1o3o5o4o1 (figure A2). The first involves heating at constant
volume and the second at constant pressure. The adiabatic stages, 2o3, 3o5, and 4o1 are all reversible and
require as much work in one direction as in the other. The constant volume stages, 1o2 and 3o4, as well as the
constant pressure stages 1o3 and 5o4, are also reversible in the sense that as much heat is required in one direction
as in another. Therefore the nett heat required to do work if the cycle is performed in the forward direction, as a heat
engine, is the same as the nett heat extracted from running the cycle in the other direction, as a refrigerator. As the
entropy changes sum to zero these are reversible cycles. As processes, however, these are reversible only if, as per
Tait, the reservoirs are at the same temperature as the working fluid throughout. If, for example, the reservoirs are at
T2 and T4 or T3 and T4 respectively for the forward (heat engine) cycle, the processes cannot simply be reversed
because in order to run the cycle in reverse it will be necessary to change the configuration of the reservoirs to T3
and T1 and T5 and T1 respectively. However they might be realised in practice, these cyclic processes would, by
Clausius’ theorem, be considered irreversible.
 P
2

FIGURE A2. Possible cycles using either constant pressure (1,3,5,4,1) or constant volume (1,2,3,4,1) stages

We may therefore distinguish between the cycles themselves and the cyclic processes by which the cycles may
be realised. The latter could be reversible or irreversible depending on the nature of the heat flow even if the cycle
itself is reversible. If, for example, in going from 1o2 the heating is achieved by connecting the working fluid to a
'Q
reservoir at temperature T2, the change in entropy of the reservoir, T2
is less than the change in entropy of the
T2 dQ
working fluid, ³ T1 T
. Likewise, if in going from 3o1 the reservoir is at T1, the change in entropy of the reservoir

is greater than the change in entropy of the working fluid. As the entropy change in the cold reservoir exceeds that
in the hot reservoir Clausius’ theorem holds. If we want the cyclic process to be reversible the working fluid must be
heated by a series of reservoirs at successively higher temperatures and cooled by a similar arrangement. Thus we
arrive at Tait’s view that for a reversible cycle, which we now understand to mean a process, the working fluid must
be in contact with bodies only at its own temperature. If not, heat conduction from a higher to a lower temperature
occurs and from the perspective of external entropy changes these must be regarded as irreversible processes.
Although the nett change in entropy within the reservoirs is negative for these irreversible configurations, it will
be apparent that entropy doesn’t play a significant role in the theory of such cycles. As with any engine the
efficiency depends on the ratio of heats transferred to and from the reservoirs and for these cycles this reduces to a
ratio of temperature differences as, assuming an ideal gas, the heat required in 1o2 is 32 Nk (T2  T1 ) and in 1o3 the
heat required is 5
2
Nk (T3  T1 ) . Unlike the Carnot cycle, which is also a reversible cyclic process, the relationship
between the heat exchanged with the reservoirs and the upper working temperatures is not straightforward. The
concept of entropy therefore adds nothing to a working description of such cycles. This leads to the thought that
perhaps one of the reasons entropy has assumed such prominence in the development of thermodynamics might well
be because attention has focused on the Carnot cycle. Here the reservoir is at the same temperature as the working
fluid so the entropy changes in the reservoir are identical to those in the working fluid and the efficiency can be
expressed in terms of a ratio of reservoir temperatures.
There is a more significant point about entropy in relation to the Carnot cycle, however, and that is that the point
at which the contact with the reservoir ceases in the Carnot cycle is not as well defined as it is in the cycles described
above. These operate between either well defined volumes or equally well defined pressures, and as the temperatures
are also well defined, so are the various states at the end of the different individual stages. Within the Carnot cycle,
however, the point at which the reservoir is removed and the adiabatic expansion or compression begins is defined
by the entropy change in the reservoir. This might not be immediately apparent as Clausius put forward the view that
the cycle must be executed quasi-statically. Therefore, the transition points in the cycle would appear to occur at
well defined states but in fact there is a difficulty with this view. Carnot was concerned with modelling an engine but
a quasi-static process cannot develop power. In fact, as we have described in a companion paper, it is possible to
execute the cycle non-statically. The transition from isothermal process to adiabatic, or vice versa, occurs at some
point within the piston stroke. This point is defined by the entropy and nothing else. The entropy must be the same in
both isothermal arms of the cycle so the working fluid is simply compressed, or expanded, until the entropy changes
balance out. Numerical simulations of a Carnot engine bear this out [7]. In the Carnot cycle, therefore, the entropy is
central to the operation of the engine, but in other cycles it would appear that it is not important. This might be a
point worthy of further contemplation.
The preceding comparison between Clausius and Tait has led to a working definition of the difference between a
cycle and a cyclic process, the latter being the way that the cycle is achieved, either in practice or in principle. A
reversible cycle is one in which the entropy changes in the working fluid sum to zero. A reversible cyclic process is
one in which the entropy changes in the reservoir sum to zero. As described above, we can have a reversible cycle
without a reversible cyclic process but we can make the process reversible by the correct configuration of the
reservoirs. Therefore, Clausius’ definition of a reversible cycle corresponds to a definition of a reversible cyclic
process in which the entropy changes in the reservoir rather than the working fluid sum to zero. Given the obvious
importance of the entropy changes in the reservoir, we might well ask, then, why did Clausius place the emphasis on
the entropy of the working fluid?
It is clear from reading Clausius that he was exercised from an early stage by what he called “internal work”. In
his Sixth Memoir of 1862 he sought to extend the ideas developed from consideration of cycles to so-called
irreversible processes as a means of understanding this internal work. His exemplar was the free expansion, which
was the only intrinsically irreversible adiabatic process in gases. It is irreversible in a qualitatively different way
from both friction or heat conduction. Friction and heat conduction render a process irreversible as the energy
needed to overcome these losses has to be supplied by the reservoirs. This energy represents a change in entropy
which is not mirrored by the change in entropy of the working fluid. The latter will still sum to zero around the cycle
as the gas changes from one well defined state to another and needs a definite amount of heat to do it. Hence the
cycle will still be reversible whereas the cyclic process will not. The free expansion can also be regarded as an
irreversible process as the original state cannot be restored without extracting heat. The question is, do the entropy
changes in the working fluid sum to zero?
Imagine, for example, a Carnot cycle in which the isothermal expansion is replaced by a free expansion . The
four points on the graph that define the limits of the cycle remain unchanged. As described above, the process is
irreversible as defined by the entropy changes in the reservoir. However, it is also physically irreversible. In the
forward direction the process of expansion is achieved by removing a partition or opening a valve and the
subsequent compression is achieved by doing work and ejecting heat to a reservoir. This process, that is, the free
expansion, cannot be reversed, however, in contrast to the cycles described above where, regardless of the manner of
heating, both isochoric and isobaric heating are simply reversed and become respectively isobaric and isochoric
cooling. If we assume, however, that entropy increases during the free expansion, as Clausius suggested and as is
commonly understood, then the entropy changes around the cycle sum to zero. By the arguments presented above,
this would imply that the cycle is reversible, which is not the case.
The purpose of this appendix was to compare the writings of Clausius and Tait, contemporaries and sometimes
antagonists of each other, and discuss their seemingly different definitions of reversibility. We have shown that the
two are equivalent only if we consider the entropy change in the reservoir rather than the working fluid. We have
also described how Clausius’ thinking on the free expansion, specifically his concept of disgregation and the
definition that entropy should be a state function, was omitted from his later book. Quite possibly this has led to the
present state of thermodynamics where an increase in the entropy of a body is understood to occur during
irreversible adiabatic processes. We have shown in the body of this paper, and also using the arguments of Clausius
himself, that such an entropy increase implies an exchange of energy which is not accounted for by the First Law. To
these we have now added the distinction between a reversible cycle and a reversible cyclic process, with the latter
implying that the entropy change in the reservoir is more important than the entropy change in the body. Finally, we
have argued that any cycle which includes as one of its stages the free expansion is both an irreversible cycle and an
irreversible cyclic process. The implications of all these for the nature of entropy changes during an irreversible
adiabatic process are surely something else in need of further thought.
 REFERENCES FOR APPENDIX.

1. W. F. Magie, The Second Law of Thermodynamics, Kessinger Publishing, Whitefish, 1899.

2. R. Clausius, The Mechanical Theory of Heat, ed. T Archer Hirst, John Van Voorst, London, 1867.
3. R. Clausius, The Mechanical Theory of Heat, trans. W. R. Browne, Macmillan & Co., London, 1879.
4. P. G. Tait, Sketch of Thermodynamics, David Douglas, Edinburgh, 1877.
5. P. G. Tait, Lectures on Physical Science, Macmillan & Co., London, 1885.
6. R. Clausius, A Contribution to the History of the Mechanical Theory of Heat, trans. The Philosophical Magazine, 43, p106
(1872).
7. David Sands and Jeremy Dunning-Davies, Advances In The Thermodynamics Of Ideal Gases By Means Of Computer
Simulations, paper presented at Vigier VII, London, July 2010, this volume.
 Advances in the Thermodynamics of Ideal Gases
by Means of Computer Simulations
a a
David Sands and Jeremy Dunning-Davies
a
Dept. of Physical Sciences (Physics) , University of Hull, Hull, UK

Abstract. Irreversible thermodynamic processes in ideal gases are investigated by computer simulations of the
compound piston. A hard-sphere model of the gas on either side of a compound piston shows that damping occurs
naturally without invoking extraneous mechanisms such as friction. Inter-particle collisions are identified as being
responsible, as these redistribute the particle energies by altering all the components of momentum. In collisions
with the piston, on the other hand, only the component of particle momentum in the direction of the piston motion
is affected. Thus inter-particle collisions effectively dissipate the energy of the piston. These ideas are then
incorporated into a simpler, one dimensional model based on kinetic theory in which all the particles have the same
initial energy and inter-particle collisions are simulated by randomly adjusting the energy distribution. Varying the
rate of energy redistribution alters the rate of decay of the piston motion. In addition, this simple model allows
thermal interactions with the walls of the vessel to be simulated easily, and we observe a second mechanism of
damping due to delayed heating and cooling. These ideas lead directly to a macroscopic formulation of
thermodynamics in terms of rate equations. The models give an insight into the micro-dynamical origins of
irreversibility in ideal gases and allow the thermodynamics of these irreversible processes to be investigated. We
find surprisingly simple relationships between the volume changes and characteristic pressures in the system.
Finally, we apply these idea s to the Carnot cycle and show that a dynamic cycle is executed if the piston is allowed
to move under alternately ideal isothermal and adiabatic conditions. In this dynamic Carnot cycle not only is work
done but power is developed through the motion of the piston. The implications for classical thermodynamics are
discussed briefly.
Keywords:Thermodynamics, classical ideal gas, compound piston, irreversible process, Carnot cycle, Clausius.
PACS: 05.70a; 05.70Ln; 07.05Tp

INTRODUCTION
The division of thermodynamics into reversible and irreversible domains seems somewhat strange on the face of
it. Logically, one should be a natural development of the other, but the two use different methods and only the
concept of entropy is common to them. Even here, though, there is a distinction. Irreversible thermodynamics is
characterized by entropy production, which is nothing other than an increase in this quantity even when there is no
external heat flow. Reversible thermodynamics, on the other hand, is characteriz ed by a clear identification of
entropy with the ratio of heat transferred to the temperature at which the transfer occurs and the net change in any
transformation is zero. Yet, reversible thermodynamics is not without its own difficulties, not least of which is a
satisfactory definition of reversible. We have described in a companion paper [1] some of the difficulties associated
with defining thermodynamic reversibility and we have shown as well that the concept of entropy increase in
adiabatic systems raises difficulties with respect to the First Law. We tackle a further difficulty in this paper, and
that is the insistence in reversible thermodynamics that processes be undertaken quasi-statically. Therefore
reversible thermodynamics is, by definition, incapable of handling dynamic systems. Consider, for example, the
simple example of a cylinder with a moveable partition displaced to one side so that there are unequal pressures in
the two sides. Whether treated adiabatically or isothermally the piston will simply oscillate ad infinitum.
Callen [2] has described the approach to equilibrium of a composite system separated by a movable diathermal
wall and shown that the entropy maximisation principle leads to the final condition that
 P1 P2
− =0 (1)
T1 T2

Here P and T represent the pressure and temperature respectively and the subscripts refer to the subsystem. Callen
then makes the comment that the ostensibly simpler system of a movable adiabatic wall is a subtle problem lacking
a unique physical answer. Nonetheless a treatment of the problem is attempted in an appendix, but comes unstuck
because the adiabatic conditions imply zero entropy change. In Callen’s words, “the sudden disappearance of the
quantity dS halfway through our calculation certainly prevents the continuation of the analysis”. The principle of
entropy maximisation, even if correct, does not readily allow a general solution of the difficulty. In fact, even the
apparent success of the technique for a diathermal wall is misleading as it only tells us the final state were the piston
to come to rest. How it comes to rest is another matter entirely, although Callen invokes viscous damping as a likely
mechanism for dissipating the kinetic energy of the piston. As Callen points out, this places the problem outside the
realms of classical thermodynamics. Moreover, the solution is not unique to entropy maximisation, but could quite
easily be realised through simple physical arguments, assuming that the piston does in fact come t o rest; the fact of a
diathermal wall implies equality of temperatures and Newton’s second law of motion implies equality of pressures.
That the compound piston, and indeed any piston, is a mechanical system has been obscured by the historical
development of thermodynamics, which followed the general principles on which other areas of mathematical
physics were developed. That is, infinitesimal changes in quantities of interest were defined and integrated over
larger intervals. This approach is very apparent in the work of Clausius, for example. The difficulty in
thermodynamics is that, whilst PdV represents the work done by, or on, a gas over an infinitesimal change in
volume, the integral over a larger volume change does not take into account the kinetic energy of the piston.
Following Clausius classical thermodynamics has eliminated this last quantity by assuming that the external and
internal pressures are equal and therefore the process occurs quasi-statically. Clausius had come to the conclusion
that irreversibility is associated with “perceptible” external motion [3] which he then eliminated through the idea of
an infinitely slow change of state. The contradictions in Clausius’ thinking have never, to the authors’ knowledge,
been pointed out, but they are quite staggering. In 1850 Clausius reworked Carnot’s ideas and published a memoir
on the motive power of heat [4]. Only twelve years later he had come to the view that a reversible process must be
performed quasi-statically, though he never used this phr ase [3]. As the Carnot cycle is reversible, and to Clausius
this implied that every stage within the cycle must also be reversible, the only conclusion is that the Carnot cycle
must be performed quasi-statically. This negates the idea of the motive power o f heat. Carnot’s aim was to develop a
model of a heat engine, but a quasi-static engine cannot develop power and could not in any way be said to represent
the engines being developed at that time to pump water from mines or to drive machinery. It would seem that the
whole of classical, so-called “reversible” thermodynamics has been built on the assumption of a particular physical
process, the quasi-static process, which can happen only in the most carefully controlled circumstances and in any
case might be inappropriate.
The use of entropy maximisation to solve this problem might also be inappropriate, but there are still plenty of
reports of it in the literature. Many of them are far removed from physical descriptions of a simple thermo-
mechanical system. For example Curzon assumed a “frictionless, weightless piston” [5] which of course cannot be
subject to Newton’s 2nd law. Curzon and Leff [6] fixed the piston position but then relaxed the constraint for an
“infinitesimal time interval”, after which the constraint was re-imposed and the system allowed to establish
equilibrium. Others have suggested that a definite piston velocity should be associated with damping [7] but have
failed to realise that the way around this is to assume a very heavy piston. By Newton’s 2nd law,

d
( P1 − P2 ). A = m p (v p ) (2)
dt

where A is the area and m p and vp are the mass and velocity of the piston, a heavy piston will be subject to a very
small acceleration. Consequently one would expect the final state to be dependent on the mass of the piston, which
is not physically sensible. The greatest difficulty with all these treatments, however, is what Callen referred to as the
so-called “energy closure condition”. This relates the change in internal energy in one side of the piston to the other
by the relation
dU i = − Pi dVi (3)

where i=1,2 refers to the subsystem. This necessarily implies that the pressures are already equal as the change in
volume, dV, is identical on either side of the piston. There are in fact only two possible outcomes to the adiabatic
piston problem; either an internal damping mechanism exists, such as the hydrodynamic damping suggested by
Callen, or it is necessary to invoke an external mechanism like friction. If the mechanism is entirely internal then
energy conservation requires that the kinetic energy must be redistributed evenly between the two sides so that the
net work done by one gas is equal to the net work done on the other. If the mechanism is external energy will be lost
to the outside world, but even so there will be a definite amount of work done by one side and a definite amount of
work done on the other. These considerations alone will determine the final state, because the change in internal
energy will determine the final temperature. As the pressures must be equal, the respective volumes will be given.
The only difficulty is to find the damping mechanism and to investigate the relationship between the work done and
change in volume.
Within this paper we shall show by means if kinetic simulations that the damping mechanisms are surprisingly
simple. A 3-D hard-sphere model of an ideal gas will be used to simulate the adiabatic piston. A simpler 1-D
representation will be used to simulate the thermal interaction with the environment. These results will then be used
to develop a macroscopic model based on rate equations which will be used to shed light on the conditions for
reversibility in ideal gases and finally the model will be used to simulate the Carnot cycle. We will show that a
dynamic Carnot cycle, as opposed to a quasi-static cycle, can both do work and develop power.

THE ADIABATIC COMPOUND PISTON

A HARD-SPHERE MODEL

We imagine a cylinder of cross-section A and length 2L with its axis lying along the x direction, divided by a
frictionless piston of mass m p located at a position 0≤d p≤L . We assume an ideal gas with a total of N=200 particles
on either side of the piston. The particles are modelled as hard spheres with the mass of a He atom and an
exaggerated radius of the order of L/100 to enable a relatively high frequency of collisions between particles. These
are elastic and occur if two particles approach closer than one atomic diameter. If the particles are also assumed to
collide elastically with the walls then according to Boltzmann’s H-theorem a random distribution of initial velocities
will eventually evolve into a Maxwellian speed distribution comprising Gaussian distributions in the x, y, and z
3
directions. Each particle is therefore ass igned the same initial kinetic energy ( 2 kT ), but with a randomly generated
direction of motion. The piston is assumed to an ideal, plane surface which is fixed in position until the Maxwell-
Boltzmann speed distribution has been attained. At this point the piston is allowed to move.
For convenience, collisions between atoms and the piston are modelled in the laboratory frame rather than the
centre of mass frame as only the momentum in the direction of piston motion is important. If the two bodies
involved in the collision are i and j, with masses m i,j and initial velocities ui,j the final velocities vi,j are

( mi − m j ) m ju j
vi = ui +2 (4)
(mi + m j ) ( mi + m j )

For the purposes of these calculations we take mp =104 × m a. The time interval is adjusted so that in general we need
consider only a single collision with the piston at any one time. When more than one particle impinges on the piston
in a single time step the collisions are treated separately in the order in which the particles arrive at the piston.
Figure 1 shows the time evolution of the piston position for T=300K, L =1m and a sphere radius of 0.03L.
Starting at 0.2s from an initial position of 0.8m, the piston moves under the unequal pressures and as with similar
hard disc models, the piston motion never ceases. The average position of the piston is shown by the solid line at
0.9203m. Figure 2 shows a similar trace for a radius of 0.01L . The average piston position, 0.9209m, is very similar
but the motion appears to be different. Whereas the motion in figure 1 is, at times, almost periodic but clearly with a
random amplitude, it is harder to discern any such patterns in the motion in figure 2. Simulations run over longer
time scales do not alter this pattern. As the only consequence of a smaller sphere radius is a difference in the rate of
inter -particle collisions, we have performed a number of simulations in which the particles are allowed to thermalise
initially to establish the Maxwell velocity distribution but at some time during the piston motion the inter-particle
collisions are switched off. Figures 3 and 4 show two such simulations. In figure 3, corresponding to the conditions
in figure 1, the inter-particle collisions are switched off at the same time as the piston is allowed to move. It seems
that if there are no inter -particle collisions from the outset the piston periodically returns to its starting position,
which clearly corresponds to the ideal adiabatic case considered by Callen. This behaviour is completely different
from that seen in figures 1 and 2 and indicates that inter-particle collisions play a crucial role in damping down the
piston motion.

FIGURE 1. The time evolution of the piston position at T=300K, for a chamber of length L=1m and a sphere radius of
0.03L.

FIGURE 2. A similar trace as in figure 1 but for a radius of 0.01 L. The average piston position is very similar but the motion
appears to be more random
 FIGURE 3. Under the same conditions as in figure 1, the inter-particle collisions are switched off at the same time as the
piston is allowed to move at 0.2s.

FIGURE 4. Using a radius of 0.005L, the piston is allowed to move at 0.2s and the inter-particle collisions are switched off
at 0.35 s. Note the regular oscillations after this time.

In figure 4, corresponding to a radius of 0.005 L the piston is allowed to move at 0.2s and the inter-particle
collisions are switched off at 0.35 s. Again it is apparent that for a smaller sphere radius the piston motion appears to
be more random, as shown between 0.2s and 0.35s., but much more striking is the appearance of regular, ie.
periodic, but undamped oscillations. The piston motion has clearly damped down after its release at 0.2s and is
subject to random fluctuations about its means position. As soon as the inter-particle collisions are switched off,
however, the system clearly becomes conservative and the piston oscillates around some characteristic position the
piston has assumed at that time.
To our knowledge this mechanism of damping in ideal gases has not previously been recognised. It is only in
recent years that microscopic computer models of the compound piston have appeared in the literature and though
models using 2-D hard disc fluids clearly show damping the mechanism does not seem to have been identified. Yet,
the mechanism is undoubtedly the same and easily explained. Inter-particle collisions have the effect of transferring
energy from the direction of motion of the piston to the orthogonal directions. That is to say, although energy is not
a vector we may usefully write

pix2
Ex = ∑ 2m
i
(5)

Here pix is the component of momentum in the x direction for the i th atom of mass mi. Similar expressions exists for
the y and z directions. In a collision between two atoms, say i, j, any change in pix is accompanied by an equal and
opposite change in pjx so that the sum of the momenta in each of the directions remains unchanged. However, Ex can
change and there will be compensating changes in both Ey and Ez. In effect energy is scattered out of the direction of
motion of the piston and is no longer available to drive the piston.
Illuminating though the hard-sphere model is, we have used a simpler model to investigate the consequences for
therm odynamics. In part this is because the computational precision within this model (to six decimal places)
requires that we use a piston of relatively small mass. Therefore the piston never attains a state of rest and its
position can only be determined on average. We are constructing a different model which has greater precision and
will use a larger number of particles, but this increases the computational time and doesn’t overcome a second
difficulty, which is that the equation of state for a hard sphere fluid is not the same as that for an ideal gas [8 ].
Necessarily the sphere must have a non-zero diameter but this alters both the pressure and the dynamics of the
piston. Some general trends are evident, but is not clear how these relate to thermodynamics. For example, for a
given sphere radius the final pressure, as calculated by the average rate of change of particle momentum at the
piston, appears to be independent of the starting position of the piston. For the situation in figure 1 the final pressure
is 1.049×10-18 Pa and the same value, to within less than 1%, is obtained for other starting positions. In addition, the
energy lost by the fluid on one side of the piston is found to be identical to the energy gained on the other side,
notwithstanding the residual kinetic energy of the piston, and to within 3-4% this is found to be equivalent to the
product of the final pressure and the volume change (figure 5). In order to investigate these phenomena further we
have constructed a simpler model of the compound piston based on the average properties of the atoms, as given by
kinetic theory. This not only allows independent control of the relaxation rate but also greatly simplifies modelling
thermal interactions with a wall.

FIGURE 5. The energy in the gases on either side of the piston as a function of time. The dashed lines correspond to the
product of the final pressure and the change in volume.
 A KINETIC MODEL

This model is based on the idea commonly found in undergraduate texts that if 1/6th of the particles of a gas will
be travelling in the positive x-direction and impact upon a wall the rate of change of momentum, ie the pressure, can
be shown to be equivalent to

p = 23 n[ 12 m(v ) 2 ] (6)

Here n is the density of particl es. Whereas in a real gas there would be n=3N particles moving in all directions we
consider only N particles moving in either the positive or negative directions of one dimension. Each particle is
initially assigned the mean speed as defined by kinetic theory but both its position and the direction of its motion,
either left or right, are assigned randomly. The model proceeds by calculating the shortest flight time to the piston
among the particles on both sides of the piston. As the positions of all the particles are moved on, the position of this
particle becomes coincident with the piston. The velocities of both the particle and the piston are adjusted according
to the laws governing elastic collisions and the next particle to collide with the piston is identified. In this way only
one collision at a time is considered.
The redistribution of particle energy among the orthogonal modes is decided through probability. Each time the
particle positions are updated after a collision with the piston a random number is generated and if this number is
less than an arbitrary number specified at the start of the programme a further random number is generated which
identifies a particle. This particle effectively undergoes a scattering event and has its energy redistributed in the
following way. Each of our N particles has associated with it two virtual particles travelling laterally. They are
virtual because they are needed to account for the thermodynamic properties of the gas but are not actually included
in the model. However, we keep track of their energy, which is initially the same as the energy of each of the N
particles in our model. When a particle is identified by the random number generator we simply add the energy of
the particle to that of its two virtual counterparts and take a third of this as the new particle energy. Over a
sufficiently large number of piston collisions the kinetic energy of the particles is equally partitioned over the three
orthogonal directions. The saving in computational time due to the simplicity of this model can be offset against a
heavier piston mass and a larger number of particles. We chose N=1000 and a piston mass 108 times the mass of the
atom.

FIGURE 6. The evolution of the piston position with time for a piston startin g at 0.8 cm in a cylinder of total length 2cm and
a random redistribution rate averaged at 1 scattering event in 260 piston collisions.
 Figure 6 shows the evolution of the piston position over time for a piston starting at 0.8 cm in a cylinder of total
length 2cm and a random redistribution rate averaged at 1 event in 260 piston collisions. The purpose of this model
is not to represent the dynamics of the piston motion, as the simplicity of the assumptions will not allow it, but
instead to determine the final conditions. These turn out to be independent of the rate of redistribution of energy.
The final piston position is 0.92cm, which, allowing for the difference in units, is identical to the final position in the
hard sphere model. The heavier piston mass inhibits the random motions associated with the hard sphere model and
we can be more confident about both the final position and the change in energy. Performing similar calculations
with a range of starting positions within a 2cm cylinder we find the final positions to be the same as the average
positions in the hard sphere model, but more importantly we confirm the two other findings;
• first, that the final pressure is independent of starting position for a fixed cylinder length
• second, that the work done is equivalent to the product of the final pressure and the change in volume.

THERMAL DAMPING IN THE COMPOUND PISTON

In the preceding model the collisions with the fixed walls were modelled elastically. That is, the momentum of
the particle is simply reversed if it is found to lie outside the dimensions of the compound piston. In order to model
inelastic collisions the particle’s velocity needs to be altered by some amount related to the temperature of the wall.
If the particles possess a range of velocities as a result of collisions with other particles as well as the piston, as is the
case with the hard-sphere model, identifying the correct change of velocity at the fixed wall which will self-
consistently re-establish thermal equilibrium with the wall is complicated. If the particles all start with the same
velocity, however, as is done in the kinetic model, the problem is greatly simplified. If v wall is the velocity the
particle would have if the gas were at the temperature of the wall, then a particle impinging on the wall at a velocity
u will be reflected with a velocity

v = −[u + α (v wall − u)]. (7)

Here, 0=a=1 is an arbitrary constant. If a=0 the collisions with the wall are elastic but if a=1 the particle
immediately achieves the velocity consistent with the temperature of the wall after a single collision and the change
in volume due to the motion of the piston is effectively isothermal. For all other values of a the system eventually
establishes thermal equilibrium with the wall, but at a rate which differs from the rate at which work is done.
In our previous adiabatic simulations we have randomly redistributed the energy in order to simulate inter-
particle collisions. This is omitted here. Unlike the adiabatic case, where such redistribution is essential if the gas is
to achieve a state of equilibrium, the exchange of energy with the wall ultimately assures that equilibrium is reached
as the mean particle energy is returned to is original value.
We have demonstrated that in the absence of inter-particle scattering, or equivalently a random redistribution of
energy into the orthogonal modes, the adiabatic piston will oscillate indefinitely. We find the same in the present
model for a=0. By contrast, figure 7 shows the piston motion in an identical system comprising a cylinder 0.02 m
long (L=0.01 m) with an initial piston position=0.008 m and N=1000 on each side of the piston, but with a=1. Quite
clearly the oscillations decay. If left long enough the piston would eventually settle at the midpoint located at 0.01
m. This is not what would be expected from macroscopic thermodynamics, where there is nothing to cause damping
of the piston motion. Energy would simply be transferred to and from reservoir to system at the same rate as work is
done so the pressure at any given instant would be given by the equation of state of the ideal gas. The piston would
therefore oscillate back and forth, but in the kinetic model presented here the energy transfer from the reservoir is
not instantaneous. Even for a=1 there is a delay between the exchange of energy at the piston and the exchange with
the reservoir at the opposite end of the cylinder. On the high pressure side driving the piston where the particle
velocity is reduced by its interaction with the piston, this enhances the delay. On the other, low pressure side, the
delay is shortened by the interaction with the piston. This alteration to the rate of arrival of particles at the piston is
equivalent to reducing the driving pressure and increasing the opposing pressure relative to ideal gas equation and in
consequence the piston motion is damped.
At the kinetic level, then, there can be no such thing as a truly isothermal process, even if, as is the case for a =
1, the particles attain their equilibrium speed on interaction with the wall. In reality, in addition to transit-time
effects, the rate at which energy is exchanged at the wall will also play a part. This is represented by the condition 0
< a < 1. By a similar argument increased damping can be expected. Not only will the flight time from piston to wall
be altered, but the energy change at the piston will not be entirely reversed on reflection from the wall. As the piston
reverses its motion and begins to compress the cooled gas heat will still be entering the system from the wall. The
pressure will rise at a faster rate than expected from compression alone. Likewise, on the other side of the piston the
hot gas will still be losing heat to the wall and the pressure will drop at a faster rate than expected from expansion
alone. This combination of lower driving pressure and higher resistive pressure causes the damping.

FIGURE 7. Thermal damping with a=1 in a cylinder 0.02 m long with an initial piston position=0.008 m and N=1000 on
each side of the piston.

In fact we find that the damping varies with a in quite a complicated way. As expected, damping increases as a
is reduced to approximately 0.01, but decreases again for still smaller values. By way of example, figure 8 shows the
piston position over time for three different values of a very close to critical damping. For large values of a the
piston overshoots, and oscillates about, the equilibrium position, as illustrated for a = 1 in figure 8. For much
smaller values of a the pressure opposing the piston motion increases rapidly due to the slow rate of heat loss and
limits the piston’s travel. As the pressures relax over time the piston gradually approaches the equilibrium position
with each subsequent oscillation.
It is noticeable in figures 7 and 8 that the piston settles at the midpoint of the cylinder, regardless of the damping.
This is only to be expected in a system that can exchange energy with the reservoir Unlike the adiabatic system, in
which the final piston position can only be determined with reference to the work done, equality of both the final
temperatures and pressures fixes the final position. More surprising, however, is the finding that the value of a has
no effect on the work done. Figure 9 shows the evolution of the work done as measured by the product of the change
in particle momentum at the piston and the piston velocity averaged over a given time interval. This final value of
the work done has also been compared with the energy exchanged at the walls through inelastic collisions and has
been found to agree to within 1%. As with the adiabatic piston, we find that the work done is equivalent to the
product of the final pressure and the volume change.
This suggests that the right hand side of the piston can be replaced by a constant pressure and the same work will
be done in achieving equilibrium. A constant pressure was simulated by ensuring a constant flux of particles at
constant mean velocity incident on the piston. The N particles on the right were distributed randomly over a length
l0 determined by the desired pressure and any particle colliding with the piston was removed from the calculation
and replaced by another ent ering the system a distance l0 away from the piston. In this way a constant, but random
flux of particles impacted with the piston. Figure 10 shows the work done against initial piston position for three
temperatures, 300 K, 275 K, and 250 K for closed sy stems as well as the work done by a piston expanding into
constant pressure. Also shown in figure 10 are the straight lines of best fit. As can be seen, the work done in open
and closed systems are identical and the slopes of the lines of best fit correspond to the final pressures at these
temperatures.
 FIGURE 8. The piston position over time close to critical thermal damping

FIGURE 9. The evolution of the work done as measured by the product of the change in particle momentum at the piston
and the piston velocity averaged over a given time interval
 FIGURE 10. The work done against initial piston position for three temperatures, 300 K, 275 K, and 250 K for closed
systems () as well as the work done by a piston expanding into constant pressure ()

A MACROSCOPIC MODEL OF THE COMPOUND PISTON BASED ON RATE

EQUATIONS

These mechanisms of damping can be modelled macroscopically using rate equations. As before, the cylinder is
of length 2L and is divided by a piston located instantaneously at xp. The piston is moving with a velocity v p which
can be either positive or negative, and heat flows into the cylinder from the ends only. Taking the gas in the left
hand side of the piston only, at any instant the mean energy per particle is

E = 12 m (v x2 + v y2 + v z2 ) = Ex + Ey + Ez (8)

If there are N particles we can therefore define the total energy associated with motion in the x direction as

Ex = NEx (9)
Ex has the same meaning as in equation (5). Assuming an ideal gas, the total internal energy is therefore

U = Ex + E y + Ez (10)
Equilibrium is defined by equi-partition of the internal energy, ie.

Ex = E y = Ez = 13 U (11)

Apply this now to the rate at which work is done. In equilibrium thermodynamics this is given by P.dV, but
pressure, like temperature, is strictly defined only for equilibrium conditions. In deriving the equation of state for an
ideal gas from kinetic theory, an implicit assumption is made that energy is equally partitioned between the three
orthogonal directions. In other words, it is implicitly assumed that the gas is in equilibrium. It is not surprising,
therefore, that in attempting to use an equilibrium formulation in non -equilibrium situations leads to physically
unrealistic solutions, such as an indefinite oscillation of the compound piston. It is necessary to define one
dimensional equivalent temperatures and pressures applicable to the non-equilibrium nature of the problem.
Recognising equation (12) as the equilibrium condition, the ideal gas equation can be expressed as

PV = 23 U = 2 E x (12)
Therefore

PV = P. A.x p = F.x p = 2Ex (13)

The rate at which work is done is therefore

dWp dxp 2 Ex
=F = v (14)
dt dt xp p

The quantity Ex can be affected by two other processes. First, inter-particle collisions will scatter energy into both
the y and z directions. If the system is symmetrical these two terms will be identical and equal to

dE xz U
= α z ( − Ez ) (15)
dt 3

Here U is the instantaneous total energy given by (11) and the constant,α z, is a variable parameter equivalent to an
inverse time constant. Thus, for example, if Ez< 13 U energy is scattered out of the x-direction and into the z-
direction. Second, heat is assumed to flow in from the external walls, but we restrict ourselves to the wall opposite
the piston so that only Ex is affected directly.
The one-dimensional rate of heat flow can be defined as

dQ1 D Nk
= α h B (Twall − Tx ) (16)
dt 2

where Twall is the wall temperature and is equal to the starting temperature of the gas, αh, is again a variable
parameter equivalent to an inverse time constant and Tx can be defined from kinetic theory as

2 Ex
Tx = . (17)
Nk B
Tx is the effective temperature associated with motion in the x-direction and is greater than, or less than, the
equilibrium temperature of the gas according to whether Ex is greater than, or less than, U3 . The quantity ½Nk B
is the heat capacity in one dimension. Under these two assumptions, namely that:
1. heat flows into the system from the end wall only and that only the x component of velocity is affected by
inelastic collisions with the walls;
2. the collisions with the piston are perfectly elastic and that only the x component of velocity is affected,
then

dE x dQ1 D dW p dE xy dE xz
= −. − − (18)
dt dt dt dt dt

These four terms represent respectively the rate of heat flow into the left hand side, taken as positive if heat enters
the system, the rate of work done at the piston, taken as positive if work is done by the gas, and the rate of
scattering, by inter-particle collisions, of energy from Ex into both Ey and Ez . These equations can be solved
numerically by a simple forward difference time-step, with the time-step, δt, being reduced until a stable solution is
achieved. Then, the heat entering the system is
 Nk B
δQ1 D = α hδt (Twall − Tx ) (19)
2

from which it is evident that αh δt≤ 1. Similarly, α zδt≤1. These restrictions aside, both α h and αz are properties
of the gas and its interaction with its surroundings and are therefore independent of δt. In as much as they are
unknown, however, they can be varied at will.

FIGURE 11. Thermal relaxation with a low rate of heat exchange, αh =10. The centre of the oscillation drifts slowly
upwards and the piston settles at 0.01

We consider first thermal damping only. In order to allow comparison with our kinetic models we chose a
system 2.0 cm in length with the piston located initially at 0.8 cm. The mass per unit area of the piston is 2.7×10-2 kg
m -2 and the starting temperature on both sides of the piston is 300 K. This also defines the wall temperature in
equation (17). For the purposes of demonstrating thermal damping we set the product αz δt=1, which ensures that
energy is equally partitioned among the orthogonal degrees of freedom throughout the simulation. Figure 11 shows
the effects of a low rate of heat exchange, αh =10. The centre of the oscillation drifts slowly upwards to 1.0 as the
heat slowly relaxes the system and the piston finally comes to rest after some 10 s. At α h =100 a similar shape to the
envelope is apparent but the oscillations last but a tenth of the time. At α h=1000 there is no apparent rise in the
central position, just an exponential relaxation to the equilibrium position. At higher values of αh, the motion is very
similar to that seen in figure 7. The motion decays exponentially, but with a much longer relaxation time until at
α hδt=1 the system oscillates indefinitely. Thus the effect of heat flow on the decay characteristics is very similar to
the behaviour observed in the kinetic model.
Figure 12 shows a comparison between the kinetic model and macroscopic model for adiabatic systems. The
solid lines refer to open systems in which the external pressure is constant during the expansion (bottom curve) and
compression (top curve). In the simulations on compression the piston is set at an initial posit ion of 1.3 cm with the
cylinder length varying from 1.4 cm to 2.4 cm and the work done in the larger chamber, which is undergoing
compression, is monitored. Both the macroscopic model and the kinetic model approximate to the open systems for
the larger cylinder lengths but both deviate from it for shorter cylinders. At the shorter cylinder length of 1.4 cm,
the piston equilibrates at 0.969 cm, which corresponds to a volume change of only 25% for the compression. For the
expansion on the other side of the piston, however, the volume change is over 300% and possibly this is responsible
for the deviation. In the macroscopic model there is some dependence on the value of α z but the effect is small and
only noticeable at these short cylinder lengths. The bottom curve corresponds to expansion from a starting position
of 0.8 cm and total cylinder lengths from 1.8 cm to 3.2 cm. The maximum volume change is 60% but the closed
systems remain equivalent to open systems.
 FIGURE 12. A comparison between the kinetic and macroscopic models for both open and closed systems under both
compression and expansion. The solid lines are the best fit to the open systems at constant external pressure.

CONSEQUENCES FOR THERMODYNAMICS

The preceding work on the adiabatic compound piston has highlighted two important, but previously
unrecognised phenomena. First, there is an inherent mechanism of damping due to the redistribution of energy via
inter -particle collisions, and second, there seems to be a very simple relationship between the work done and the
final pressure. Although there is at present no theoretical basis for this relationship, it is perhaps not too surprising in
retrospect. In equilibrium the two sub-systems comprising the compound piston have only three things in co mmon;
the final pressure, the change in internal energy, and the change in volume. Our simulations indicate that there is a
very simple relationship between all three. We have the advantage over Callen, therefore, of knowing not only that
the piston will relax, even in an adiabatic process, but also in having a criterion by which the final position can be
determined.
In equilibrium we have on one side of the piston

P1V1 = N1k BT1 = 23 U1 (20)

and likewise on the other

P2V2 = N 2 k BT2 = 23 U 2 (21)

As the pressures are equal it follows that at equilibrium

P(V1 + V2 ) = 23 (U1 + U 2 ) (22)

As both the total volume and the total energy are fixed the pressure is independent of the division of internal
energy, as found from the simulation.
We have demonstrated that the work done is simply the product of the final pressure and the change in volume.
This can be seen as follows. In equilibrium, the left hand side of the piston is described by
 P (V1 + δV ) = 23 (U1 − δ U ). (23)

However, the entire process is adiabatic and so

γ
⎛ δV ⎞
P1V1γ = P(V1 + δV )γ = PV1γ ⎜⎜1 + ⎟
⎟ (24)
⎝ V1 ⎠

It is not immediately obvious that this relationship holds in these circumstances. It is normally associated with
quasi-static processes in which it is clear that the work done is given at all times by P.dV. Figure 13 shows the
log of the pressure against the log of the chamber length for a kinetic simulation with a lateral redistribution
rate of 1 event in 5 piston collisions. This leads to a long exponential decay in the piston motion. The slope is
effectively equal to 5/3, the ratio of specific heats. When plotted as a function of time the pressure oscillates
with piston position, but when plotted against the piston position itself, as in figure 13, it simply moves up and
down the adiabatic curve and settles at the equilibrium position denoted by the high density of points.

FIGURE 13. The log of the pressure against the log of the chamber lengt h for both the right and left hand sides of the
compound piston. The lateral redistribution rate of energy is 1 event in 5 piston collisions.

Having established that the adiabatic relationship holds, it follows therefore that

γ
⎛ δV ⎞ ⎛ γδV ⎞
P1 = P⎜⎜1 + ⎟ ≅ P⎜1 +
⎟ ⎜
⎟
⎟
(25)
⎝ V1 ⎠ ⎝ V1 ⎠

Then, from equations (14) and (17)

⎛ γδV ⎞ 2
PV1 + PδV = P1V1 − 23 δU ≅ PV1 ⎜⎜1 + ⎟⎟ − 3 δU . (26)
⎝ V1 ⎠
Therefore
 PδV ≅ γP δV − 23 δU ⇒ 23 δU ≅ PδV (γ − 1) (27)

For the case under discussion, γ=5 /3 , and so

δU ≅ Pδ V. (28)

Equation (29) so obviously accords with our findings that it seems to be a sensible explanation. However, the
relationship holds for volume changes of up to 60%, which seems somewhat large for an exp ansion of this kind. In
the top curve of figure 12, looking at the work done in compression, the first point to show a noticeable deviation
from this approximation occurs for a cylinder 1.7 cm long. The piston starts at 1.3 cm and finishes at 1.036 cm, a
total volume change of 20%. On the other side of the piston, though, the volume change is 66%. The most extreme
deviation in figure 12 occurs for a cylinder 1.4 cm long in which, as discussed, the volume change in the expanding
side is over 300%. For all simulations in which the volume change during expansion has been 60% or less, open and
closed systems are seen to be equivalent. This might be what one would expect from an approximation derived from
a series expansion, but the size of the change would appear to be larger than would be expected from the expansion
above. Nonetheless, this serves as a starting point for a general method for determining the equilibrium position of
the adiabatic compound piston for relatively small changes in volume < 60%. Given that the equilibrium pressure is
independent of the division of internal energy, specifying U1 in equation (21) is equivalent to specifying V1, but U 1
cannot be determined from any given initial state without knowing how much work has been done. However,
starting from a given piston position and initial energy then specifying δU is equivalent to specifying the volume
change δV. We can therefore define an effective pressure,

δU
Peff = . (29)
δV

Varying δU until the effective pressure is equal to the final pressure then provides the final position.
Solving for a cylinder length of 2cm and N=3000, corresponding to the situation simulated in our kinetic model,
the final pressure is 1.2420 ×10-11 Pa for a cross-section of 1 cm 2. Table 1 shows the agreement between the
outcome of the kinetic simulations and the final conditions as determined by this method of equal effective pressures
for a range of cylinder lengths as well as starting positions. The average temperatures and pressures, the latter being
determined by the average rate of change of momentum, from the kinetic simulations agree with the calculated value
to the fourth decimal place. In addition, the kinetic model for a fixed cylinder length yields a final pressure which is
independent of the starting position.

TABLE 1. The outcome of the kinetic model contrasted with the method of equal effective pressures for different cylinder
lengths and starting positions.
Method of equal effective
Kinetic model
pressure
Cylinder Starting Final Average Final Average
Temperature Temperature
length position position pressure position pressure
(cm) (cm) (cm) -11 (K) (cm) -11 (K)
(×10 Pa) (×10 Pa)
1.8 0.8 0.8600 13.801 286.67 0.8600 13.800 286.67

2 0.5 0.8009 12.423 240.30 0.8000 12.420 240.00

2 0.6 0.8405 12.422 252.16 0.8400 12.420 252.00
2 0.7 0.8802 12.422 264.07 0.8800 12.420 264.00
2 0.8 0.9200 12.421 276.02 0.9200 12.420 276.00
2 0.9 0.9600 12.421 288.00 0.9600 12.420 288.00

2.2 0.8 0.9801 11.292 267.32 0.9800 11.291 267.27

2.4 0.8 1.0403 10.352 260.09 1.0400 10.350 260.00
2.6 0.8 1.1005 9.555 253.99 1.1000 9.554 253.85
 IRREVERSIBILITY IN IDEAL GASES

The previous sections have described two causes of damping in ideal gases; inter-particle collisions and thermal
contact with reservoir. We have shown by means of kinetic models as well as a macroscopic formulation that where
both sides of the piston relax by the same mechanism, ie both are either adiabatic or thermally connected, the system
is irreversible and over a limited range of expansion or compression these systems are equivalent to a single piston
acted on by a constant external pressure. In this section we consider thermal damping in one chamber only and look
at the work done by an adiabatically isolated expanding gas. The rate of redistribution of energy among the
orthogonal modes is assumed initially to be instantaneous and the damping is provided by the thermal relaxation
alone. Within the kinetic model this is achieved by taking only one third of the energy change of a particle
immediately after a collision with the piston and within the macroscopic model this is ensured by setting αz δt=1.
The situation where collisional damping occurs in the adiabatic chamber and thermal damping occurs in the other is
investigated primarily through the macroscopic model where the rate of energy redistribution can be controlled more
easily.
Figure 14 shows the piston position for a series of adiabatic expansions in the kinetic model wherein 1000
particles in each chamber act on the piston. The chamber is nominally 0.02 m long with the piston starting in the
centre. The volume is increased in stages by, in effect, moving the diathermal end wall outward and letting the
particles move freely into the empty space. The expansion reduces the pressure in the thermally connected chamber
and allows the piston to move under the action of collisions to a new equilibrium position after a series of
oscillations damped by thermal conduction. The final length of the chamber is 0.03 m, which has been achieved in
increments of 0.001 m for ten stages, 0.002 m for five stages, and 0.0025 m for four stages. The significant feature
is that the piston position depends only on the length of the chamber and is independent of the number of steps, as
can be seen by comparing the piston position at the end of the expansion and at various intermediate stages. The
implication is that this is a reversible process according to the definition used by Clausius, as the work done in a
very large number of steps is the same as the work done in a single step over the same volume change.

FIGURE 14. The piston position for a series of adiabatic expansions in the kinetic model under the assumption
of instantaneous scattering.

By way of confirmation figure 15 shows a plot of the log of the pressure in the final state against the log of the
piston position for these different stages. The slope is -1.668, which is of course identical to the ratio of specific
heats, γ=5/3. It follows that
 PV γ = const. (30)

applies to these process.

FIGURE 15. The log of the pressure in the final state plotted against the log of the piston position for these different stages.
The slope is -1.668, which is the ratio of specific heats.

This is quite different from the behaviour if both chambers of the compound piston are either adiabatic or
connected to a heat reservoir. As we have described earlier, in both these cases the work done depends on the final
pressure, which means that the work that needs to be done to reverse a given change in volume through expansion is
greater than the work done in bringing about the initial change. In fact, in an adiabatic change the initial state cannot
be obtained without an additional stage to cool the system down by removing heat. Returning to figure 15, for the
system to be reversible the work done must depend in some manner on both the initial and final pressures of the
system, respectively P0 and Pf. If we define an effective pressure as

W
Peff = . (31)
δV
1
then we find that Peff is equivalent to the geometric mean, ( P0 Pf ) 2 , of these two pressures (figure 16). As described
earlier, these results have been calculated under the assumption of instantaneous scattering and redistribution of the
kinetic energy, but if the rate at which the energy is scattered is altered the work done can be affected. We have
performed some simulations with a random redistribution of energy to simulate a more natural scattering rate. We
find then that if lnP is plotted against lnV, as in figure 2, the straight line tends to a slight curve with an approximate
slope less than 5/3. This effect has been investigated using the macroscopic model wherein, not only is the
computational time much reduced, but also thermodynamic parameters such as pressure and temperature vary
smoothly with time. In the kinetic model these quantities are taken over the average properties of the particles and
are therefore subject to fluctuations.
In figure 17 the logarithm of the effective pressure acting against the piston is plotted as a function of the
logarithm of the piston’s position during the entire motion for three different values of α z in a chamber 0.026m long
with the piston starting at 0.008m. The curves at αz δt=10-6 and αz δt=1 have been offset along the x-axis for clarity.
The reason for the change in slope is now apparent. At the maximum collisional dissipation rate, α z δt=1, the
pressure in the direction of the piston is equal at all times to the ideal gas pressure and the piston moves along the
line defined by constant PV γ. For reduced scattering the effective pressure in the direction of motion varies over
time, sometimes being greater than the ideal gas pressure and sometime less, and this relationship no longer holds
over any part of the motion. For α zδt=10-7 the initial and final conditions are marked as A and B respectively and
clearly the slope between these two points is less than 5/3.

FIGURE 16. The effective pressure is equivalent to the geometric mean, (P0Pf)½ , of the initial and final pressures

FIGURE 17. Logarithm of the effective pressure on the piston against the logarithm of the piston’s position during the entire
motion for three different values of αz . The curves are offset from one another for clarity.
 THE MOTIVE POWER OF HEAT: AN IDEAL CARNOT ENGINE

The preceding has highlighted the role of inter-particle scattering in irreversibility. Systems in which both
chambers exchange heat with reservoir are irreversible and systems in which both chambers are adiabatically
insulated are also irreversible, provided that the piston motion is damped through inter-particle collisions. In the
absence of such damping, either through an absence of inter-particle scattering or through an instantaneous
redistribution of energy, the piston oscillates indefinitely, as noted by Callen. It is evident from the above that only
one chamber need be damped. We have assumed in all our simulations of open systems, that is where one side of the
compound piston is open and the pressure acting on the piston is constant, that we can ignore both inter-particle
scattering and thermal conduction. The closed chamber can be damped either by collisional damping, that is a
redistribution of energy due to inter-particle collisions, or thermal damping wherein the rate of heat flow from the
reservoir differs from the rate at which work is done at the piston. If neither of these occurs and we have either an
ideal adiabatic system or an ideal isothermal system acting against a constant pressure the piston will oscillate
indefinitely. Figure 18 shows just such an oscillation in the piston for a cylinder of cross-section 1 cm2 with a piston
of mass 9.6×10-3 kg located initially at 0.008m. The temperature of the gas is 700 K and the initial pressure inside
the cylinder is 7.0×105 Pa. The external pressure is 1.0×105 Pa
It is clear that in this respect both adiabatic and isothermal processes are an idealiz ation. Adiabatic
processes as we have modelled them are in any case impossible as we assume elastic collisions between particles
and walls. Were this to happen in reality it would be impossible to change the temperature of a gas by heating the
vessel in which it is contained, but the assumption of either instantaneous scattering or instantaneous heat flow are
further idealiz ations. A more interesting case arises if we combine these two abstractions and expand the piston
isothermally but, before it reaches the end of its motion, switch to an adiabatic process and on its return allow heat
flow for part of the compression before again switching off the thermal contact with the reservoir. One cycle of the
piston therefore contains the four well known stages of the Carnot cycle performed as follows.
1. Isothermal expansion. The internal pressure is set equal to some high value greater than the external
pressure, which is constant. An isothermal transformation is defined by the condition α hδt=1, where δt is the time
step. The rate of heat flow from the reservoir follows the rate at which work is done at the piston and the internal
dE xz
energy of the gas remains constant. Therefore dt
= 0 regardless of the value of α z.
2. Adiabatic expansion. After the piston has travelled a pre-determined interval, the heat flow from the
reservoir is switched off (α h=0) . For an ideal adiabatic process the rate of redistribution of energy must be
instantaneous so that E x = 13 U is always true. This occurs when αzδt=1. This proceeds until the piston stops. At
this extreme point in the piston motion the external pressure is greater than the internal pressure
3. Isothermal compression. The external pressure is lowered so that the external work done in returning the
piston to its starting position is less than that done in the expansion. The wall temperature is set equal to the internal
temperature of the gas and αh δt=1 for an isothermal process. The piston moves under the action of the external
pressure until the entropy change in the cold reservoir is the same magnitude as the entropy change in stage 1.
4. Adiabatic compression. Again, the heat flow from the reservoir is switched off (αh=0) and αz δt=1. This
proceeds until the piston stops at the end of the stroke.
These ideas have been applied to a simple engine operating under the conditions of the expansion in figure 18.
The hot reservoir is at the initial temperature of the gas, 700 K, and the external pressure on the expansion stroke is
1.0×105 Pa. Figure 19 shows an illustrative Carnot cycle performed as described above for a piston displacement of
0.3 cm. Unlike a quasi-static cycle in which the displacement of the piston can assume any values, the displacement
in the dynamic Carnot cycle is determined by the difference in the initial pressures. The displacement will lie
between the two values shown in figure 18, but the precise value will depend on the extent of the isothermal
displacement compared with the adiabatic. In consequence of the large displacement, the pressure-displacement
curve appears elongated and unlike a Carnot cycle as normally represented in standard texts. Figure 20 shows,
however, that the four arms of the cycle are either isothermal or adiabatic and also demonstrates graphically how the
cycle is limited by the two expansions shown in figure 18, which are represented by the dotted lines. On a
logarithmic plot all possible Carnot cycles starting from these initial conditions will form a parallelogram between
these two curves. The temperature at the end of the expansion stroke was found to be 286.9K for the cycle
demonstrated here, but as with the total displacement this will also be determined by the heat taken in during the
isothermal expansion.
 FIGURE 18. Indefinite oscillations for ideal adiabatic and isothermal expansions against a constant external pressure.

FIGURE 19. A Carnot cycle mapped out for an isothermal displacement of 3 cm. The symbols mark the transitions from
isothermal to adiabatic and vice versa.
Finally, we consider the external pressure required to close the cycle. The net work done during both the
expansion and compression stages is zero as the piston velocity starts with zero velocity and has zero velocity at the
end of the stage. It follows, therefore, that if no net work is to be done during the cycle the external pressure during
the compression stage must be reduced relative to that during the expansion stage. As the piston displacement itself
varies according to how much heat is taken in, the final pressure must be determined with reference to the
particulars of the cycle itself. It can be readily demonstrated that if the external pressure during expansion is Pe and
that during compression is Pc , that
 δQe ⎛ T1 ⎞
Pc = Pe − ⎜1 − ⎟ (32)
δV ⎜⎝ T2 ⎟⎠
Here δQ e is the energy taken in from the hot reservoir at temperature T1, T2 is the temperature of the cold
reservoir, and δV is the volume change during the stroke. T he pressure was also determined empirically and
compared with this expression. It turns out that if the external pressure is adjusted until the final temperature
matches the initial temperature the system returns to its initial state and the cycle closes. To within the
computational precision specified, which was three decimal places in the temperature, the empirically
determined pressure was found to match the press ure calculated from equation (33 ) exactly.

FIGURE 20. Log pressure against log piston position shows the Carnot cycle. The dashed lines correspond to the best fit of
the data from a single cycle in figure 18 and show that the different arms are either adiabatic or isothermal .

FIGURE 21. The work done during a single cycle for both expansion and compression. The work done during compression
is less than that done during expansion and at the end of the stroke the work done by the external pressure (straight lines) is equal
to the work done by the engine.
 Figure 21 shows the work done internally and externally in both the expansion and compression stages. The
work done during the complete cycle is represented as a single curve which shows increasing work during the
expansion and decreasing work during the compression. As expected, the work done during compression is less than
that done during expansion, the difference being the nett work done by the engine. It is also clear that at all times
during the expansion the work done externally, as shown by the straight line, is less than that done internally, except
at the end of the stroke when the two are equal.

CONCLUSION

We have demonstrated by means of a numerical model of a hard-sphere fluid on either side of a compound
piston that damping occurs naturally without invoking extraneous mechanisms such as friction. The mechanism is
identified as energy scattering by inter-particle collisions. A simpler, one dimensional numerical model based on
kinetic theory has been constructed in which all the particles have the same initial energy and inter-particle
collisions are simulated by randomly adjusting the energy distribution. Varying the rate of energy redistribution
alters the rate of decay of the piston motion, but we find that the nett work done to be dependent only on the starting
conditions and quite independent of the detailed motion. This allows the consequences for thermodynamics of this
intrinsic dissipation process to be investigated. We find that in this irreversible process the nett work done is given
by the product of the final pressure and the volume change. This finding is supported by mathematical arguments
and we have proposed a simple method for determining the final piston position.
The question arises as to whether these simple models effectively represent thermodynamics. The answer must
be a resounding “yes”. A hard-sphere model is as close as we can get to a model of an ideal gas. As predicted by
Boltzmann’s H-theorem, the velocity distribution naturally tends to a Maxwellian from an arbitrary initial
distribution and apart from the equation of state, which takes into account the non-zero volume of the particles, the
system behaves as an ideal gas. The simpler model not only reproduces the behaviour of the hard-sphere model, and
therefore effectively mimics an ideal gas, but the independent control over the energy redistribution rate
demonstrates conclusively that it is the effect of this redistribution that causes damping.
The modification of the kinetic model to allow for thermal coupling to the external world demonstrates another
intrinsic damping mechanism in the thermodynamics of gases. Both mechanisms of damping can be readily
incorporated into a macroscopic formulation of thermodynamics via rate equations. These models, and the
macroscopic model in particular, make clear the idealiz ed nature of both adiabatic and isothermal processes,
involving respectively the complete absence of, or the instantaneous occurrence of, thermal conduction to correct
the energy change at the piston. Such processes will not occur in nature but we can imagine them, model them, and
use them in an ideal engine. This engine then traces out the Carnot cycle. Under the conditions of ideal isothermal
work or ideal adiabatic work, which includes instantaneous inter-particle scattering, the macroscopic model reduces
to the ideal gas equation in conjunction with Newton’s second law, which in turn reduces to a time-dependent
formulation of the First Law;

dQ dU dW
= − (33)
dt dt dt

dQ
Adiabatic and isothermal transformations are defined respectively by dt
= 0 and dU
dt
= 0 . This, then, is as
much a mechanical as a thermodynamic model of the Carnot engine.
This interpretation of the Carnot cycle differs from the traditional view due to Clausius. He took the view that
the individual stages of a reversible cycle must themselves be reversible, which to him meant that there must be no
perceptible external motion. In effect the cycle must be executed quasi-statically. We have demonstrated that in
relation to adiabatic processes, a dynamic system can, under appropriate conditions, appear to satisfy one of
Clausius’ criteria for reversibility, namely that the work done in one direction is identical, but opposite to the work
done in the other. The notion of a quasi-static change is therefore irrelevant. More importantly, the Carnot cycle is
executed dynamically and in consequence not only does work but develops power. In short, we have demonstrated
the motive power of heat. Moreover, the cycle is reversible in as much as it can be executed in the opposite sense. In
a companion paper we address the notion of reversibility and irreversibility in relation to cycles, but here we simply
conclude that the dynamic Carnot cycle is self-evidently reversible. On the other hand, it is meaningless to talk
about the reversibility or otherwise of the separate stages as they are simply different parts of a piston stroke rather
than the separate and identifiable processes of classical, quasi-static thermodynamics.
This leads on naturally to the discussion of entropy. In our calculations the entropy is simply a number that
allows us to calculate the extent of the isothermal compression. It is a property of the reservoir rather than the
working fluid. In classical thermodynamics entropy has a different meaning, again due to Clausius. It is considered
to be a property of a body which increases during an irreversible process. This idea of entropy maximisation is
firmly entrenched in modern thermodynamics, yet in our simulations of the intrinsically irreversible processes
caused by the damping mechanisms of heat conduction or inter-particle scattering, entropy plays no part in
determining the final state. Rather, the final state of the system is determined by a combination of the work done,
which determines the final energy in an adiabatic process, and the purely mechanical constraint that the pressures on
either side of the piston must be equal. Moreover, in our simulation of the dynamic Carnot cycle, entropy cannot be
associated with a given state of the system as at no point can the system be said to be in an equilibrium state.
The present work raises a number of questions about classical thermodynamic which we have addressed in a
separate paper. These relate largely to Clausius and his definition of entropy as a state function. The
thermodynamics of cycles suggest only that entropy is a property of the reservoir and this is the sense in which it is
used here. Whether entropy should be regarded as a property of a body or not is therefore a question deserving of
consideration. If it is, and it influences irreversible phenomena, then why does it play no part in the processes we
have described? We have been able to elucidate some very simple rules governing irreversible phenomena in ideal
gases using essentially Newton’s second law and the First Law of thermodynamics, albeit in a time-dependent
formulation.

REFERENCES

1. D. Sands and J. Dunning-Davies, Entropy, Reversibility, Irreversibility And Thermodynamic Cycles, presented at the
Vigier VII symposium, London, July 2010. This volume.
2. H B Callen, Thermodynamics, John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1965
3. R. Clausius, The Mechanical Theory of Heat, With Its Applications To The Steam Engine And To The Physical
Properties Of Bodies, ed. T Archer Hirst, John Van Voorst, London, 1867, pp14-89
4. R Clausius, Op. Cit. pp215-266
5. A. E. Curzon, Am. J. Phys. 37 (1969) p404-406
6. A. E. Curzon & H S Leff, Am. J. Phys. 47 (1979) p385-387
7. Bruno Crosignani, Paolo Di Porto, Mordechai Segev, Am. J. Phys. 64(5) 1996 p610-613
8. Everett Thiele, J. Chem. Phys. 39 (1963) p474
 The Physical Meaning of the Coefficients
cn/G, (n = 0,1…5)
and the Standard Model of the Universe
Ludwik Kostro
Department for Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science
University of Gdansk, ul. Bazynskiego 4, 80-952 Gdansk, Poland

Abstract. The dimensional analysis of the coefficients cn/G, (n = 0,1…5) that appear in the equations of General
Relativity and Relativistic Cosmology conducts to discover their physical meaning. This paper is a tentative to show that
their physical sense reveled in such a way can help in understanding several properties of the universe in the framework
of the standard model. This paper provides also simple equations to calculate several physical quantities that characterize
our universe. It will be also shown, how the coefficient c4/G became the fundamental constant of the five dimensional
Deformed Space-time Theory formulated by F. Cardone and R. Mignani and conducted them to discover the
piezonuclear reactions.

Some introductory remarks

As is well known the coefficients cn/G (where n = 0,1…5) and their inverses appear often in the equations of
General Relativity, in Relativistic Cosmology and in the so-called Planck’s, Stoney’s and other Units composed of
universal constants and determined by them.
It is interesting to note that a dimensional analysis of these coefficients conducts us to discover their physical
meaning that can help us in our understanding of the universe.
The coefficients cn/G indicate that some relations among physical quantities in our universe are constant and are
expressed, in our case, as combinations of two well known universal constants: the velocity of light c and the
Newtonian gravitational constant G.
The constants c and G being universal constants allow us to assume that they concern the universe as a whole.
Many very known physicists e.g. P.A.M. Dirac, M. Planck, G.J. Stoney A. Eddington, M. Born, R. Feynman, H.
Weyl, R. Dicke have already shown that universal constants are correlated and interconnected and that the
investigation of these correlations and interconnections is not a pure numerology, because the constants are the
theoretical basis of the structure of the whole universe. Even a very little defection of their numerical values would
destroy the whole known structure.
The part played by the coefficients under consideration will be presented in the framework of the so-called
standard cosmological model in which, on the basis of recent observations (e.g. COBE, WMAP , PLANCK), our
universe, in the large scale, appears as flat and containing also the so-called dark energy connected with the known
parameter Λ introduced by Einstein in 19171. Therefore we will use only, as the basic equations, the Friedman
equations with the curvature parameter k=0, and the cosmological parameter Λ>0 . As is well known in this system
of equations it is assumed that the relation between the real average density of the universe and the so-called
critical density is equal one Ω = ρreal/ρc = 1. Since on the basis of the recent 7-years observational results of WMAP
Ω oscillates between 0,991 and 1,173 i.e. Ω = 1,0 82 ± 0,091 it means that the universe can have a small positive
curvature of about 0,082 %. Therefore it would be interesting to study also the part played of the coefficients cn/G
in the system of Friedman equations with k= +1 and Λ>0. In this paper, as was already mentioned, we will restrict
us to the model with k = 0 and Λ>0
Making a dimensional analysis we must be aware that such an analysis enable us only to discover the fundamental
and limitary relations between the main dimensional properties of the universe without other factors that, as we will

1
A. Einstein, Kosmologische Betrachtungen zur allgemeinen Relativitästeorie, Sitzungsberichten der Preussischen Akad. D. Wissenschaften 1917
[in:] H.A. Lorentz, A. Einsten, H. Minkowski, Das Relativitätspricip, Verlag und Druk von B.G. Teubner, Leipzig ·Berlin 1922, pp. 130-139
see, are dimensionless and provided by different theoretical models of the universe. Nevertheless the coefficients
cn/G remain in the relativistic cosmology equations as their mathematical basic spinal cord. As we will see the
numerical values of the mentioned additional dimensionless factors depend on the chosen model of the universe.
Let’s consider an example. If we choose the Friedman flat model with k = 0, and Λ>0 then in such a model the
volume of a Hubble sphere is given by the Euclidian equation VH=(4/3)πRH3. If we choose the Friedman model of the
close universe with (k = 1, Λ>0) then the volume equation is given by the non – Euclidian eq. V = 2π2R3 . Both
equations contain the fundamental dimensional quantity R3 but the relation V/VH = (2π2R3)/(4/3)πRH3 = 4,71 indicates
that the cubic capacity of the closed model is 4,71 greater than the cubic capacity of the flat model. As we could see
the dimensionless factors (4/3)π and 2π2 depend on the chosen model of the universe. In 1917, A. Einstein has taken
into account only the closed model2 and therefore he used the equation V = 2π2R3. In the standard model we use the
Euclidian equation VH=(4/3)πRH3, where VH means the Volume of our Hubble sphere and RH = the commoving
Hubble length. As is well known the present day Hubble volume is given by the eq.
ସ
ܸு௢ ൌ ߨܴு௢ ଷ ൎ ͻǤʹͺ ή ͳͲ଻଼ ݉ଷ (1)
ଷ

Some historical data

Since the dimensional analysis was used in the construction of the units composed of and determined by
universal constants let’s present shortly their history.
In 1874 George Johnston Stoney (1826-1911), who is famous for his introduction of the term “electron” to
describe the elementary unit of electricity and for his calculation of its value from Faraday’s law of electrolysis,
introduced his “physical units of nature”3.
భ భ భ
ீ௘ మ మ ீ௘ మ మ ௘మ మ
݈௦ ൌ  ቀ ቁ ‫ݐ‬௦ ൌ  ቀ ቁ ݉௦ ൌ  ቀ ቁ (2)
௖ర ௖ల ீ

(where e is the elementary electric charge). Note that with these units is connected a quantum of action hS = e2/c
smaller than Planck’s one. A. Einstein4, M. Planck5, A.S..Eddington6 and E. Schrödinger 7 have stressed its
importance e.g. they indicated that Sommerfeld’s fine structure constant α = e2/hc = (hS/h). In physical processes we
are dealing always with a transfer of energy and momentum along certain path and during certain time. Remember
that action = momentum · path = energy · time. In the micro-world action is quantized. Quanta of action are
connected not only with movement of real particles but also with the exchange of virtual ones. In electromagnetic
interactions the Stoney’s quantum of action is connected with the exchange of virtual photons. 8
In the SI system of units, Stoney’s units are given by
భ భ భ
௄௘ మ ீ మ ିଷ଺ ௄௘ మ ீ మ ିସହ ௄௘ మ మ
݈௦ ൌ  ቀ ቁ ൌ ͳǤ͵ͺ ή ͳͲ ݉; ‫ݐ‬௦ ൌ  ቀ ቁ ൌ ͶǤ͸Ͳͷ ή ͳͲ ‫݉ ;ݏ‬௦ ൌ  ቀ ቁ ൌ ͳǤͺ͸ ή ͳͲିଽ ݇݃ (3)
௖ర ௖ల ீ

௄௘ మ ଵ
and the quantum of action ݄ௌ ൌ  = 7.704 ·10 -37 J·s where ‫ ܭ‬ൌ  ൌ ͺ.99·10 9 Nm2/C2
௖ ସగఌ೚

In 1899 Max Planck9, introduced his well known “Natural Units” of length, time mass and temperature

భ భ భ భ
௛ீ మ ௛ீ మ ௛௖ మ ௛௖ ఱ మ
݈௣ ൌ  ቀ య ቁ ; ‫ݐ‬௣ ൌ  ቀ ఱ ቁ ; ݉௣ ൌ  ቀ ቁ ; h௣ ൌ  ቀ ቁ (4)
௖ ௖ ீ ௞యீ

2
Ibid., p. 139
3
G. J. Stoney Physical Units of Nature, Phil. Mag. 5, (1881)
4
A. Einstein , Phys.Z. 10, (1905) 132
5
M. Planck , Ann. Phys. 50, (1916)
6
A. S. Eddington, New Pathways in Science, Cambridge University Press, 1933, p. 235
7
E. Schrödinger , Z. Phys. 12 (1923), 13
8
L. Kostro, Physics Essays,Vol. 14, No 4, 2001
9
M. Planck, Sitzungsberichte d. Preus. Akad. Wiss. 5 (1899) 440
 (where h is Plank’s elementary quantum of action k is the Boltzmann constant). Nowadays we use instead of h the
constant ħ =h/2π =1,0545 ·10 -34J·s , that constitutes quantum of angular momentum
భ
԰ீ మ
݈௣ ൌ  ቀ య ቁ ൌ ͳǡ͸ ή ͳͲିଷହ ݉
௖
భ
԰ீ మ
‫ݐ‬௣ ൌ  ቀ ఱ ቁ ൌ ͷǡͶ ή ͳͲିସସ ‫ݏ‬
௖
భ
԰௖ మ
݉௣ ൌ  ቀ ቁ ൌ ʹǡͳ͹ ή ͳͲି଼ ݇݃ (5)
ீ
భ
԰௖ ఱ మ
࣮௣ ൌ  ቀ ቁ ൌ ͳǡͶʹ ή ͳͲଷଶ ‫ ܭ‬௢
௞యீ

Stoney and Planck arrived at their units using dimensional analysis to the respective sets of constants (G, c and h)
or (G, c and e). Stoney’s units concern the electromagnetic interactions. Note that we can arrive at units (of length,
time and mass) connected with the other interactions10 even connected with the Dark Energy that is the source of
expansion.
For our purpose, let’s restrict to the gravitational interactions and Λ quantities. Using the dimensional analysis of
the set of the constants (G, c and m) we obtain , as it was indicated by Kittel Ch. et al. the following gravitational
quantities:11
ீ௠
gravitational length ݈ீ ൌ
௖మ
ீ௠
gravitational time ‫ ீݐ‬ൌ య (6)
௖
gravitational mass ݉ீ ൌ ݉

where m is the gravitational charge of a particle, of a body, of a star or even of the gravitational matter embedded,
according to the standard model, in a Hubble sphere.
Note that the gravitational length lG is in a strict relation with the so-called gravitational radius RG called also
Schwartzschild radius. In General Relativity we are dealing with three possibilities of RG , indicated by S. Weinberg
12
. They depend on the used system of coordinates and metric.
ଶீ௠ ீ௠ ீ௠
ܴீሺଵሻ ൌ ; ܴீሺଶሻ ൌ ; ܴீሺଷሻ ൌ (7)
௖మ ௖మ ଶ௖ మ

In the case RG(2) = lG the metric is expressed in its harmonic form13.

One must be, however, aware that lG and tG are theoretical quantities. For example the gravitational length of our
Earth ≈ 4. 44 x 10-3 m = 0.444 cm and of our Sun ≈ 1471 m ≈ 1.471 km. However the gravitational units and
relations presented above are valid in the studies of the models of black holes and of closed universes.
With the gravitational units are also connected quanta of action: hG = Gm2/c when the gravitational interactions are
between two particles (or other physical bodies) of the same mass and hGMm = GMm/c = (hGMhGm)1/2 when the
masses are different.14 Note that when the masses are equal to Planck’s mass the gravitational quantum of action is
equal to Planck’s constant Gm2P/c = ħ. So in the Planck period of the evolution of our universe the gravitational
quantum of action was equal to Planck elementary quantum of action. We will see later that there are cases of
gravitational quanta equal to ħ also when the two interacting masses are different. In such a case the product of the
two masses must be equal to the square of Plank mass mP2= ħc/G. Note that, as regards the gravitational quanta of
action of elementary particles they are as numerous as numerous are the kinds of elementary particles.

10
L. Kostro, B. Lange, Physics Essays, Vol. 12, nr 1, 1999 pp.182-189
11
Ch. Kittel . et al., Mechanics, in Berkeley Physics Course Vol. I (McGraw-Hill, New York, 1965), p.302
12
S. Weinberg Gravitation and Cosmology, J. Wiley and Sons, New York, 1972 , pp. 207-208
13
Ibid.
14
L. Kostro, Physics Essays,Vol. 14, No 4, 2001
 Length, time and mass of the gravitational matter embedded in a Hubble sphere

It’s obvious that, in the standard model, the gravitational matter embedded in a Hubble sphere has its
ீெ೘
gravitational length ܴ௠ ൌ
௖మ
ீெ೘
gravitational time ܶ௠ ൌ య (8)
௖
gravitational mass ‫ܯ‬௠ ൌ ‫ீܯ‬ு

Using Friedman equations with with k=0 and Λ>0 we obtain

య
௖ ௸௖ య ோಹ ோಹ ௸
gravitational length ܴ௠ ൌ െ ൌ െ ܴ௠௢ ൎ ͳǡͷ͹ ή ͳͲଶହ ݉
ଶு ଺ு య ଶ ଺
య మ
ଵ ௸௖ మ ்ಹ ்ಹ ௸௖
gravitational time ܶ௠ ൌ െ ൌ െ ܶ௠௢ ൎ ͷǡʹ͵͹ ή ͳͲଵ଺ ‫ݏ‬ (9)
ଶு ଺ு య ଶ ଺
య య మ
௖ మ ோಹ ோಹ ௸ ௖య ்ಹ ்ಹ ௸௖
gravitational mass ‫ܯ‬௠ ൌ ቀ െ ቁൌ ቀ െ ቁ ‫ܯ‬௠௢ ൎ ʹǡͳͲ͹ ή ͳͲହଶ ݇݃
ீ ଶ ଺ ீ ଶ ଺

where RH is the Hubble length TH is the Hubble time and H is the Hubble parameter which in the standard model is
equal to 1/ TH .In the equations (1) we see the relations between the gravitational quantities (Rm.. Tm,, Mm) and the
characteristic proprieties of a Hubble sphere (RH, TH, H, Λ) that are called “universal parameters”. Note that Rm..
Tm,, are theoretical quantities but Mm is a real quantity like the quantities RH, TH, H, Λ. Note that Hubble parameter
H becomes established on the basis of observations. Its present day value is given by

‫ܪ‬ሺܶு௢ ሻ ൌ ‫ܪ‬௢ ൌ ͹ͳ േ ʹ݇݉Ȁ‫ݏ‬Ȁ‫ ܿ݌ܯ‬ൌ ʹǡͻͻ ή ͳͲିଵ଼ ‫ି ݏ‬ଵ (10)

The Λ units connected with Dark Energy embedded in a Hubble sphere

In the standard model we are dealing also with the Λ units connected with the Dark Energy that is the source of
expansion of our universe. Using Friedman equations with with k=0 and Λ>0 we obtain
య
௸ோಹ
lambda length ܴ௸ ൌ ܴ௸௢ ൎ ͶǤͻͷ ή ͳͲଶହ ݉
଺
య
௸௖ మ ௸௖ మ ்ಹ
lambda time ܶ௸ ൌ ൌ ܶ௸௢ ൎ ͳǤ͸ͷ ή ͳͲଵ଻ ‫ݏ‬ (11)
଺ு య ଺
య య
௖ మ ௸ோಹ ௖య ௸௖ మ ்ಹ
lambda mass ‫ ௸ܯ‬ൌ ቀ ቁൌ ቀ ቁ ‫௸ܯ‬௢ ൎ ͸Ǥ͸͹ ή ͳͲହଶ ݇݃
ீ ଺ ீ ଺

Note that also RΛ . TΛ , are theoretical quantities but MΛ is a real quantity. It is also interesting to note that the units
presented in the last two sections are determined not only by the universal constants (c, G) but also by the real
universal parameters (H, RH, TH. Λ). Since these parameters are time depended also RΛ . TΛ and MΛ are time
dependent. In the standard model

RH = 2(Rm + RΛ) ; TH = 2(Tm + TΛ) and MH = Mm + MΛ (12)

The physical cosmic meaning of the coefficients co/G and c/G

௖೚ ଵ
The dimensional analysis of the coefficient (i.e. of the inverse of the Newton gravitational constant ) shows
ீ ீ
௠ 2
that it constitutes a product of a density ߩ ൌ and the square of time t
௟య
 ௖೚ ଵ ௠௧ మ ௠ ௞௚
ൌ ൌ ൌ ቀ య ቁ ‫ ݐ‬ଶ ൌ ߩ‫ ݐ‬ଶ ൌ ͳǤͶͻͺ ή ͳͲଵ଴ ቀ ቁ ‫ݏ‬ଶ (13)
ீ ீ ௟య ௟ ௠య

Since the gravitational constant concerns also the whole universe let’s study the part played by equation (13) in
the standard model of the Universe. A colleague of mine Prof J. Sikorski 15 has indicated me that the fundamental
equation (13) is contained as a basic structure in Friedman equations.
Let’s first study the Friedman eq. (8 πG ρ /3) – H2= 0 of the model with k =0 and Λ= 0. As is well known, in
this model the Hubble parameter H = 2/3TH and ρm = ρc = 3H2 /8πG . Making a simple transformations we obtain

௖బ ଵ ௞௚
ൌ ൌ ͸ߨߩ௖ ܶுଶ ൌ ͳǤͶͻͺ ή ͳͲଵ଴ ቀ ቁ ‫ݏ‬ଶ (14)
ீ ீ ௠య

As we can see the eq. (14) differs from eq. (13) by the dimensionless factor 6π. However with the dimensionless
factor 6π = 18.85 we obtain a nonrealistic values of the age of the universe THo = [(1/6 π)(1/G ρc)] 1/2 ~ 9,05
billions of years (i.e. 2,86 x 1017 s). Such a result appears nonrealistic because several stars and astronomical systems
are estimated as older.
We obtain more realistic value of the age of the universe when we use the Friedman model with k = 0 and Λ>0.
The numerical results of this model are more consistent with the present day observations and therefore the Friedman
eq. with k = 0 and Λ>0 is used in the standard model The age of the universe, in the considered framework, is now
evaluated to be THo = 13,7 billions years = 4.348 x 1017 s. It sounds more realistic.
Thus in the standard model we have to use the Friedman model with k =0 and Λ> 0. In this model, the average
density of the universe is composed of ρ = ρm + ρΛ and given by the equation

ଷு೚మ ௞௚
ߩ ൌ ߩ௠ ൅ ߩ௸ ൌ ߩ௖ ൌ ൎ ͻǡͶ͸ ή ͳͲିଶ଻ (15)
଼గீ ௠య

In the considered model the relation between the Hubble parameter H and the age of the universe (Hubble
time) TH is also different and is given by eq. H = 1/TH . Remember that we use in this model also the dimensionless
density parameters Ωm= ρm/ ρc ; ΩΛ= ρΛ/ ρc related between them as follows Ωm+ ΩΛ= 1. On the basis of
observational WMAP 7-year results ΩΛ = 0,728 ± 0,016 and Ωm = 0,272 ± 0,016.
As regards Λ using Friedman eqs. we obtain for the standard model with k = 0 and Λ> 0

଼గீఘ೰೚ ଷఆ೰೚ ு೚మ ଷఆ೰೚

߉௢ ൌ ൌ ൌ మ ൎ ͳǤʹͺ ή ͳͲିହଶ ݉ିଶ (16)
௖మ ௖మ ோಹ ೚

The Friedman equation of the model with k =0 and Λ> 0 has the form

଼గீఘ೘ ௸௖ మ
൅ െ ‫ܪ‬ଶ ൌ Ͳ (17)
ଷ ଷ

Taking into account the relations presented above after simple transformations of eq. (17) we obtain the basic
structure with he additional dimensionless factors

௖೚ ଵ ଼గ ଼గ ଼గ ௞௚
ൌ ൌ ቀ ቁ ߩ௖ ܶுଶ ൌ ቀ ቁ ߩ௠ ܶுଶ ൌ ቀ ቁ ߩ௸ ܶுଶ ൌ ͳǤͶͻͺ ή ͳͲଵ଴ ቀ ቁ ‫ݏ‬ଶ (18)
ீ ீ ଷ ଷఆ೘ ଷఆ೰ ௠య

So the additional dimensionless factors are given respectively by

଼గ
ቀ ቁ ൎ ͺǡ͵ͺ in the case of the whole matter
ଷ
଼గ
ቀ ቁ ൎ ͵ͲǤͺ in the case of gravitational matter (19)
ଷఆ೘
଼గ
ቀ ቁ ൎ ͳͳǤͷ in the case of lambda matter
ଷఆ೰

At the end of this section let’s indicate that the fundamental relation (13) concerns all the units: Planck’s, Stoney’s,
gravitational, lambda and so on.

15
J. K. Sikorki, private communication
 ௖೚ ଵ ௞௚
 ൌ ଶ
ൌ ߩ௉ ‫ݐ‬௉ଶ ൌ ߩௌ ‫ݐ‬ௌଶ ൌ ߩீ ‫ீݐ‬ଶ ൌ ߩ௠ ‫ݐ‬௠ ൌ ߩ௸ ‫௸ݐ‬ଶ ൌ ͳǤͶͻͺ ή ͳͲଵ଴ ቀ ቁ ‫ݏ‬ଶ (20)
ீ ீ ௠య

In this cases we do not use any additional dimensionless factors.

ଷఆ ு మ ଷఆ ு మ ௸௖ మ
Note that ߩ௠ ൌ ೘ ೚ andߩ௸ ൌ ೰ ೚ ൌ
଼గீ ଼గீ ଼గீ
The dimensional analysis of the coefficient c/G shows that it constitutes a product of a density ρ = m/l3 and
the length l and time t

௖ ௠ ௞௚
ൌ ቀ య ቁ ݈‫ ݐ‬ൌ ߩ݈‫ ݐ‬ൌ ͶǤͶͻʹ ή ͳͲଵ଼ ቀ ቁ ‫ݏ‬ଶ (21)
ீ ௟ ௠య

It’s obvious that the (21) concerns all units: Planck’s, Stoney’s, gravitational, lambda and so on

௖ ௞௚௦
ൌ ߩ௉ ݈௉ ‫ݐ‬௉ ൌ ߩௌ ݈ௌ ‫ݐ‬ௌ ൌ ߩீ ݈ீ ‫ ீݐ‬ൌ ߩ௠ ݈௠ ‫ݐ‬௠ ൌ ߩ௸ ݈௸ ‫ ௸ݐ‬ൌ ͶǤͶͻ ή ͳͲଵ଼ ቀ ቁ (22)
ீ ௠మ

Now let’s investigate how the components of ρl t are related to the densities ρ = ρc , ρm and ρΛ and RH and TH in
the standard model with k=0 and Λ>0. Which additional dimensionless factors have we to use in this case?
Taking into account the relations presented in the precedent section after simple transformations of (17) we obtain

௖ ଼గ ଼గ ଼గ ௞௚௦
ൌ ቀ ቁ ߩ௖ ܴு ܶு ൌ ቀ ቁ ߩ௠ ܴு ܶு ൌ ቀ ቁ ߩ௸ ܴு ܶு ൌ ͶǤͶͻʹ ή ͳͲଵ଼ ቀ ቁ (23)
ீ ଷ ଷఆ೘ ଷఆ೰ ௠మ

The additional dimensionless factors are the same as in the precedent section (see 19)

In the standard model k=0 and Λ>0 the average densities ρ = ρc , ρm , ρΛ decrease with the increase of the
commoving RH and TH. They are inversely proportional to the product RHTH

ଷ ௖ ଵ ଷఆ೘ ௖ ଵ ଷఆ೰ ௖ ଵ
ߩ ൌ ߩ௖ ൌ  ቀ ቁ ቀ ቁ ቀ ቁ Ǣߩ௠ ൌ ቀ ቁቀ ቁ ቀ ቁ Ǣߩ௸ ൌ ቀ ቁቀ ቁቀ ቁ (24)
଼గ ீ ோಹ ்ಹ ଼గ ீ ோಹ ்ಹ ଼గ ீ ோಹ ்ಹ

Since the present day ρΛo / ρmo = ΩΛo / Ωm o = 2,68 therefore the expansion effects are 2,68 greater than the
gravitational effects. Therefore also the decrease of ρΛo is slower than the decrease of ρmo and that is why we observe
an acceleration of expansion. In other words, as the Universe expands, the density of gravitational matter declines
more quickly than the density of lambda matter (dark energy) and therefore the expansion accelerates

The physical meaning of the coefficients c2/G and c3/G

௖మ
The coefficient = 1.347 ·10 kg/m has the dimension of a mass divided by a length
ீ

௖మ ௠
ቀ ቁൌቀ ቁ (25)
ீ ௟

௖య
and the coefficient = 4.038·10 kg/s has the dimension of a mass divided by time
ீ

௖య ௠
ቀ ቁ ൌ ቀ ቁ (26)
ீ ௧

Making a simple transformation of the equations (25) and (26) we become aware that l means here the gravitational
length and t means the gravitational time of the mass m
ீ௠ ீ௠
݈ ൌ ݈ீ ൌ ƒ†‫ ݐ‬ൌ ‫ ீݐ‬ൌ (27)
௖మ ௖య
A simple transformation provides us the following equations

௖మ ௖య
݉ ൌ ቀ ቁ ݈ீ ൌ ቀ ቁ ‫ீݐ‬ (28)
ீ ீ

If we consider m in eq. (28) as the gravitational mass Mm embedded in the Hubble sphere we have to write

௖మ ௖య
‫ܯ‬௠ ൌ ቀ ቁ ܴ௠ ൌ ቀ ቁ ܶ௠ (29)
ீ ீ

Using the relations between gravitational length Rm , lambda length RΛ and the Hubble length RH , and also
between gravitational timer Tm , lambda time TΛ and the Hubble time TH that we know from the precedents sections
we have to write
య
௖మ ௖మ ோಹ ோಹ ௸ ௖మ ோಹ
‫ܯ‬௠ ൌ ቀ ቁ ܴ௠ ൌ ቀ ቁ ቀ െ ቁ ൌ ቀ ቁ ቀߗ௠ ቁ
ீ ீ ૛ ଺ ீ ૛
(30)
య
௖య ௖య ்ಹ ்ಹ ௸ ௖య ்ಹ
‫ܯ‬௠ ൌ ቀ ቁ ܶ௠ ൌ ቀ ቁ ቀ െ ቁ ൌ ቀ ቁ ቀߗ௠ ቁ
ீ ீ ૛ ଺ ீ ૛

When we would like to know the lambda mass MΛ embedded in a Hubble sphere
య
௖మ ௖మ ோಹ ௸ ௖మ ோಹ
‫ ௸ܯ‬ൌ ቀ ቁ ܴ௸ ൌ ቀ ቁ ቀ ቁ ൌ ቀ ቁ ቀߗ௸ ቁ
ீ ீ ଺ ீ ૛
(31)
య
௖య ௖య ்ಹ ௸ ௖య ்ಹ
‫ ௸ܯ‬ൌ ቀ ቁ ܶ௸ ൌ ቀ ቁ ቀ ቁ ൌ ቀ ቁ ቀߗ௸ ቁ
ீ ீ ଺ ீ ૛

ோಹ ்ಹ
As we can seeܴ௠ ൌ ቀߗ௠ ቁ ƒ†ܶ௠ ൌ ቀߗ௠ ቁ
૛ ૛

ோಹ ்ಹ
and ܴ௸ ൌ ቀߗ௸ ቁ ƒ†ܶ௸ ൌ ቀߗ௸ ቁ
૛ ૛

If we would like to calculate the total mass MH embedded in a Hubble sphere we have to use the following eqs.

௖మ ௖మ ோ ௖మ ோ
‫ܯ‬ு ൌ ቀ ቁ ሺܴ௠ ൅ ܴ௸ ሻ ൌ ቀ ቁ ሺߗ௠ ൅ ߗ௸ ሻ ቀ ಹቁ ൌ ቀ ቁ ቀ ಹቁ
ீ ீ ૛ ீ ૛
(32)
௖య ௖య ்ಹ ௖య ்ಹ
‫ܯ‬ு ൌ ቀ ቁ ሺܶ௠ ൅ ܶ௸ ሻ ൌ ቀ ቁ ሺߗ௠ ൅ ߗ௸ ሻ ቀ ቁ ൌ ቀ ቁ ቀ ቁ
ீ ீ ૛ ீ ૛

It is interesting to note that in the standard model

ଶீሺெ೘೚ ାெ೰೚ ሻ ଶீெಹ೚

ܴு௢ ൌ ൌ  ൎ ͳǤ͵ͲͶʉ1026̱݉ͳ͵ǡ͹ͷ േ ͲǤͳͳ„‹ŽŽ‹‘Ž‹‰Š–›‡ƒ”• (33)
௖మ ௖మ

The equation (33) is a Schwarzschild like equation, but it does not mean that the Hubble spheres are black
holes. They would be black holes if RH = 2GMm/c2. The MΛ cannot be a source of gravitational collapse because it is
the source of expansion and, according to the present day calculations, it is greater than the gravitational mass MΛ >
Mm. Both masses influences the structure of space-time, but their influence is opposite. The mass Mm (27,2% of the
content of the universe) is the source of the positive curvature and the mass MΛ (72,8% of the content of the
universe) acts in the opposite way flatting the space-time structure. Therefore Em is causing gravitational effects and
EΛ is the source of expansion effects. That is why in a local scale we observe Einstein lensing (Einstein’s rings,
crosses etc.) and in the large scale the universe appears as flat.
It is obvious that in the standard model the age of the universe will be given by the eq.:

ଶீሺெ೘೚ ାெ೰೚ ሻ ଶீெಹ೚

ܶு௢ ൌ ൌ  ൎ ͶǤ͵ͷʉ1017‫ ݏ‬ൎ ͳ͵ǡ͹ͷ േ ͲǤͳͳ„‹ŽŽ‹‘›‡ƒ”• (34)
௖య ௖య

As we could see in the standard model with k = 0 and ߉ > 0

௖మ ெ೘ ெ೰ ଶெಹ ௖య ெ೘ ெ೰ ଶெಹ
ቀ ቁ ൌ  ൌ ൌ ; ቀ ቁ ൌ ൌ ൌ (35)
ீ ோ೘ ோ೰ ோಹ ீ ்೘ ்೰ ்ಹ

Since Rm , RΛ and Tm , TΛ are theoretical quantities we used real quantities RH and TH knowing the relations between
the theoretical quantities and the real ones. Thus we obtained

௖మ ோಹ ௖య ்ಹ
‫ܯ‬௠ ൌ ቀ ቁ ቀߗ௠ ቁ ൌ ቀ ቁ ቀߗ௠ ቁ (36)
ீ ଶ ீ ଶ

Mm o ൎ 2,107·1052 kg

௖మ ோಹ ௖య ்ಹ
‫ ௸ܯ‬ൌ ቀ ቁ ቀߗ௸ ቁ ൌ ቀ ቁ ቀߗ௸ ቁ (37)
ீ ଶ ீ ଶ

MΛ o 6.67·1052 kg

௖మ ோಹ ௖య ்
‫ܯ‬ு ൌ ቀ ቁ ቀ ቁ ൌ ቀ ቁ ቀ ಹቁ (38)
ீ ଶ ீ ଶ

MH o ൎ8,78·1052 kg

Simple transformations show that RH = 2(Rm+ RΛ) and TH = 2(Tm+ TΛ)

Note that (Ωm/2, ( ΩΛ /2) and (1/2) are additional dimensionless factors that characterize the standard model with k =
0 and Λ > 0.
Note that as regards Planck’s, Stoney’s and other units

௠ು ௠ೄ ௠ಸ ௠ೞ ௠ೢ ெ೘ ெ೰ ௖మ
 ൌ ൌ ൌ ൌ ൌ ൌ ൌቀ ቁ (39)
௟ು ௟ೄ ௟ಸ ௟ೞ ௟ೢ ோ೘ ோ೰ ீ

௠ು ௠ೄ ௠ಸ ௠ೞ ௠ೢ ெ೘ ெ೰ ௖య
Analogically ൌ ൌ ൌ ൌ ൌ ൌ ൌቀ ቁ (40)
௧ು ௧ೄ ௧ಸ ௧ೞ ௧ೢ ்೘ ்೰ ீ

Note that the respective lengths lP, lS , lG, ls, lw, Rm are here gravitational lengths of the respective masses mP, mS,
mG, ms, mw, Mm. and that the respective times tP, tS , tG, ts, tw, Tm are gravitational times of the respective masses mP,
mS, mG, ms, mw, Mm .

It means that the coefficient c2/G expresses the constant basic limitary relation between mass and length in
Nature and the coefficient c3/G expresses the constant basic limitary relation between mass and time in Nature.

Note that in the standard model we are dealing with an increase of the masses (ΔMH , ΔMm and ΔMΛ) embedded
in a Hubble sphere because the Hubble horizon, distant from us 13,7 billions light years, escape from us observers
with the velocity of light c and embraces more and more matter, that was formed 13,7 billions years ago. The
increase of the total Hubble mass ΔMH = ΔMm + ΔMΛ in a Hubble sphere is given by ΔMH =(c2/G)( ΔRH/2) or by
ΔMH =(c3/G)( ΔTH/2). While the increase of the gravitational mass is given by ΔMm = (c2/G)( ΩmΔRH/2) = (c3/G)(
ΩmΔTH/2) and the increase of lambda mass by ΔMΛ = (c2/G)( ΩΛΔRH/2) = (c3/G)( ΩΛΔTH/2). Note that ΔMΛ/ ΔMm =
ΩΛ/Ωm . Since on the basis of the present day observations ΩΛo/Ωmo = 2.68 therefore the increase of lambda mass in a
Hubble sphere is 2.68 times greater than the increase of the gravitational mass therefore we observe an acceleration
of expansion of our universe. The source of expansion effects is greater than the source of gravitational effects.

The physical meaning of the coefficients c4/G and c5/G

Now let’s consider the two coefficients analysed more than 10 years ago in my papers (and in three papers
published together with my colleague Dr Bogdan Lange). We have shown in them that in all known interactions the
quantities c4/G and c5/G are the greatest possible limitary force (better the change of momentum per time unit
because in reality c4/G has such dimensions) and power in Nature (see e.g. 16, 17 ) . We can add now that the same
thing concerns the lambda units

௖ర
FP= FS = FG = Fs= Fw = F m= FΛ= ቀ ቁ = 1. 2107 · 1044 N
ீ
(41)
௖ఱ 52
PP = PS = PG = Ps = Pw = Pm = PΛ = ቀ ቁ = 3.63 · 10 W
ீ

(1) It means that at the beginning of the evolution of our universe the greatest possible limitary force (change of
momentum per time unit) and power, were active in all kinds of interactions or better there was only one interaction
at the beginning having the greatest possible values of force c4/G and power c5/G. According to J. Badur professor
of the Polish Academy of Science, on the basis of my papers, affirms: “It means that c4/G is a quantity that is more
fundamental than other constants and it has to become the basis for the unification of all interactions”. 18
(2) It means also that the closer we bring together interacting charges pressing matter the greater is the force and
the greater is the power that can be achieved and liberated in favorable conditions There are however limits - the
constant quantities c4/G and c5/G. Approaching the charges we meet several obstacles e.g. the natural spatial
structure of atoms and molecules, the natural spatial distances between elementary particles of atoms and molecules.
In such cases we must use pressure. Using it, in suitable circumstances, we can liberate forces and energy. The
excellent idea to press liquids (e.g. solution of the salt of iron FeCl3) and solid bodies (e.g. rods of steel) in order to
liberate from them considerable nuclear forces and energy using ultrasounds as pressing factor, idea at which
arrived, two Italian scientists F. Cardone, and R. Mignani inspired in a certain sense by my lecture and discussing
with me the problem, has conducted them to discover and develop the piezo-nuclear reactions and to construct with
other Italians F. A. Petrucci, A. Carpinteri, G. Lacidogna et al. the first preliminary types of piezo-nuclear reactors.
The group of A. Carpinteri, in the Torino Technical University, obtains nuclear reactions pressing marble and
granite samples using a hydraulic press. As we can see, in suitable circumstances, nuclear energy can be liberated,
by pressing liquids and solid bodies. If the industry will succeed in finding suitable technologies the mankind will
obtain new sources of energy.
Let’s here add that the mentioned two Italian scholars Fabio Cardone and Roberto Mignani, involved as initiators
of the mentioned experiments, call the quantity c4/G Kostro constant and Kostro limit. So my name appeared in
their papers19 and two books20,21. The quantity c4/G is most often called Planck’s force. So do also the two scholars.
but they use at the first place my name because, as I guess, in my papers it was shown that c4/G is not only Planck’s
force but also Stoney’s force, Kittel’s force and so on and because it was there shown also that c4/G is a limitary
quantity, the greatest possible force (change of momentum per time unit) in Nature.
I agree with my colleague Dr J. Wojtkowiak22 that from the philosophical point of view the limitary nature of the
quantity c4/G is more significant than its constancy. Already Aristotle and later medieval philosophers indicated that
in the Nature there are maxima and minima naturalia. Even if the components of the coefficient c4/G would be
functions of time (some authors suggest that G is changeable e.g. C. Massa 23) the considered limitary nature
remains. Therefore, according to my colleague, the denomination Kostro limit is more justified. In a recent e-mail F.
Cardone uses the plural and calls, as I guess, the coefficients considered in this paper Kostro constants and Kostro

16
L. Kostro, B. Lange, Physics Essays, Vol. 12, nr 1, 1999 p.182-189
17
L. Kostro L.Physics Essays, Vol. 13, no 1 p. 143-149
18
J. Badur, Rozwój pojęcia energii, Wyd. Instytutu Maszyn Przepływowych PAN, Gdańsk 2009, p. 966
19
F. Cardone, R., Mignani , Annales de la Fondation Louis de Broglie, Vol.. 27 no 3, (2002) 423-442
20
F. Cardone, R. Mignani, Energy and Geometry, World Scientific 2004 p. 99,
21
F. Cardone, R. Mignani, Deformed Spacetime, Springer 2007, p. 61-62 and 282
22
J. Wojtkowiak, private communication
23
C. Massa , Astrophysics and Space Science, Vol. 232, no 1/October 1995 pp.143-148.
limits. He is very kind, but do I really merit such a distinguishing mark? The coefficients c4/G and c5/G are
considered not only by me as the greatest possible force and power in Nature. There are several other authors De
Sabbata, Sivaram, C. Massa, Ch Schiller 24 von Borzeszkowski that are of the same opinion too.
The quantity c4/G became also the fundamental constant of the Cardone- Mignani theory of five dimensional
energy dependent deformed spacetime. 25 With the help of this theory they try to explain the phenomenology of the
results of their experiments The details of these experiments and other ones not mentioned here (e.g. the influence of
ultra-sounds on the radioactive substances) can be found in their papers published in Physics Letters A 26.
I have shown also in some papers27 that c4/G and c5/G play the part of the limitary greatest possible quantities, in
the most important equations in all classical and modern physical theories, The simplest method to show it is to
multiply respectively the mentioned equations by the factors

ࢉ૝ ࢉ૞
ࡳ ࡳ
൭ ൱ ൌ ͳ‫ ݎ݋‬൭ ൱ ൌ ͳ
ࢉ૝ ࢉ૞
(42)
ࡳ ࡳ

Note that today the denomination “force” is unfashionable nevertheless in the physical reality we are dealing with
real changes of momentum in time. In several theories we do not use the term “force” e.g. in General Relativity
where we explain the accelerated or decelerated movements by curvature of space-time but we have to recognize that
changes of momentum in time are real. If we do not like to use the denomination “the greatest limitary force in
Nature” indicating the coefficient c4/G of General Relativity we can use the term “the greatest possible increase of
momentum per unit of time” as we did it already in several places of this paper. The coefficient c4/G has really such
dimensions.
F. Cardone and R. Mignani distinguish between local and nonlocal (global) forces (i.e. sources of increase of
momentum per unit of time). “A force is local when it depends on a space-time point (or better, on an infinitesimal
neighborhood of a point); it is nonlocal when it depends on a whole (finite) space-time region.”28
Note that both of them cannot be grater than c4/G

On this occasion we can formulate same laws:

(I) It is impossible to construct a device (e.g. an accelerator) that would be able to accelerate a physical
body (e.g. a particle) i.e. that could endow it with an increase of momentum per unit of time greater
than c4/G

(II) A black hole cannot be a source of attraction provoking an increase of momentum per unit of time
greater than c4/G. In other words, a physical body falling into a black hole experiences an increase of
momentum per unit of time that never can be greater than c4/G

(III) It is impossible to construct a device (e.g. an accelerator) the power of which would be greater than
c5/G. Even a Hubble sphere as a whole is not able to have a global power greater than c5/G.
P ≤ c5/G
(IV) The power of explosion of a supernova cannot be greater then c5/G

With a nonlocal (global) force (source of increase of momentum per unit of time) we are dealing implicite
already in Einstein’s cosmological paper (1917). When we bring together the equation (69) of his General Relativity
paper (1916)29 and the equation (14) of his cosmological paper 30 we arrive to the equation of lambda pressure
called the “physical pressure of vacuum”.

24
Ch. Schiller., General relativity and cosmology derived from the maximum force and power, Theoretical Physics, Vol. 44, pp. 1629-1647
(2005) and De Sabbata and Sivaram quoted by Massa C., op. cit.
25
Ibid., p. 282
26
F. Cardone, et al. Piezonuclear neutons , Phys. Lett. A 373 (2009) 862-866; Piezonuclear neutrons from fracturing of inert solids, Phys. Lett. A
373 (2009) 4158-4163; Piezonuclear decay of thorium, Phys. Lett. A 373 (2009) 1956-1958.
27
L. Kostro, B. Lange op. cit.; Kostro L. op. cit.; Kostro L. The force c4/G and the power c5/G and the basic equations of Quantum Mechanics
[in:] Gravitation and Cosmology, R.L. Amoroso et al. (eds.) Kluwer Academic Publishers 2002 pp.413-418
28
F. Cardone , R. Mignani ,Deformed Spacetime, Springer 2007, p. 4
29
A. Einstein, Die Grundlage der allgemeinen Relativitätstheorie, [in:] H.A. Lorentz, A. Einsten, H. Minkowski, Das Relativitätspricip, Verlag
und Druk von B.G. Teubner, Leipzig ·Berlin 1922, p. 81-124
30
A. Einstein, Kosmologische Betrachtungen zur allgemeinen Relativitästeorie, Sitzungsberichten der Preussischen Akad. D. Wissenschaften
1917 [in:] H.A. Lorentz, A. Einsten, H. Minkowski, DasRelativitätspricip, Verlag und Druk von B.G. Teubner, Leipzig ·Berlin 1922, p
 ௖ర ௸
ߩ௸ ൌ ቀ ቁ ቀ ቁ (43)
ீ ସగ

As we can see in Einstein’s cosmological model (with k = +1 and Λ>0) the physical pressure of vacuum
depends on the global force c4/G. We are dealing with the same thing in the standard model (with k = 0 and Λ>0)

ࢉ૝ ࢫ
ߩࢫ ൌ ቀ ቁ ቀ ቁ (44)
ࡳ ૡ࣊

Since in General Relativity we do not use the term force because the positive or negative increase of momentum per
unit of time is considered as a result of the structure of space-time therefore we prefer instead of using the term
pressure (force upon surface) to use the term density of energy εΛ .

௸௖ ర ௖ర ௸
ߝ௸ ൌ ߩ௸ ܿ ଶ ൌ ൌ ቀ ቁ ቀ ቁ (45)
଼గீ ீ ଼గ

Note that the unique difference between the pressure pΛ and the density of energy εΛ consists in the fact that the first
is a vector and the second a scalar.

Einstein’s principle of energy mass equivalence

Using the indicated above method [see (43)], in some papers31,the author of this paper has indicated that the most
famous Einstein equation E = mc2 can be rewritten in the following way

௖ర ௖ఱ
‫ ܧ‬ൌ ݉ܿ ଶ ൌ ቀ ቁ ܴீ ൌ ቀ ቁ ܶீ  (46)
ீ ீ

(Where RG = Gm/c2 is the gravitational length and TG = Gm/c3 is the gravitational time of a body of mass m). Note
that the equations (13) can serve also to calculate the energy EH embedded in our Hubble sphere, but we must recall
the relations between the theoretical gravitational length RG of our universe and the real Hubble length RH as well the
relation between the theoretical gravitational time TG and the real Hubble time TH (i.e. the age of our universe). We
know already these relations from the precedent sections
As is well known Mm = ρm VH and MΛ = ρΛ VH (where ρm and ρΛ are the respective densities of the
gravitational mass aߩ nd of the mass connected with Dark Energy, and VH= (4/3)πRH3 is the Hubble volume).
In the standard model, according to the Friedman equation with k=0 and Λ>0, the present day density of the
universe ρo is equal to the present day critical density ρc

ଷு೚మ ௞௚
ߩ௢ ൌ  ߩ௠௢  ൅ ߩ௸ ൌ  ߩ௖௢ ൌ ൎ ͻǡͶ͸ ‫ିͲͳ  ڄ‬ଶ଻   (47)
଼గீ ௠య

௸௖ మ ଷு మ ି௸௖ మ
Since the ρΛ is given by the equation ߩ௸ ൌ  therefore ߩ௠ ൌ ߩ௖ െ ߩ௸ ൌ 
଼గீ ଼గீ

Now we can show the simplest equations that enable us to calculate the gravitational energy Em, Dark energy EΛ
and the total energy EH = Em+ EΛ contained in a Hubble volume.

31
L. Kostro, The force c4/G and the power c5/G and the basic equations of Quantum Mechanics [in:] Gravitation and Cosmology, R.L. Amoroso
et al. (eds.) Kluwer Academic Publishers 2002 pp.413-418; Idem., The Quantities c4/G and c5/G and the Basic Equations of Quantum Mechanics
[in:] Extensions of Quantum Physic. A. Horzela and E. Kapuścik, Apeiron Montreal 2002, pp. 115-119
 య
௖ర ௖ర ோಹ ோಹ ௸ ௖ర ோಹ
‫ܧ‬௠ ൌ ቀ ቁ ܴ௠ ൌ ቀ ቁ ቀ െ ቁ ൌ ቀ ቁ ቀߗ௠ ቁ
ீ ீ ଶ ଺ ீ ଶ
(48)
య
௖ఱ ௖ఱ ்ಹ ்ಹ ௸ ௖ఱ ்ಹ
‫ܧ‬௠ ൌ ቀ ቁ ܶ௠ ൌ ቀ ቁ ቀ െ ቁ ൌ ቀ ቁ ቀߗ௠ ቁ
ீ ீ ଶ ଺ ீ ଶ

‫ܧ‬௠௢ ൎ ͳǤͺͻ ή ͳͲ଺ଽ ‫ܬ‬

య
௖ర ௖ర ோಹ ௸ ௖ర ோಹ
‫ ௸ܧ‬ൌ ቀ ቁ ܴ௸ ൌ ቀ ቁ ቀ ቁ ൌ ቀ ቁ ቀߗ௸ ቁ
ீ ீ ଺ ீ ଶ
(49)
య
௖ఱ ௖ఱ ்ಹ ௸ ௖ఱ ்ಹ
‫ ௸ܧ‬ൌ ቀ ቁ ܶ௸ ൌ ቀ ቁ ቀ ቁ ൌ ቀ ቁ ቀߗ௸ ቁ
ீ ீ ଺ ீ ଶ

‫௸ܧ‬௢ ൎ ͷǤͻͻ ή ͳͲ଺ଽ ‫ܬ‬

௖ర ௖ర ோ ௖ర ோ
‫ܧ‬ு ൌ ቀ ቁ ሺܴ௠ ൅ ܴ௸ ሻ ൌ ቀ ቁ ሺߗ௠ ൅ ߗ௸ ሻ ቀ ಹቁ ൌ ቀ ቁ ቀ ಹቁ
ீ ீ ଶ ீ ଶ
(50)
௖ఱ ௖ఱ ்ಹ ௖ఱ ்ಹ
‫ܧ‬ு ൌ ቀ ቁ ሺܶ௠ ൅ ܶ௸ ሻ ൌ ቀ ቁ ሺߗ௠ ൅ ߗ௸ ሻ ቀ ቁ ൌ ቀ ቁ ቀ ቁ
ீ ீ ଶ ீ ଶ

‫ܧ‬ு௢ ൎ ͹Ǥͺͺ͹ ή ͳͲ଺ଽ ‫ ܬ‬ൎ ͶǤͻʹ͵ ή ͳͲ଻ଽ ‫ܸ݁ܩ‬

The constant c4/G and the charges of elementary particles.

Every elementary particle is characterized by specific charges: e.g. gravitational, electrical and so on. The
dimension analysis shows that a charge is a square root of the following combination C= (ml3/t2)1/2 of physical
quantities: mass m, length l and time t. A more detailed analysis shows that a charge is a square root of the product of
the energy of a particle E = mc2 = (c4/G)RG and of a length characteristic for a considered interaction. Every theory
has a characteristic length: e.g. in quantum mechanics the elementary particles are characterized by the Compton
wave length ࣮ŝC = ħ/mc in theories of gravitation by a gravitational length RG = Gm/c2 and in electromagnetism the
electrically charged particles are characterized by a classical radius rc = Ke2/mc2

Gravitational charge

In the case of the gravitational charge we are dealing with the square root of the particle’s energy mc2 = (c4/G)RG
and its gravitational length RG = Gm/c2 therefore e.g. in the case of an neutron its gravitational charge is given by
భ
భ భ భ
௖ర మ
‫ீܥ‬௡ ൌ ሺ݉௡ ܿ ଶ ܴீ௡ ሻమ ൌ ቂቀ ቁ ܴீ௡
ଶ
ቃ ൌ ሺ‫݉ܩ‬௡ଶ ሻమ ൌ  ሺ݄ீ௡ ܿሻమ (51)
ீ

Where hGn= Gmn2/c is the, mentioned already quantum of action of the gravitational interactions. Note that the
presented charge CGn = (hGnc)1/2 resembles the Planck’s charge CP = (ħc)1/2

Electrical charge

In the case of the electrical charge of a particle we are dealing with the square root of the particle’s energy mc2 =
(c /G)RG and its classical radius rc = Ke2/mc2 therefore e.g. in the case of an electron and of a proton the electrical
4

charge is given by
 భ భ
భ ௖ర మ ௖ర ீ௠೐ ௄௘ మ మ భ భ
ଶ
‫ܥ‬௘ ൌ ሺ݉௘ ܿ ‫ݎ‬௖௘ ሻ ൌ ቂቀ ቁ ܴீ௘ ‫ݎ‬௖௘ ቃ ൌ ቂቀ ቁ ቀ
మ ቁቀ ቁቃ ൌ ሺ‫ ݁ܭ‬ଶ ሻమ ൌ ሺ݄ௌ ܿሻమ
ீ ீ ௖మ ௠೐ ௖ మ

(52)
భ భ
భ భ భ
௖ర మ ௖ర ீ௠೛ ௄௘ మ మ
‫ܥ‬௘ ൌ ൫݉௣ ܿ ଶ ‫ݎ‬௖௣ ൯ ൌ ቂቀ ቁ ܴீ௣ ‫ݎ‬௖௣ ቃ ൌ ൤ቀ ቁ ቀ
మ ቁ൬ ൰൨ ൌ ሺ‫ ݁ܭ‬ሻ ൌ ሺ݄ௌ ܿሻ ଶ మ మ
ீ ீ ௖మ ௠೛ ௖ మ

Where hS= Ke2/c is the, mentioned above Stoney’s quantum of action of the electromagnetic interactions. Note that
the presented electrical charge Ce = (hSc)1/2 resembles also the Planck’s charge CP = (ħc)1/2

Planck charge (ħc)1/2

In quantum mechanics we are dealing with a characteristic length called Compton wave length ŝC = ħ/mc. It is
interesting to note that the square root of the product of the energy of a particle (e.g. of an electron, proton, neutron
and so on) and its Compton wave length is equal to Planck’s charge CP = (ħc)1/2
భ భ
భ ௖ర మ ௖ర ீ௠೐ ԰ మ భ
‫ܥ‬௉௘ ൌ ሺ݉௘ ܿ ଶ ƛ஼௘ ሻమ ൌ ቂቀ ቁ ܴீ௘ ƛ஼௘ ቃ ൌ ቂቀ ቁ ቀ ቁቀ ቁቃ ൌ ሺ԰ܿሻమ
ீ ீ ௖మ ௠೐ ௖

భ భ
భ భ
௖ర మ ௖ర ீ௠೛ ԰ మ
‫ܥ‬௉௣ ൌ ൫݉௘ ܿ ƛ஼௣ ൯ ൌ ቂቀ ቁ ܴீ௣ ƛ஼௣ ቃ ൌ ൤ቀ ቁ ቀ
ଶ మ
ቁ൬ ൰൨ ൌ ሺ԰ܿሻమ (53)
ீ ீ ௖మ ௠೛ ௖

భ భ
భ భ
௖ర మ ௖ర ீ௠೙ ԰ మ
‫ܥ‬௉௡ ൌ ሺ݉௡ ܿ ଶ ƛ஼௡ ሻమ ൌ ቂቀ ቁ ܴீ௡ ƛ஼௡ ቃ ൌ ቂቀ ቁ ቀ ቁቀ ቁቃ ൌ ሺ԰ܿሻమ
ீ ீ ௖మ ௠೙ ௖

It seems to mean that every elementary particle as a quantum object is endowed with a Planck charge CP = (ħc)1/2

The smallest possible force and power

With the minimal quantities are occupied several authors e,g, C. Massa 32 who introduced a minimal energy Emin =
ħc/RH = ħH and has shown the relation between Emin and the Λ parameter.
At the end of this section let’s introduce the smallest possible force Fmin and power Pmin characteristic for every
Hubble sphere.

ࢉ૝ ࢒૛ ࢉ૝ ࢚૛ ࢉ૝ ԰ ԰ ԰ு మ
‫ܨ‬௠௜௡ ൌ ቀ ቁ ൬ ࡼ૛ ൰ ൌ ቀ ቁ ൬ ࡼ૛ ൰ ൌ ቀ ቁ ሺ‫ܪ‬ଶ ‫ݐ‬௉ଶ ሻ ൌ ൌ మ ൌ (54)
ࡳ ࡾࡴ ࡳ ࢀࡴ ࡳ ோಹ ்ಹ ௖்ಹ ࢉ

԰ு೚మ
‫ܨ‬୫୧୬ ௢ ൌ ൎ ͳǤͺͷ͹ ή ͳͲି଻଼ ܰ ൎ ͳǤͺͷ͹ ή ͳͲିହସ ‫ܰݕ‬
௖

௖ఱ ௟మ ௖ఱ ௧మ ௖ఱ ԰
ܲ௠௜௡ ൌ ቀ ቁ ൬ ುమ ൰ ൌ ቀ ቁ ൬ ುమ ൰ ൌ ቀ ቁ ሺ‫ܪ‬ଶ ‫ݐ‬௉ଶ ሻ ൌ మ ൌ ԰‫ܪ‬ଶ  (55)
ீ ோಹ ீ ்ಹ ீ ்ಹ

ܲ௠௜௡௢ ൌ ԰‫ܪ‬௢ଶ ൎ ͷǤͷ͹ ή ͳͲି଻଴ ܹ

Doing simple transformations it is easy to write the equations for the smallest energy Emin , the smallest mass Mmin ,
the smallest temperature ࣮min., and the smallest length lmin , and time tmin .
మ
௖ర ௟ು ௖ఱ ௧మ ԰
‫ܧ‬௠௜௡ ൌ ቀ ቁ ቀ ቁ ൌ ቀ ቁ ቀ ುቁ ൌ ൌ ԰‫ܪ‬ (56)
ீ ோಹ ீ ்ಹ ்ಹ

32
C.Massa, Astrophysics and Space Science, Vol. 232, no 1/October 1995 pp.143-148.
 ‫ܧ‬௠௜௡௢ ൌ ԰‫ܪ‬௢ ൎ ʹǤͶ͵ ή ͳͲିହଶ ‫ܬ‬
మ
௖మ ௟ು ௖య ௧మ ԰ ԰ ԰ு
‫ܯ‬௠௜௡ ൌ ቀ ቁ ቀ ቁ ൌ ቀ ቁ ቀ ುቁ ൌ ቀ ቁൌቀ ቁൌ (57)
ீ ோಹ ீ ்ಹ ௖ோಹ ௖ మ ்ಹ ௖మ

԰ு೚
‫ܯ‬௠௜௡௢ ൌ ൎ ʹǤ͸ͻͺ ή ͳͲି଺ଽ ݇݃
௖మ

௖ర ௟ ௧ ௖ఱ ௟ ௧ ԰௖ ԰ ԰ு
࣮௠௜௡ ൌ ቀ ቁ ቀ ು ುቁ ൌ ቀ ቁ ቀ ು ುቁ ൌ ൌ ൌ (58)
ீ ்ಹ ௞ ீ ோಹ ௞ ோಹ ௞ ்ಹ ௞ ௞

԰ு೚
࣮௠௜௡௢ ൌ ൎ ͳǤ͹͸ ή ͳͲିଶଽ ‫ ܭ‬௢
௞

ீ
݈௠௜௡ ൌ ቀ ర ቁ ԰‫ܪ‬ (59)
௖

ீ
݈௠௜௡ ௢ ൌ ቀ ర ቁ ԰‫ܪ‬௢ ൎ ʹǤͲͳ͵ ή ͳͲିଽ଺ ݉
௖

ீ
‫ݐ‬௠௜௡ ൌ ቀ ఱ ቁ ԰‫ܪ‬ (60)
௖

ீ
‫ݐ‬௠௜௡ ௢ ൌ ቀ ఱ ቁ ԰‫ܪ‬௢ ൎ ͸Ǥ͹ʹ͵ ή ͳͲିଵ଴ହ ‫ݏ‬
௖

Note that lmin is the gravitational length and tmin is the gravitational time of the smallest quantum object of mass
Mmin o and energy Emin o
Note also that the smallest units are theoretical units determined by the universal constants ( c, G, ħ, k) and
universal parameters (H, RH, TH, Λ). Note that the smallest possible energy is equal to C. Massa’s minimal energy33 .
In the standard model the smallest energy is related to the Λ parameter as follows. Since in this model Λ= 3ΩΛ/R2H
therefore RH = (3ΩΛ/Λ)1/2
భ
԰௖ ௸ మ
Hence ‫ܧ‬௠௜௡ ൌ ԰‫ ܪ‬ൌ ൌ ԰ܿ ቀ ቁ (61)
ோಹ ଷఆ೰

The smallest and the greatest quantum objects are endowed with Planck charge

(a) The smallest theoretical quantum object endowed with the smallest mass ħH/c2 and energy ħH is endowed with
Planck charge
భ
భ భ
԰ோಹ మ
ሺ԰‫ܴܪ‬ு ሻమ ൌ ቀ ቁ ൌ ሺ԰ܿሻమ ൌ ‫ܥ‬௉  (62)
்ಹ

(b) Every Hubble sphere is a system of objects causally connected i.e. bounded by all long distance interactions. We
are not causally connected with objects which are behind a Hubble sphere. It is interesting to note that a Hubble
sphere as a whole is also endowed with a Planck charge. Let’ theoretically assume that at the beginning of the
evolution of our Hubble sphere there were emitted in opposite directions pairs of minimal quantum objects, as it is
required by the conservation law of momentum. It is interesting that the product of the mass embedded in a Hubble
sphere MH = Mm + MΛ= (c2/G)(RH/2) and of the mass of a pair of the minimal object 2ħH/c2 is equal to the square of
Planck mass ħc/G.

33
Ibidem.
 ௖మ ோ ଶ԰ு ԰௖
‫ܯ‬ு ή ʹ݉௠௜௡ ൌ ቀ ቁ ቀ ಹቁ ή ቀ ቁൌ  (63)
ீ ଶ ௖మ ீ

భ భ
Hence‫ܥ‬௉ு ൌ ሺʹ‫ܯܩ‬ு ή ݉௠௜௡ ሻమ ൌ ሺ԰ܿሻమ (64)

We obtain the same result when we use the square root of the product of the energy EH that influences the space –
time structure in the greatest way and two lengths 2Gmmin/c2= 2GħH/c4of the two minimal objects that also acts on
the space-time structure in the limitary smallest way

భ భ భ
ீ ௖ర ோ ீ మ భ ԰ோಹ మ భ
మ
‫ܥ‬௉ு ൌ ቂ‫ܧ‬ு ή ʹ ቀ ర ቁ ԰‫ܪ‬ቃ ൌ ቂቀ ቁ ቀ ಹቁ ή ʹ ቀ ర ቁ ԰‫ܪ‬ቃ ൌ ሺ԰ܴு ‫ܪ‬ሻమ ൌ ቀ ቁ ൌ ሺ԰ܿሻమ (65)
௖ ீ ଶ ௖ ்ಹ

Since the product MH · 2mmin = ħc/G therefore

ଶீெಹ ௠೘೔೙
ൌ ԰ (66)
௖

Perhaps these results will help as a basis for quantization of the energy that influences the space-time structure EH =
Em + EΛ inside a Hubble sphere.

Conclusions
Concluding we can say that:
(1) the coefficients cn/G (n = 0,1…5) play in the relativistic cosmology a very important part because they contain a
fundamental physical sense. They have an important physical meaning. They express the fundamental limitary
relations between the most important properties of the universe. They constitute a mathematical spinal cord of the
equations of relativistic cosmology.
(2) The universal constants like e.g. c, G, ħ, e and the universal parameters like e.g. RH,TH ,H, Λ, Mm, MΛ, MH are
correlated and interconnected. The investigation of these correlations and interconnections is not a pure numerology
(3) In a Hubble sphere:
-both the local and global increase of mass per unit of length cannot be greater than c2/G
-both the local and global increase of mass per unit of time cannot be greater than c3/G
-both the local and global increase of momentum per unit of time cannot be greater than c4/G
-both the local and global production of energy per unit of time cannot be greater than c5/G
(4) Perhaps the theory of Deformed Space-time formulated by Fabio Cardone and Roberto Mignani (in which the
quantity c4/G constitutes a fundamental constant) will help in the quantization of the energy EH = Em + EΛ that
influences upon the structure of space – time. Em is the global source of the curvature of the space - time structure
causing gravitational effects and EΛ is the global source of expansion effects and is flatting the space – time
structure. Perhaps the presence of elementary particles, atoms, molecules, as Cardone and Mignani34 maintain, is a
local source of deformation of the considered structure.

34
F. Cardone, R. Mignani, Deformed Spacetime, Springer 2007.
 Amending Maxwell’s Equations for Real and
Complex Gauge Groups in Non-Abelian Form

Elizabeth A. Rauscher and Richard L. Amoroso

Tecnic Research Laboratories

Noetic Advanced Studies

Abstract. We have analyzed, calculated and extended the modification of Maxwell’s equations in a complex
Minkowski metric, M 4 in a C2 space using the SU 2 gauge, SL(2,c) and other gauge groups, such as SU n for n >2
expanding the U1 gauge theories of Weyl. This work yields additional predictions beyond the electroweak
unification scheme. Some of these are: 1) modified gauge invariant conditions, 2) short range non-Abelian
force terms and Abelian long range force terms in Maxwell’s equations, 3) finite but small rest of the photon,
and 4) a magnetic monopole like term and 5) longitudinal as well as transverse magnetic and electromagnetic
field components in a complex Minkowski metric M 4 in a C4 space.

INTRODUCTION

We have developed an eight dimensional complex Minkowski space M 4 (1) composed of four real
dimensions and four imaginary dimensions which is consistent with Lorentz invariance and analytic
continuation in the complex plane [1]. The unique feature of this geometry is that it admits of nonlocality
consistent with Bell’s theorem, (EPR paradox), possibly Young’s double slit experiment, the Aharonov –
Bohm effect and multi mirrored interferometric experiment.
Additionally, expressing Maxwell’s electromagnetic equations in complex eight space, leads to some
new and interesting predictions in physics, including possible detailed explanation of some of the previously
mentioned nonlocality experiments [2]. Complexification of Maxwell’s equations require a non-Abelian
gauge group which amend the usual theory, which utilizes the usual unimodular Weyl U1 group. We have
examined the modification of gauge conditions using higher symmetry groups such as SU2 , SUn and other
groups such as the SL(2,c) double cover group of the rotational group SO(3,1) related to Shipov’s Ricci
curvature tensor [3] and a possible neo-aether picture. Thus we are led to new and interesting physics
involving extended metrical space constraints, the usual transverse and also longitudinal, non Hertzian
electric and magnetic field solutions to Maxwell’s equations, possibly leading to new communication
systems and antennae theory, non zero solutions to ∇ ⋅ B , and a possible finite but small rest mass of the
photon.
Comparison of our theoretical approach is made to the work of Vigier, [4] Barrett [5] and Harmuth’s [6]
work on amended Maxwell’s theory. We compare our predictions such as our longitudinal field to the
B (3) term of Vigier, and our Non-Abelian gauge groups to that of Barrett and Harmuth. This author
interprets this work as leading to new and interesting physics, including a possible reinterpretation of a neo-
aether with nonlocal information transmission properties.
 COMPLEXIFIED ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS IN
MINKOWSKI SPACE AND NONLOCALITY

We expand the usual line element metric dg

2
= gμγ dx ν dx in the following manner. We consider a
u u
complex eight dimensional space, M4 constructed so that Zu = x Re
+ i x Im and likewise for Z ν where the
indices ν and μ run 1 to 4 yielding (1, 1, 1, -1). Hence, we now have a new complex eight space metric
μ
as ds = ηνμ dZ dZ .
2 v
We have developed this space and other extended complex spaces (1) and
examined their relationship with the twister algebras and asymptotic twister space and the spinor calculus
and other implications of the theory [7]. The Penrose twister SU(2,2) or U4 is constructed from 4-space –
~ ~
time, U2 ⊗ U 2 where U2 is the real part of the space and U 2 is the imaginary part of the space, this metric
appears to be a fruitful area to explore.
The twister Z can be a pair of spinors UA and π A which are said to represent the twister. The condition

for these representations are 1) the null infinity condition for a zero spin field is Z Z e = 0 , 2) conformal
e

invariance and 3) independence of the origin. The twister is derived from the imaginary part of the spinor
field. The underlying concept of twister theory is that of conformally invariance fields occupy a
fundamental role in physics and may yield some new physics. Since the twister algebra falls naturally out
complex space.
Other researchers have examined complex dimensional Minkowski spaces. In reference [10], Newman
demonstrates that M4 space do not generate any major “weird physics” or anomalous physics predictions and
is consistent with an expanded or amended special and general relativity. In fact the Kerr metric falls
naturally out of this formalism as demonstrated by Newman [11].
As we know twisters and spinors are related by the general Lorentz conditions in such a manner that all
signals are luminal in the usual four N Minkowski space but this does not preclude super or trans luminal
signals in spaces where N > 4. H. Stapp, for example, has interpreted the Bell’s theorem experimental
results in terms of trans luminal signals to address the nonlocality issue of the Clauser, et. al and Aspect
experiments. Kozameh and Newman demonstrate the role of non local fields in complex eight space [16].
We believe that there are some very interesting properties of the M4 space which include the nonlocality
properties of the metric applicable in the non-Abiliass algebras related to the quantum theory and the
conformal invariance in relativity as well as new properties of Maxwell’s equations. In addition,
complexification of Maxwell’s equations in M4 space yields some interesting predictions, yet we find the
usual conditions on the manifold hold [2,8]. Some of these new predictions come out of the
complexification of four space 2 and appear to relate to the work of Vigier, Barrett, Harmuth and others [4,
5, 6]. Also we find that the twister algebra of the complex eight dimensional, M4 space is mapable 1 to 1
with the twister algebra, C4 space of the Kaluza-Klein five dimensional electromagnetic - gravitational
metric [17, 18].
Some of the predictions of the complexified form of Maxwell’s equations are 1) a finite but small rest
mass of the photon, 2) a possible magnetic monopole, ∇ ⋅ β ≠ 0 , 3) transverse as well as longitudinal B(3)
like components of E and B, 4) new extended gauge invariance conditions to include non-Abelian algebras
and 5) an inherent fundamental nonlocality property on the manifold. Vigier also explores longitudinal E
and B components in detail and finite rest mass of the photon [19].
We consider both the electric and magnetic fields to be complexified as E = ERe = iE Im and
B − B Re = iBIm for E Re , E Im , BRe and BIm are real quantities. Then substitution of these two equations
into the complex form of Maxwell’s equations above yields, upon separation of real and imaginary parts,
two sets of Maxwell-like equations. The first set is

∇⋅ E Re = 4πρe (1)
 1 ∂ E Re
∇ ⋅ B Re = 0 ∇ × B Re = = Je (2)
c ∂t
the second set is

∇⋅ ( iBIm ) = 4π i ρm ( )
∇ × i B Im =
(
1 ∂ iE Im ) (3)
c ∂t

1 ∂ ( iBIm )
∇⋅ ( iEIm ) = 0 ∇ × (iE ) = = iJm (4)
c ∂t
The real part of the electric and magnetic fields yield the usual Maxwell’s equations and complex parts
generate “mirror” equations; for example, the divergence of the real component of the magnetic field is zero,
but the divergence of the imaginary part of the electric field is zero, and so forth. The structure of the real
and imaginary parts of the fields is parallel with the electric real components being substituted by the
imaginary part of the magnetic fields and the real part of the magnetic field being substituted by the
imaginary part of the electric field.
In the second set of equations, (2), the I’s, “go out” so that the quantities in the equations are real, hence
∇ ⋅ BIm = 4πρ m , and not zero, yielding a term that may be associated with some classes of monopole
theories. See references in ref. [2].
We express the charge density and current density as complex quantities based on the separation of
Maxwell’s equations above. Then, in generalized form ρ = ρe = iρm and J=Je+iJ m where it may be
possible to associate the imaginary complex charge with the magnetic monopole and conversely the electric
current has an associated imaginary magnetic current.
The alternate of defining and using, which Evans does E = ERe + iBIm and B = BRe + iEIm would not yield
a description of the magnetic monopole in terms of complex quantities but would yield, for example
∇⋅ ( iBIm ) = 0 in the second set of equations.
Using the invariance of the line element s2 = x2 – c2 t2 for r = ct = x 2 and for x2 = x2 +y 2 + z2 for the
distance from an electron charge, we can write the relation,

1 ∂ (iBim ) 1 ∂Bim
= iJm or = Jm (5)
c ∂t c ∂t

1 ∂ (iBIm )
∇ × (iEIm ) = 0 for E Im = 0 or = iJm (6)
c ∂t

IMPLICATIONS FOR PHYSICS OF NEW GAUGE CONDITIONS

IN COMPLEX MINKOWSKI SPACE

In a series of papers, Barrett, Harmuth and Rauscher have examined the modification of gauge conditions in
modified or amended Maxwell theory. The Rauscher approach, as briefly explained in the preceding section
is to write complexified Maxwell’s equation in consistent form to complex Minkowski space [2].
The Barrett amended Maxwell theory utilizes non-Abelian algebras and leads to some very interesting
predictions which have interested me for some years. He utilizes the non commutive SU2 gauge symmetry
rather than the U1 symmetry. Although the Glashow electroweak theory utilizes U1 and SU2 , but in a
different manner, but his theory does not lead to the interesting and unique predictions of the Barrett theory.
Barrett, in his amended Maxwell theory, predicts that the velocity of the propagation of signals is not the
velocity of light. He presents the magnetic monopole concept resulting from the amended Maxwell picture.
His motive goes beyond standard Maxwell formalism and generate new physics utilizing a non-Abelian
gauge theory.[5]
The SU2 group gives us symmetry breaking to the U1 group which can act to create a mass splitting
symmetry that yield a photon of finite (but necessarily small) rest mass which may be created as self energy
produced by the existence of the vacuum. This finite rest mass photon can constitute a propagation signal
carrier less than the velocity of light.
We can construct the generators of the SU2 algebra in terms of the fields E, B, and A. The usual potentials,
Aμ is the important four vector quality Aμ = ( A, φ ) where the index runs 1 to 4. One of the major
purposes of introducing the vector and scalar potentials and also to subscribe to their physicality is the desire
by physicists to avoid action at a distance. In fact in gauge theories Aμ is all there is! Yet, it appears that,
in fact, these potentials yield a basis for a fundamental nonlocality!
Let us address the specific case of the SU2 group and consider the elements of a non-Abelian algebra
such as the fields with SU2 (or even SUn ) symmetry then we have the commutation relations where XY-
YX ≠ 0 or [X,Y] ≠ 0. Which is reminiscent of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle non-Abelian gauge.
Barrett does explain that SU2 fields can be transformed into U1 fields by symmetry breaking. For the SU2
gauge amended Maxwell theory additional terms appear in term of operations such A ⋅ E , A ⋅ B and
A × B and their non Abelian converses. For example ∇ ⋅ B no longer equals zero but is given as
∇⋅ B = − jg ( A ⋅ B − B ⋅ A ) ≠ 0 where [A,B] ≠ 0 for the dot product of A and B and hence we have a
magnetic monopole term and j is the current and g is a constant. Also Barrett gives references to the Dirac,
Schwinger and G. t Hooft monopole work. Further commentary on the SU2 gauge conjecture of H.F.
Mamuth [6] that under symmetry breaking, electric charge is considered but magnetic charges are not.
Barrett further states that the symmetry breaking conditions chosen are to be determined by the physics of
the problem. These non Abelian algebras have consistence to quantum theory.
In this author’s analysis, using the SU2 group there is the automatic introduction of short range forces in
addition to the long range force of the U1 group. U1 is one dimensional and Abelian and SU2 is three
dimensional and is non-Abelian. U1 is also a subgroup of SU2 . The U1 group is associated with the long
range 1 / r 2 force and SU2 , such as for its application to the weak force yields short range associated fields.
Also SU2 is a subgroup of the useful SL(2,c) group of non compact operations on the manifold. SL(2,c) is a
semi simple four dimensional Lie group and is a spinor group relevant to the relativistic formalism and is
isomorphic to the connected Lorentz group associated with the Lorentz transformations. It is a conjugate
group to the SU2 group and contains an inverse. The double cover group of SU2 is SL(2,c) where SL(2,c) is
a complexification of SU2 . Also LS(2,c) is the double cover group of SU3 related to the set of rotations in
three dimensional space [3]. Topologically, SU2 is associated with isomorphic to the three dimensional
spherical, O3 + (or three dimensional rotations) and U1 is associated with the O2 group of rotations in two
dimensions. The ratio of Abelian to non Abelian components, moving from U1 to SU2 , gauge is 1 to 2 so
that the short range components are twice as many as the long range components.
Instead of using the SU2 gauge condition we use SL (2,c) we have a non-Abelian gauge and hence
quantum theory and since this group is a spinor and is the double cover group of the Lorentz group (for spin
½) we have the conditions for a relativistic formalism. The Barrett formalism is non-relativistic. SL (2,c) is
the double cover group of SU2 but utilizing a similar approach using twister algebras yields relativistic
physics.
It appears that complex geometry can yield a new complementary unification of quantum theory,
relativity and allow a domain of action for nonlocality phenomena, such as displayed in the results of the
Bell’s theorem tests of the EPR paradox [22], and in which the principles of the quantum theory hold to be
universally. The properties of the nonlocal connections in complex four space may be mediated by non -or
low dispersive loss solutions. We solved Schrödinger equation in complex Minkowski space [25].
In progress is research involving other extended gauge theory models, with particular interest in the
nonlocality properties on the S pact-time manifold, quantum properties such as expressed in the EPR
paradox and coherent states in matter.
Utilizing Coxeter graphs or Dynkin diagrams, Sirag lays out a comprehensive program in terms of the
A n , Dn and E6 , E7 and E8 Lie algebras constructing a hyper dimensional geometry for as a classification
scheme for elementary particles. Inherently, this theory utilizes complexified spaces involving twisters and
Kaluza-Klein geometries. This space incorporates the string theory and GUT models [27].

CONCLUSION

It appears that utilizing the complexification of Maxwell’s equations with the extension of the gauge
condition to non-Abelian algebras, yields a possible metrical unification of relativity, electromagnetism and
quantum theory. This unique new approach yields a universal nonlocality. No radical spurious predictions
result from the theory, but some new predictions are made which can be experimentally examined. Also,
this unique approach in terms of the twister algebras may lead to a broader understanding of macro and
micro nonlocality and possible transverse electromagnetic fields observed as nonlocality in collective
plasma state and other media.

REFERENCES
1. P. Penrose and E.J. Newman, Proc. Roy. Soc. A363, 445 (1978).
2. E.T. Newman, J. Math. Phys. 14, 774 (1973).
3. R.O. Hansen and E.T. Newman, Gen. Rel. and Grav. 6, 216 (1975).
4. E.T. Newman, Gen. Rel. and Grav. 7, 107 (1976).
5. H.P. Stapp Phys. Rev. A47, 847 (1993) and Private Communication.
6. J.S. Bell, Physics 1, 195 (1964).
7. J.F. Clauser and W.A. Horne Phys. Rev. 10D, 526 (1974) and private communication with J. Clauser 1977 .
8. A. Aspect, et. al. Phys. Rev. 49, 1804 (1982) and private communication.
9. E.T. Newman and E.T. Newman, third MG meeting on Gen. Rel., Ed. Ha Nang, Amsterdam Netherlands, North-
Holland, pgs 51-55 (1983).
10. Th. Kaluza, sitz. Berlin Press, A. Kad. Wiss, 968 (1921).
11. O. Klein Z. Phys. 37, 805 (1926) and O. Klein, Z. Phys. 41, 407 (1927).
12. J.P. Vigier, Found. Of Phys. 21, 125 (1991).
13. M.W. Evans and J.P. Vigier “the enigmatic photon” 1 and 2 “Non-Abelian Electrodynamics”, Kluwer Acad.
Dordrecht (1994, 1995, 1996).
14. E.A. Rauscher, Bull. Am. Phys. Soc. 21, 1305 (1976).
15. E.A. Rauscher, J. Plasma Phys. 2.
16. T.T. Wu and C.N. Yang, “Concepts of Nonintergreble phase factors and global formulation of gauge fields”, Phys.
Rev. D12, 3845 (1975).
17. E.A. Rauscher, “D and R Spaces, Lattice Groups and Lie Algebras and their Structure”, April 17, 1999.
18. E.A. Rauscher “Soliton Solutions to the Schrödinger Equation in Complex Minkowski Space”, pps 89-105,
Proceeding of the First International Conference ,
19. A. Einstein, B. Podolsky and N. Rosen, Phys. Rev. 47, 777 (1935).
20. E.A.Rauscher, Complex Minkowski Space & Nonlocality on the Metric & Quantum Processes, in progress.
21. S.P. Sirag “A Mathematical Strategy for a Theory of Particles”, pps 579-588, The First Tucson Conference, Eds.
S.R. Hameroff, A.W. Kasniak and A.C. Scott, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA (1996).
22. T.T. Wu & C.N. Yang, (1975), Phys. Rev. D12, 3845.
23. N. Gisin, Phys. Lett. 143, 1 (1990) .
24. W. Tittel, J. Bredel, H. Zbinden & N. Gisin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 3563.
25. E.A. Rauscher, Proc. 1st Int. Conf. , Univ. of Toronto, Ontario, Canada, pp. 89-105, (1981).
26. T.R.Love, Int. J. of Theor. Phys. 32, 63 (1993).
 Simple Resonance Hierarchy for Surmounting
Quantum Uncertainty

Richard L. Amoroso

Noetic Advanced Studies Institute, Oakland, CA 94610-1422 USA

Abstract. For a hundred years violation or surmounting the Quantum Uncertainty Principle has remained a Holy Grail of
both theoretical and empirical physics. Utilizing an operationally completed form of Quantum Theory cast in a string
theoretic Higher Dimensional (HD) form of Dirac covariant polarized vacuum with a complex Einstein energy dependent
spacetime metric, M̂ 4 ± C 4 with sufficient degrees of freedom to be causally free of the local quantum state, we present a
simple empirical model for ontologically surmounting the phenomenology of uncertainty through a Sagnac Effect RF
pulsed Laser Oscillated Vacuum Energy Resonance hierarchy cast within an extended form of a Wheeler-Feynman-
Cramer Transactional Calabi-Yau mirror symmetric spacetime bachcloth.

PHENOMENOLOGY VERSUS ONTOLOGY

It is impossible by definition to violate the uncertainty principle, δ xδ px ≥  / 2 or δ Eδ t x ≥  / 2 within the

framework of Copenhagen phenomenology arising from operation of a ‘Heisenberg Microscope’. This is a
fundamental empirical fact demonstrated by the Stern-Gerlach experiment where space quantization occurs for
example along an arbitrary z axis by continuous application of a non-uniform magnetic field to atomic spin structure
[1], or by Young’s double-slit experiment [2]. This scenario is cast in stone and is not the arena of our attack. The
simplistic answer is ‘do something else’! Our putative solution is contextual. Even though the solution is simple
arriving at the new context is nontrivial and like any radically new idea will at first not be pleasing to many.
Recent advances in the new field of Interaction-Free Measurement (IFM) [3-5], a quantum mechanical
interferometry procedure for detecting the state of an object without a phenomenological interaction occurring with
the measuring device is a primitive precursor to our probability ≡ 1 model [6] utilizing additional degrees of freedom
inherent in the supersymmetric regime of string/brane theory. Just as the UV catastrophe provided a clue for the
immanent transition from Classical to Quantum Mechanics, duality in the Quantum Zeno Effect 1 hints at another
new horizon. IFM protocols have provided an intermediate indicia of this imanent scenario. The quantum Zeno
paradox experimentally implemented in IFM protocols hints at the duality between the regular phenomenological
quantum theory and a completed unitary or ontological model beyond the formalism of the standard Copenhagen
interpretation. Utilizing extended theoretical elements associated with a new formulation for the topological
transformation of a ‘cosmological least unit’, a putative empirical protocol for producing IFM with probability ≡ 1
is introduced in a manner representing a direct causal violation or absolute surmounting of the quantum Uncertainty
Principle.
An interaction is any action, generally a force, mediated by an exchange particle like the photon in
electromagnetic interactions. This physical concept of a fundamental interaction regards phenomenological
properties of matter (Fermions) mediated by the exchange of an energy / momentum field (Bosons) as described by
the Galilean, Lorentz or Poincairé groups of transformations. Here we introduce a new ontological type of
homeomorphic transformation without an exchange particle mediated by an interactionless or energyless topological
switching mechanism [7].
While considerations of the vacuum are of paramount concern for string theory, much of its putative essential
parameters are ignored in the avid exploration of other details. The P ≡ 1 model relies heavily on the existence of a
Dirac polarized vacuum [8-10]. Of primary concern at this point of our development is its inclusion of extended
electromagnetic theory [11-13] which is a key element in manipulating the structural-phenomenology of spacetime.

1
Quantum states can be”frozen” by frequent measurement. Technically unitary time evolution can be suppressed by applying a series of strong
fast pulses with proper symmetry decoupling a system from the decohering environment and thus preventing decoherence [6-9].
 The experimental design, relyies on the utility of a new fundamental teleological action principle (synonymous
with the unified field) inherent in the topological geometry of a covariant polarized Dirac vacuum putatively driving
the evolution of self-organization in spacetime as an autopoietic complex system (reality itself), is developed to
elucidate the methodology for surmounting uncertainty. The experimental apparatus, a multi-level interferometer, is
designed to focus this noetic unitary field
As we shall see the protocol relies on the symmetry conditions of new self-organized cosmological parameters
amenable to a resonant hierarchy of coherently controlled topological interactions able to undergo what Toffoli calls
‘topological switching’ [14] as the energyless basis for the Micromagnetics of information exchange. Finally to
complete the concatenation we utilize theoretical concepts associated with the putative covariant polarized Dirac
vacuum [8-10] forming a string theoretic spacetime background [15-17] also making correspondence between our
ontological view of quantum theory and an extension of Cramer’s Transactional Interpretation [18].

Figure 1 The suggestion is that the central translucent cube in the lower right represents a ‘particle in a box’ quantum state that
through conformal scale-invariance remains physically real when the metaphor is carried to 12D where it becomes like the
‘mirror image of a mirror image’ and in that sense is causally free of the E3 quantum state and thereby open to ontological
information transfer in violation of Copenhagen uncertainty.

COSMOLOGY IS KEY

When physicists embraced the 3D Newtonian world view about a hundred years ago the universe was considered to
be mechanical and predictable like a clockwork. Since the advent of QT reality is believed to be quantum and
statistical or uncertain. Following this line of reasoning when a Theory of Everything (TOE) is realistically
discovered based on a unitary field, should some form of monism be embraced? We postulate that cosmology is not
uniquely based on any of these three conditions, but a continuous-state dynamic transformation of the three regimes
comprised of a Wheeler-Feynman-Cramer complementarity [18-21] as outlined in Chap. 3. Physics has long resisted
the role of the observer in physical theory; but in an anthropic cosmology the observer is an inherent key element or
better said, the basis of observation [21]. This conundrum of the observer can be avoided here as its effects only
become critical for process needing to control a much deeper region of spacetime.
Einstein stated that ‘all of physics is based on measurements of duration and extension. Until now this has
occurred within the parameters of a 4D Minkowski-Riemann spacetime metric under Gauge conditions utilizing
various forms of the E3 / Mˆ 4 Galilean-Lorentz-Poincairé transformations describing classical, quantum and
relativistic conditions. These criteria are no longer sufficient and indeed our protocol for surmounting the
uncertainty principle requires description of a new cosmological regime described by a new set of 12D
transformations [22,23] we hope to call the Noetic Transformation because of its relevance to anthropic
considerations. In this regard in spite of Bell’s theorem, following Einstein’s conundrum, we restate his complaint
that quantum theory is incomplete and therefore wholly inadequate for some processes.
Cramer’s transactional model of QT [18] has been ignored by most physicists for a variety of reasons we will not
address here. This just means that when we bandy it about here as a key foundation of HAM cosmology it is foreign
and not well understood. A Cramer transaction entails Wheeler-Feynman [19] future-past, standing-wave symmetry
conditions which when extended to the HD SUSY regime readily lend themselves to mirror symmetry conditions
inherent in our 12D version of M -Theory [24]. Further we suggest that the new 12D noetic transform adds additional
piloting super-quantum potential [25] parameters, suggesting two forms, levels or regimes for quantum mechanics –
that of the observed 4D phenomenological interaction associated with the uncertainty principle; and the new HD
ontological ‘piloting’ or anthropic guidance regime where reality itself is a transaction (see Fig. 2). Because the
external world we observe is a limited subspace [21,26] of a larger contiguous reality some elements are removed
from perception by subtractive interferometry within the arrow of time .
In the standard Copenhagen Interpretation of QT an event emerges only as a result of measurement and objective
reality is considered to be a probabilistic illusion. Cramer considers ‘all off diagonal elements of the line element
physically real’ during the process of the offer-wave-confirmation-wave process preceding a transaction (event)
[18]. We may call the final event a resultant of the conditions of Heisenberg Potentia. Here we still wish to consider
reality illusory to the Minkowski observer.

Figure 2 A way to look at a transaction as a collapse, Ψ to the 2D Euclidian plane from, in this case, an HD potentia of two
possible orthogonal states, ψ + , ψ − .

Issues of the nature of the fundamental cosmological background continue to be debated with disparate views
jockeying for philosophical supremacy; a scenario remaining tenable because experimental avenues for testing
physics beyond the standard model have remained elusive. Here a putative empirical protocol is devised for
manipulating the so-called covariant Dirac polarized vacuum (DPV) providing a methodology for both surmounting
uncertainty and low energy protocols for testing string theory. The DPV has a sixty year history in the physics
literature [8-10] which has for the most part been ignored by the main stream physics community for a number of
philosophical conflicts. The problem of surmounting uncertainty is solved by the utility of additional degrees of
freedom introduced by utilizing a multiverse cosmology and the associated extended theoretical elements.

SPACETIME MICROMAGNETIC CONFORMATION TOPOLOGY

An extensive body of literature exists for phenomena related to the zero-point field; but relative to noetic theory this
work is considered metaphorically descriptive only of the ‘fog over the ocean’ rather than the structural-
phenomenology of the ocean itself. Instead the deep structure of a real covariant Dirac polarized vacuum is utilized
[8-10,28]. The Casimir, Zeeman, Aharanov-Bohm and Sagnac effects are considered evidence for a Dirac vacuum.
New assumptions are made concerning the Dirac polarized vacuum relating to the topology of spacetime and the
structure of matter cast in a 12D form of Relativistic Quantum Field Theory (RQFT) in the context of the new HAM
cosmological paradigm [29-31]. In this anthropic cosmology the observed Euclidian-Minkowski spacetime present,
E3 − Mˆ 4 is a virtual standing wave of highly ordered Wheeler-Feynman-Cramer retarded-advanced future-past
parameters respectively [18,19]. An essential ingredient of HAM cosmology is that a new action principle
synonymous with the unified field arises naturally and is postulated to drive self-organization and evolution through
all levels of scale [32-34].
In this context an experimental design [23,35] is introduced to isolate and utilize the new anthropic action to test
empirically its putative ability to effect conformational structure of the topology of spacetime to surmount the usual
phenomenologically based uncertainty in an ontological matter with probability ≡ 1.
Noetic Theory postulates that spacetime topology is ‘continuously transformed’ by the self-organizing properties
of the long-range coherence [36,37] of the anthropic, élan vital or unitary noetic field [32,33,38-49]. In addition to
manipulating conformational change, from the exp erimental results we attempt to calculate the energy Hamiltonian
required to manipulate the Casimir topological conformation in terms of the noetic field equation,
FN = E / R (unexpanded form. This resonant coupling produced by the teleological action of the anthropic noetic
field driving its hierarchical self-organization has local, nonlocal and supralocal (complex HD) parameters [32]. The
Schrödinger equation, extended by the addition of the de Broglie-Bohm quantum potential-pilot wave mechanism
has been used to describe an electron moving on a neural manifold; but this is not a sufficient extension to describe
anthropic noetic aspects of the continuous-state symmetry breaking of spacetime topology which requires further
extension to include action of the noetic unitary field in additional dimensions.
The Noetic Field [32,33,38-51] produces periodic symmetry vari-ations with long-range coherence [35-37] that
can lead to a critical Noetic Effect [32,39] of the Ising model lattice gas rotation of the Riemann sphere spacetime
backcloth. This can be described by a form of double-cusp catastrophe dynamics (Fig. 9.9). Operationally the plane
of equilibrium experiences sustained hyperincursion by the noetic field. The coupled modes of this process rely on a
special form of the harmonic oscillator called the incursive oscillator [50-53]. There is a force of coherence [54]. For
example for an Earth observer’s temporal percep-tion, railroad tracks recede into a point at the horizon. For an
atemporal eternal HD observer, the tracks remain parallel. This is the origin of the coherence force which forms a
kind of logic gate driving equilibrium of the Casimir boundaries to parallel or degenerate modes thus giving rise to
the possibility of effecting conformational states.
This is a boundary condition problem; here probably of the Born-von Karman type where the boundary
conditions restrict the wave function to periodicity on a Bravais lattice of hexagonal symmetry, stated simply as
ψ ( r + Ni ai ) = ψ r , where i runs over the dimensions of the Bravais lattice, ai are the lattice vectors and N i are
integers [55,56]. In this model presence of the periodic spherical rotation effects of the cyclical coherence-
decoherence modes allow the action of the noetic field [32]. This Noetic Processing is governed by the fundamental
equation of unitarity, FN = E / R . Cyclotron resonance, logarithmic spiral, Kaluza-Klein hierarchy or genus-1
helicoid ‘parking garage may maintain piloting by the noetic field or induce an electromotive ‘radiation pressure’ or
topological switching coherence force, the Noetic Effect, on the topology of spacetime leading to conformational
change in the static-dynamic [57-60] leapfrogging’ of the Casimir boundary conditions of topological brane states.

Figure 3 HD emergence from a LD lattice gas. If the central vertex of the cube represents a Euclidian point, the 12 satellite
points represent HD control parameters

We can’t be sure yet which of the hierarchical formalisms might be the physical one until some empirical work
is done. Intellectually we lean toward the concept of the action of a cyclotron resonance hierarchy acting on the
genus-1 helicoid parking garage structure modulated by some form of Bessel function because this seems to meld
well with catastrophe theory and the future-past symmetry breaking parameters we postulate in to be inherent in the
structural-phenomenology of HAM continuous-state spacetime topology. The structural-phenomenology of atoms
and molecules is full of domain walls amenable to description by combinations of Gauss’ and Stokes’ theorems
ordered in terms of Bessel Functions where boundary conditions create resonant cavities built up by alternating
static and dynamic Casimir conditions [57-60]. As frequency increases central peaks occur with opposite or zero
polarity at the domain edges. These properties are relevant to Ising Model [61] spin flips of the domains of the
Riemann-Block Spheres effecting homeostatic planes of equilibrium. The noetic effect can maintain equilibrium or
produce catastrophes causing conformational change in the Casimir spacetime structures [62].

Figure 4 Topological and geometric idealizations of the noetic field equation describing an action of the noetic field, called the
‘noetic effect’, on a biological or spacetime manifold.

EXPERIMENTAL PROTOCOL

Extrapolating Einstein’s energy dependent or deformed spacetime metric, M̂ 4 [63-65] to a supersymmetric 12D
standing-wave future-past advanced-retarded topology of the anthropic multiverse we have designed a spacetime
resonance experiment for a covariant Dirac polarized vacuum which has properties like an ‘ocean of light’. If this is
true spacetime acts like a ‘surface wave’ on the upper regime of the complex self-organized Dirac Sea and is
therefore amenable to descriptive methods of nonlinear dispersive wave phenomena generally of the basic form
L( μ ) = ε N (μ ) (9.6)
where L and N are Linear and Nonlinear operators respectively in the linear limit where ε=0 with elementary
dispersive wave solutions μi = Ai cos θ i , θ i = k i x − ω( ki )t for one dimension plus time where nonlinearity
creates resonant interactions between the μi solutions and the Amplitude Ai depends on t, creating potentially
substantial effects where initial absent modes can become cumulative interactions producing shock wave effects.

Figure 5 A) The spacetime topological hierarchy may have properties like water waves where the wave moves but the water
remains stationary. B) The Dirac polarized vacuum has hyperspherical symmetry. a) Metaphor for standing-wave present
showing future-past elements, R1 , R2 , eleven of twelve dimensions suppressed for simplicity. b) Top view of a) a 2D spherical
standing-wave. c) Manipulating the relative phase of oscillations creates nodes of destructive and constructive interference.

Motion of a one dimensional classical harmonic oscillator is given by q = A sin(ωt + ϕ ) and

p = mω A cos(ωt + ϕ ) where A is the amplitude and ϕ is the phase constant for fixed energy E = mω 2 A2 / 2 .
For state n , with n = 0,1,2...∞ and Hamiltonian En = ( n + 1/2) ω the quantum harmonic oscillator becomes
n q 2 n =  / 2 mω n ( a† a + aa† ) n = En / mω 2 (1)
and
n p2 n = 1/2( mω ) n a †a + aa† = mEn (2)

where a & a † are the annihilation and creation operators, q =  / 2 mω ( a † + a) and p = i mω / 2 (a †a ) .
For the 3D harmonic oscillator each equation is the same with energies
Ex = (n x + 1/2)ω x , E y = ( n y + 1/2) ω y and
Ez = ( nz + 1/2)ω z [66,67]. (3)
In Dubois’ notation the classical 1D harmonic oscillator for Newton’s second law in coordinates t and x(t) for a
mass m in a potential U ( x ) = 1/2( kx 2 ) takes the differential form
d 2x
2
+ω2 x = 0 where ω = k/m (4)
dt
which can be separated into the coupled equations [68-71]

dx( t ) dv( t )
− v( t ) = 0 and+ ω2 x = 0 . (5)
dt dt
From incursive discretization, Dubois creates two solutions x ( t + Δt ) v ( t + Δt ) providing a structural
bifurcation of the system which together produce Hyperincursion. The effect of increasing the time interval
discretizes the trajectory. This represents a background independent discretization of spacetime [50-53].
Figure 6 Numerical simulation of the phase space trajectory of the Dubois superposed incursive oscillator based on coordinates
and velocities xn = 1/2[ x n (1) + xn (2)] vn = 1/2[ vn (1) + vn (2)] is shown in the figure for values of

Δτ = ωt equal to 0.1, 0.5, 1.0 and 1.5. Initial conditions are χ 0 = 1,η0 = 0 & τ 0 = 0 with total simulation time
τ = ωt = 8π . Figure adapted from [50-53].

INTRODUCTION TO P ≡ 1 EXPERIMENTS

In a homogeneous magnetic field, the forces exerted on opposite ends of the dipole cancel each other out and the
trajectory of the particle is unaffected. if the particles are classical "spinning" particles then the distribution of their
spin angular momentum vectors is taken to be truly random and each particle would be deflected up or down by a
different amount producing an even distribution on the screen of a detector. instead, quantum mechanically, the
particles passing through the device are deflected either up or down by a specific amount. this means that spin
angular momentum is quantized (also called space quantization), i.e. it can only take on discrete values. there is not
a continuous distribution of possible angular momenta. this is the usual fundamental basis of the standard quantum
theory and where we must introduce a new experimental protocol to surmount it. This is the crux of our new
methodology: If application of a homogeneous magnetic field produces quantum uncertainty upon measurement,
then “do something else”.
In NMR spectroscopy often it is easier to make a first order calculation for a resonant state and then vary the
frequency until resonance is achieved. Among the variety of possible approaches that might work best for a specific
quantum system, if we choose NMR for the Noetic Interferometer it is relatively straight forward to determine the
spin-spin resonant couplings between the modulated electrons and the nucleons; but achieving a critical resonant
coupling with the wave properties of matter and the spacetime backcloth is another matter. Firstly, for HAM
cosmology  is not a rigid barrier as in Standard Model Big Bang-Copenhagen cosmology;  is a virtual limit of
past-advanced elements of the continuous-state standing-wave present as it cyclically recedes into the past where the
least unit [72] cavities tiling the spacetime backcloth can have radii ≤ the Larmour radius of the hydrogen atom
[32,33,73,74]. This new Planck length oscillates through a limit cycle from the Larmour radius of the hydrogen atom
to standard  . This is like a wave-particle duality – Larmour radius at the future-retarded moment and  at the
past-advanced moment. The dynamics are different for future-retarded elements which have been theorized to have
the possibility of infinite radius for D > 4 [26]. This scenario is a postulate of string theory. Considering the domain
walls of the least-unit structure, the  -Larmour regime is considered internal-nonlocal and the Larmour-infinity
regime considered external-supralocal [29-31].
For simplicity we introduce our review of NMR concepts for the hydrogen atom, a single proton with magnetic
moment μ , angular momentum J related by the vector μ = γ J where γ is the gyromagnetic ratio and J = I
where I is the nuclear spin. The magnetic energy U = − μ ⋅ B of the nucleus in an external magnetic field in the z
direction is U = −μ z B0 = −γ I z B0 where values of I z , mI are quantized according to
mI = I , I − 1, I − 2, I −3,... −1 [75,76].
Figure 7 a) The two magnetic energy states for the spin, I = ½ single proton of a hydrogen atom in a magnetic field. b) Time
variation of the magnetic moment of the proton in magnetic field B0 with precession frequency, ω0 = γ B0 , the fundamental
resonant frequency from a).

For most nuclear species the z-component of the magnetization, M grows exponentially until reaching
equilibrium according to M z (t ) = M 0 (1 − e exp − t / T1) where T1 is the spin-lattice relaxation time. Of interest
for the noetic interferometer is the fact that (Fig. 9.14a) as μ precesses cyclically from mI = −1 / 2 to
mI = +1 / 2 the nucleons experience a torque, τ changing J by τ = dJ / dt or μ × B = dJ / dt . Under thermal
equilibrium the x-y components are zero; but M z can be rotated into the x-y plane creating transverse M x and
M y components dM / dt = γ M × B for the entire system by applying a rotating circularly polarized oscillating
magnetic field 2 B cos ωtiˆ of frequency ω in addition to the constant magnetic field B kˆ . Now the total time
1 0
dependent field decomposes into the two counterpropagating fields

B1 (cos ω tiˆ + sin ωtjˆ) + B1 (cos ωtiˆ − sin ωtjˆ) . (6)

This more complicated form for use with multiple applied fields is necessary, as described below, for use with the
Sagnac Effect, quadrupole, and dipole dynamics [77,78] required to operate the noetic interferometer.
Nuclear Quadrupole Resonance (NQR) is a form of NMR in which quantized energy level transitions are
induced by an oscillating RF magnetic field in the electric quadrupole moment of nuclear spin systems rather than
the magnetic dipole moment. The nuclear quadrupole moment, Q is based on the nuclear charge distributions ρ ( r )
1/2(3z 2 − r 2 ) ρ( r) over the nuclear volume.
departure from spherical symmetry defined as the average value of
Q has the dimension of area where the nuclear angular momentum, for which m I = I where I is the nuclear spin
quantum number and m I is the quantum number for the z component of the spin m I = −1, +1,..., I − 1, I . Nuclei
with I = 0 have no magnetic moment and are therefore magnetically inert. Similarly in order for Q = 0 the nucleus
must be spherical with spin I ≥ 0 . For spin I = 1/2 nuclei have dipole moments, μ but no Q. Q is positive for
prolate nuclei and negative for oblate nuclei [79,80].
For an isolated nucleus in a constant magnetic field H 0 with nuclear spin number I > 0 the nucleus posses a
magnetic moment. From Quantum Theory (QT) the length of the nuclear angular momentum vector is [ I ( + I )]1 / 2 
where measurable components are given by m with m the magnetic quantum number taking any (2 I + I ) value
from the series I , I − I, I − 2,..., − ( I − I ), −I . For the I = 3/2 case there are four values along the direction of the
applied magnetic field H 0 .
Of the three types of spin-spin coupling, this experiment relies the hyperfine interaction for electron-nucleus
coupling, specifically the interaction of the nuclear electric quadrupole moment induced by an applied oscillating RF
electric field to act on the nuclear magnetic dipole moment μ . When the electron and nuclear spins are strongly
aligned along their z-components the Hamiltonian is −m ⋅ B , and if B is in the z direction
H = −γ N I ⋅ B = −γ N BI x (7)
withm = γ N I , γ N the magnetogyric ratio γ N = e / 2m p and m p the mass of the proton [81].
Radio frequency excitation of the nuclear magnetic moment, μ to resonance occurs for a nucleus collectively
which rotates μ to some angle with respect to the applied field B0 . This produces a torque μi × B0 causing the
angular momentum, μ itself to precess around B0 at the Larmo ur frequency ω L = γ N B0 [81-83]. This coherent
precessing of μ can also induce a ‘voltage’ in surrounding media, an energy component of the Hamiltonian to be
utilized (Fig. 9.14) to create interference in the structure of spacetime [23].
Metaphorically this is like dropping stones in a pool of water: One stone creates concentric ripples; two stones
create domains of constructive and destructive interference. Such an event is not considered possible in the standard
models of particle physics, quantum theory and cosmology. However Noetic science uses extended versions of these
theories wherein a new teleological action principle is utilized to develop what might be called a 'transistor of the
vacuum'. Just as standard transistors and copper wires provide the basis for almost all modern electronic devices;
This L.O.V.E.R. using the information content of spacetime geodesics (null lines) will become the basis of many
forms of Noetic Technologies. After a bit of thought we thought a little fun was warranted and came up with a name
for the core of this noetic class of vacuum technologies: Laser Oscillated Vacuum Energy Resonator (L.O.V.E.R.).
Wouldn’t it be a kick if for the next 1,000 years noetic or anthropic technologies are ‘full of love’?
Simplistically in this context, utilizing an array of modulated tunable lasers, atomic electrons are RF pulsed with
a resonant frequency that couples them to the magnetic moment of the nucleons such that a cumulative interaction is
created to dramatically enhance the Haisch-Rueda inertial back-reaction [84-87]. The laser beams are counter-
propagating producing a Sagnac effect Interferometry to maximize the violation of Special Relativity. This is the 1st
stage of a multi-tier experimental platform designed (according to the tenets of Noetic Field Theory) to ‘open a hole’
in the fabric of spacetime in order to isolate and utilize the force FˆU of the Unitary Field.
The interferometer utilized as the basis for our vacuum engineering research platform has been dubbed the Laser
Oscillated Vacuum Energy Resonator. It is a multi-tiered device. The top tier is comprised of counter-propagating
Sagnac effect ring lasers that can be built into an IC array of 1,000+ ring lasers. If each microlaser in the array is
designed to be counterpropagating, an interference phenomena called the Sagnac Effect occurs that violates special
relativity in the small scale [88]. This array of RF modulated Sagnac-Effect ring lasers provides the top tier of the
multi-tier L.O.V.E.R. Inside the ring of each laser is a cavity where quantum effects called Cavity Quantum
Electrodynamics (C-QED) may occur. A specific molecule is placed inside each cavity. If the ring laser array is
modulated with resonant frequency modes chosen to achieve spin-spin coupling with the molecules electrons and
neutrons, by a process of Coherent Control [89] of Cumulative Interaction an inertial back-reaction is produced
whereby the electrons also resonate with the spacetime backcloth in order to 'open an oscillating hole' in it. This
requires a form of RQFT compatible with the 12D version of M-theory called F-Theory [24] relying on the
symmetry conditions of HAM cosmology within which it is cast [29-31].

Figure 8 A) Design elements for the HD Cavity-QED trap of the Noetic Interferometer postulated to constructively-destructively
interfere with the topology of the 12D spacetime manifold to manipulate the unitary field. Substantial putative effects are
possible if cumulative interactions of the interference nodes of the cyclotron resonance hierarchy produce shock waves. B) Basic
mathematical components of the applied harmonic oscillator: classical, quantum, relativistic, transactional and incursive are
required in order to achieve coherent control of the cumulative resonance coupling hierarchy in order to produce harmonic nodes
of destructive and constructive interference in the spacetime backcloth.

The first step in the interference hierarchy (Fig. 9.15) is to establish an inertial back-reaction between the
modulated electrons and their coupled resonance modes with the nucleons. The complete nature of inertia remains a
mystery [90]. But if one follows the Sakarov [91] and Puthoff [92] conjecture, the force of gravity and inertia, the
initial resistance to motion, are actions of the vacuum zero-point field. Therefore the parameter m in Newton’s
second law f = ma is a function of the zero-point field [84-86,93-95]. Newton’s third law states that ‘every force has
an equal and opposite reaction’. Haisch & Rueda [84-87] claim vacuum resistance arises from this reaction force, f
= - f. We have also derived an electromagnetic interpretation of gravity and electromagnetism [96] that suggests this
inertial back-reaction is like an electromotive force 2 of the de Broglie matter-wave field in the spin exchange
annihilation creation process inherent in a hysteresis of relativistic spacetime fabric . In fact we go further to suggest
that the energy responsible for Newton’s third law is a result of the continuous-state flux of the ubiquitous noetic
field [99]. For the L.O.V.E.R. we assume the Haisch-Rueda postulate is correct
dρ Δρ dρ* Δρ*
f = − lim ≡ − lim = f* (8)
dt Δ t →0 Δt dt* Δt * → 0 Δt *
where Δρ is the impulse given by the accelerating agent and Δρ*zp = − Δ ρ* [84-87].
The cyclotron resonance hierarchy must also utilize the proper beat frequency of the continuous-state
dimensional reduction spin-exchange compactification process inherent in the symmetry of noetic spacetime
naturally ‘tuned’ to make the speed of light c ≡ c . With this apparatus in place noetic theory suggests that
destructive-constructive C-QED interference of the spacetime fabric occurs such that the noeon eternity wave, ℵ of
the unitary field, U F is harmonically (like a holophote) released into the cavity of the detector array. Parameters of
the Dubois incursive oscillator are also required for aligning the interferometer hierarchy with the beat frequency of
spacetime.

Figure 9 Powers of i in the complex plane. For 90° to 360° the concept can be readily illustrated in 2D; but for 720° and above
4D is required which cannot easily be depicted in 3D so the representation in 9c) is used, which might also be represented by a
Klein bottle which was not used because the torus in 9c) more easily shows the rotation topology, which for spin 1/2 is the Dirac
rotation of the electron. 9d) is a simplistic representation of a powers of i resonance hierarchy.

If the water wave conception for the ‘Dirac sea’ is correct, the continuous state compactification process contains
a tower of spin states from spin 0 to spin 4. Spin 4 represents the unified field and makes cyclic correspondence with
spin 0 where Ising lattice spin flips create dimensional jumps. Spin 0, 1/2, 1, & 2 remain in standard form. Spin
three is suggested to relate to the orthogonal properties of atomic energy levels and space quantization. Therefore
the spin tower hierarchy precesses through 0, 720º, 360º, 180º, 90º & 0 (∞) as powers of i as illustrated in Fig. 9.16

Figure 10 Conceptualized Ising model Riemann sphere cavity-QED multi-level Sagnac effect interferometer designed to
‘penetrate’ space-time to emit the ‘eternity wave, ℵ ’. Experimental access to vacuum structure or for surmounting the
uncertainty principle can be done by two similar methods. One is to utilize an atomic resonance hierarchy and the other a

2
Electromotive force, E: The internal resistance r generated when a load is put upon an electric current I between a potential difference V, i.e.
r = ( E − V) / I .
spacetime resonance hierarchy. The spheroid is a 2D representation of a HD Ising model Riemann sphere able to spin-flip from
zero to infinity.

As illustrated in Fig. 9.10 the coherent control of the multi-level tier of cumulative interactions relies on full
utilization of the continuous-state cycling inherent in parameters of HAM cosmology [29-31]. What putatively will
allow noetic interferometry to operate is the harmonic coupling to periodic modes of Dirac spherical rotation in the
symmetry of the HD geometry. The universe is no more classical than quantum as currently believed; reality rather
is a continuous state cycling of nodes of classical to quantum to unitary, C → Q → U . Space does not permit
detailed delineation of the parameters of HAM cosmology here; more detailed discussion can be found in [29-31].
The salient point is that cosmology, the topology of spacetime itself, has the same type of spinorial rotation and
wave-particle duality Dirac postulated for the electron. Recall that the electron requires a 4D topology and 720° for
one rotation instead of the usual 360° to complete a rotation in 3D. The hierarchy of noetic cosmology is cast in 12D
such that the pertinent form of relativistic quantum field theory has significantly more degrees of freedom whereby
the modes of resonant coupling may act on the structural-phenomenology of Dirac ‘sea’ itself rather than just the
superficial zero-point field surface approaches to vacuum engineering common until now.
The parameters of the noetic oscillator (Figs. 9.17,9.18) may best be implemented by RQFT using a form of de
Broglie fusion. According to de Broglie a spin 1 photon can be considered a fusion of a pair of spin 1/2 corpuscles
linked by an electrostatic force. Initially de Broglie thought this might be an electron-positron pair and later a
neutrino and antineutrino. “A more complete theory of quanta of light must introduce polarization in such a way that
to each atom of light should be linked an internal state of right and left polarization represented by an axial vector
with the same direction as the propagation velocity” [97]. These prospects suggest a deeper relationship in the
structure of spacetime of the Cramer type [18] (Fig. 11).

Figure 11 of an HD future-past advanced-retarded standing or stationary wave. Figs. Adapted from Cramer [18].

The epistemological implications of a 12D RQFT must be delineated. The empirical domain of the standard
model relates to the 4D phenomenology of elementary particles. It is the intricate notion of what constitutes a
particle that concerns us here – the objects emerging from the quantized fields defined on Minkowski spacetime.
This domain for evaluating physical events is insufficient for our purposes. The problem is not only the additional
degrees of freedom and the associated extra-dimensionality, or the fact that ‘particles’ can be annihilated and created
but that in HAM cosmology they are continuously annihilated and recreated within the holograph as part of the
annihilation and recreation of the fabric of spacetime itself. This property is inherent in the 12D Multiiverse because
temporality is a subspace of eternity [32,33]. This is compatible with the concept of a particle as a quantized field.
What we are suggesting parallels the wave-particle duality in the propagation of an electromagnetic wave. We
postulate this as a property of all matter and spacetime albeit as continuous-state standing waves.

Figure 12 Structure of a transaction (present state or event) where the present is a standing-wave of future-past elements. The
separation of these parameters in terms of de Broglie’s fusion model is suggested to allow manipulation of the harmonic tier of
the L.O.V.E.R. with respect to T-Duality or mirror symmetry.

For a basic description, following de Broglie’s fusion concept, assume two sets of coordinates x1, y1 , z1
and x2 , y2 , z2 which become
x1 + x2 y1 + y2 z1 + z2
X= , Y= , Z= . (9)
2 2 2
Then for identical particles of mass m without distinguishing coordinates, the Schrödinger equation (for the center of
mass) is
 ∂ψ 1
−i  = Δψ , M = 2m (10)
∂t 2M
In terms of Fig. 9.20, Eq. 9.16 corresponds to the present and Eq. 9.17a corresponds to the advanced wave and
(9.17b) to the retarded wave [63].
∂φ 1 ∂ϕ 1
−i  = Δφ , − i
= Δϕ . (11)
∂t 2 M ∂t 2M
μ ∗ν
Extending Rauscher’s concept for a complex eight space differential line element dS = ημυ dZ dZ , where the
2

indices run 1 to 4,η μν is the complex eight-space metric, Z μ the complex eight-space variable and where
∗ν
Z μ = X Re
μ μ
+ iX Im and Z is the complex conjugate [98,99], to 12D continuous-state HAM spacetime; we write
just the dimensions for simplicity and space constraints
xRe , y Re, z Re, tRe , ± xIm , ± y Im, ± z Im, ± t Im (12)

where ± signifies Wheeler-Feynman/Cramer type future-past/retarded-advanced dimensions. This dimensionality

provides an elementary framework for applying the hierarchical harmonic oscillator parameters suggested in Figs.
9.15 and 9.18.

Figure 13 4D Minkowski space is like an HD quantum ‘knot’ tangled in a manner that the component phases do not commute.
Conceptually this is like the observed retrograde motion of the planets. This is the same as A 3D view of a 4D Dirac rotation or
‘pinch’ of the 360 – 720o spinor rotation of the electron.

CONCLUSIONS

If the Noetic Interferometer is able to isolate and manipulate the eternity wave, ℵ it will become a primary research
platform for developing a whole new class of vacuum based technologies; whereas one could say virtually all
electronic devices up to now are based on transistors and copper wires. The L.O.V.E.R. could be called a transistor
of the vacuum, where rather than copper wires, the geodesics or null lines of spacetime are utilized to transfer
information topologically with no exchange particle mediating the ‘interaction’ which perhaps should be called a
correlation or entanglement in this scenario to distinguish phenomenology versus ontology.
This brief introduction is only a primitive overview of introducing the anticipated new field of ℵ -wave
(eternity–wave) vacuum engineering that as Cramer stated in the 1st sentence of this chapter will revolutionize many
fields of science [100].

When the great innovation appears, it will most certainly be in a muddled, incomplete form. To the discoverer
himself it will be only half-understood; to everyone else it will be a mystery. For any speculation which does not
at first glance look crazy, there is no hope [101].

Finally we stress that vacuum energy is not ‘produced’ by the noetic interferometer. The interferometer
manipulates the boundary conditions ‘insulating’ or ‘hiding’ the unitary geodesics of spacetime by constructive and
destructive interference allowing the holophotic release of unitary noeons by completing a cascading water-wheel
like circuit already existing behind the usual spacetime domain walls of reality. Probably L.O.V.E.R. vacuum energy
is emitted into the L.O.V.E.R. as a form of superradiance [102] of the hysteresis loop of least-unit parallel transport.
We have found already that a fair number of our colleagues want to dismiss this model right off because of its
utilization of XD. This is the sort of myopic view that has consistently plagued the history of science whenever ‘big-
leap’ innovation occurs. We hope readers here will not fall into this quagmire! The model is empirically testable
which hopefully makes up for some of the lack of precision in our axiomatic approach or thin rigor in portions of
our attempts at formalism. In addition to the protocols presented here we have described already an experiment to
utilize the noetic ℵ -wave for the putative manipulation of prion protein conformation [23].

REFERENCES
1 Elitzur, A. C. & Vaidman, L. (1993) Quantum mechanical interaction-free measurements. Found. Phys. 23; 987-997.
2 Kwiat, P., Weinfurter, H., Herzog, T., Zeilinger, A. & Kasevich, M. (1995) Interaction-free quantum measurements. Phys. Rev.
Lett. 74, 4763-4766.
3 du Marchie Van Voorthuysen, E.H. (1996). Realization of an interaction-free measurement of the presence of an object in a
light beam, Am. J. Phys. 64:12; 1504-1507; or arXiv:quant-ph/9803060 v2 26.
4 Helmer, F., Mariantoni, M., Solano, E. & Marquardt, F. (2008) Quantum, Zeno effect in the quantum non-demolition detection
of itinerant photons, arXiv:0712.1908v2.
5 Facchi, P. Lidar, D.A. & Pascazio, S. (2004) Unification of dynamical decoupling and the quantum Zeno effect, Phys Rev A
69, 032314; or arxiv:quant-ph/0303132.
6 Sudarshan, E.C.G. & Misra, B. (1977) The Zeno’s paradox in quantum theory, J Mathematical Physics 18:4; 756–763.
7 Facchi, P. & Pascazio, S. (2002) Quantum Zeno subspaces, arXiv:quant-ph/0201115v2.
8. Sudarshan, E.C.G.; Misra, B. (1977). "The Zeno’s paradox in quantum theory". Journal of Mathematical Physics 18 (4): 756–
763. doi:10.1063/1.523304
9. T. Nakanishi, K. Yamane, and M. Kitano: Absorption-free optical control of spin systems: the quantum Zeno effect in optical
pumping Phys. Rev. A 65, 013404 (2001)
10. P. Facchi, D. A. Lidar, & S. Pascazio Unification of dynamical decoupling and the quantum Zeno effect Physical Review A
69, 032314 (2004)
11. A. Degasperis, L. Fonda & G.C. Ghirardi (1974). "Does the lifetime of an unstable system depend on the measuring
apparatus?". Il Nuovo Cimento A 21 (3): 471–484. doi:10.1007/BF02731351
^ Christof Teuscher & Douglas Hofstadter (2004). Alan Turing: Life and Legacy of a Great Thinker. Springer. p. 54. ISBN
3540200207.
12. John von Neumann (1932). Mathematische Grundlagen der Quantenmechanik. Springer. Chapter V.2. ISBN 3540592075.
(See also: J. von Neumann (1955). Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics. Princeton: Princeton University Press. p.
366. ISBN 0691028931.); Michael B. Mensky (2000). Quantum Measurements and Decoherence. Springer. p. §4.1.1, pp. 315 ff.
ISBN 0792362276.; Ch. Wunderlich & Ch. Balzer (Benjamin Bederson & H Walther, editors) (2003). Advances in Atomic,
Molecular, and Optical Physics: Vol. 49. Academic Press. ISBN 0120038498.
13 Gerlach, W & Stern, O. (1922) Das magnetische moment des silberatoms, Zeitschrift für Physik 9, 353-355.
14 Young, T. (1804) Experiments and calculations relative to physical optics, Philosophical Trans. of the Royal Society of
London 94, 1-16.
15 Kwiat, P.G., Weinfurter, H., Herzog, T., Zeilinger, A. & Kasevich, M. (1995) Experimental realization of ‘interaction-free’
measurements,
in D.M. Greenberger & A. Zelinger (eds.) Fundamental Problems in Quantum Theory, A Conference held in Honor of Professor
John A. Wheeler, Annals of the New York Academy of Science, Vol. 755, p. 383, New York: New York Academy of Science.
16 Jaekel, M.T. & S. Reynaud, S. (1990) Quantum limits in interferometric measurements, Europhys. Lett. 13, 301.
17 Cramer, J.G. (2006) A transactional analysis of interaction-free measurements, Foundations of Physics Letters 19: 1; 63-73; or
arXiv:quant-ph/0508102v23, 2008.
18 Everett, H. (1957) Relative state formulation of quantum mechanics, Reviews of Modern Physics, Vol 29, pp 454-462.
19 Bohm, D. & Vigier, J-P (1954) Model of the causal interpretation of quantum theory in terms of a fluid with irregular
fluctuations, Phys. Rev. 96:1; 208-217.
20 Kaku, M. (1999) Introduction to Superstrings and M-Theory, New York: Springer.
21 Dirac, P.A.M. (1952) Is there an ether? Nature, 169: 172.
22 Pettroni, N.C. & Vigier, J-P (1983) Dirac’s aether in relativistic quantum mechanics, Foundations Physics, 13:2, 253-285.
23 Vigier, J-P (1980) De Broglie Waves on Dirac Aether: A Testable Experimental Assumption, Lettere. al Nuovo Cimento, 29;
467-475.
24 Lehnert, B. (2002) New developments in electromagnetic field theory, in R.L. Amoroso, G. Hunter, M. Kafatos & J-P Vigier
(eds.) Gravitation & Cosmology: From the Hubble Radius to the Planck Scale, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
25 Lehnert, B. (1998) Electromagnetic theory with space-charges in vacuo, in G. Hunter, S. Jeffers & J-P Vigier (eds.) Causality
and Locality in Modern Physics, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
26 Proca, A, (1936) Compt. Rend., 202, 1420.
27 Kotigua, R.P. & Toffoli, T. (1998) Potential for computing in micromagnetics via topological conservation laws, Physica D,
120:1-2, pp. 139-161.
28 Witten, E. (1993) Quantum background independence In string theory, arXiv:hep-th/9306122v1
29 Sen, A. & Zwiebach, B. (1994) Local background independence of classical closed string field theory, Nucl. Phys. B414,
649.
30 Sen, A. & Zwiebach, B. (1994) Quantum background independence of closed string field theory, Nucl. Phys. B423, 580.
31 Cramer, J. (1986) The Transactional Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, Rev. Mod. Phys 58, 647-687.
32 Wheeler, J.A., & Feynman, R. (1945) Rev. Mod. Physics, 17, 157;
54 Chu, S-Y (1993) Physical Rev. L., 71, 2847.
33 Amoroso, R.L. & Pribram, K.H. (2009) The Complementarity of Mind and Body: Realizing the Dream of Descartes, Einstein
and Eccles, Cambridge: MIT University Press.

34 Amoroso, R.L. (2000) The parameters of temporal correspondence in a continuous state conscious universe, in R. Buccheri &
M. Saniga (eds.) Studies in the Structure of Time: From Physics to Psycho(patho)logy, Dordrecht Kluwer Academic.
35 Chu, M-Y.J. & Amoroso, R.L. (2008) Empirical mediation of the primary mechanism initiating protein conformation in prion
propagation, in D. Dubois (ed.) Partial Proceedings of CASYS07, IJCAS, Vol. 22, Univ. Liege Belgium.
36 Holland, P.R. (1995) The Quantum Theory of Motion: An Account of the de Broglie-Bohm Causal Interpretation of Quantum
Mechanics, Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.
37 Randall, L. (2005) Warped Passages, Unraveling the Mysteries of the Universe’s Hidden Dimensions, New York: Harper-
Collins.
38 Vigier, J-P (2000) selected papers, in S. Jeffers, B. Lehnert, N. Abramson, & L. Chebotarev (eds.) Jean-Pierre Vigier and the
Stochastic Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, Montreal: Aperion.
39 Amoroso, R.L. (2002) Developing the cosmology of a continuous state universe, in R.L. Amoroso, G. Hunter, M. Kafatos &
J-P Vigier (eds.) Gravitation & Cosmology: From the Hubble Radius to the Planck Scale, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
40 Amoroso, R.L. (2005) Paradigm for a continuous-state holographic conscious multiverse, in R.L. Amoroso & B. Lehnert
(eds.) Extending the Standard Model: Searching for Unity in Physics, Oakl.: Noetic Press.
41 Amoroso, R.L. (2009) Defining a context for the cosmology of awareness, in R.L. Amoroso & K.H. Pribram (eds.) The
Complementarity of Mind and Body: Realizing the Dream of Descartes, Einstein and Eccles, Cambridge: MIT University Press.
42 Amoroso, R.L. (2004) The fundamental limit and origin of complexity in biological systems: A new model for the origin of
life, in D.M. Dubois (ed.) Computing Anticipatory Systems, AIP Conf. Proceedings Vol. 718, pp. 144-159, Melville: American
Inst. of Physics.
43 Amoroso, R.L. (2009) The physical origin of the principle of self-organization driving living systems, in R.L. Amoroso &
K.H. Pribram (eds.) The Complementarity of Mind and Body: Realizing the Dream of Descartes, Einstein and Eccles,
Cambridge: MIT Univ. Press.
44 Kafatos, M. Roy, S. & Amoroso, R. (2000) Scaling in Cosmology & the Arrow of Time, in Buccheri, di Gesu & Saniga, (eds.)
Studies on Time, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
45 Amoroso, R.L. (1996) The production of Fröhlich and Bose-Einstein coherent states in in vitro paracrystaline oligomers using
phase control laser interferometry, Bioelectrochemistry & Bioenergetics, 41:1, pp.39-42.
46 Fröhlich, H. (1968) Long-range coherence and energy storage in biological systems, Int. J. Quantum Chem. 2:641-649.
47 Preparata, G. (1995) QED Coherence in Matter, Singapore: World Scientific.
48 Driesch, H. (1914) C.K. Ogden (trans.) The History and Theory of Vitalism, London: Macmillan.
49 Amoroso, R.L. (2009) Consciousness: The philosophical foundations of noetic field theory, in R.L. Amoroso & K.H. Pribram
(eds.) The Complementarity of Mind and Body: Realizing the Dream of Descartes, Einstein and Eccles, Cambridge: MIT Univ.
Press.
50 Amoroso, R.L. & Martin, B. (1995) Modeling the Heisenberg matrix: Quantum coherence & thought at the holoscape matrix
and deeper complementarity, in J. King & K. H. Pribram (eds.) Scale in Conscious Experience, Mahwah: Lawrence Earlbaum.
51. Amoroso, R.L. (1997) Consciousness a radical definition: The hard problem made easy, The Noetic Journal 1:1, pp. 19-27.
52. Amoroso, R. L. (1997) A brief introduction to noetic field theory: The quantization of mind, in L. Rakic, G. Kostopoulos, D.
Rakovic, & D. Koruga (eds.) Brain and Consciousness, Belgrade: ECPD.
53. Amoroso, R.L, (2000) Consciousness, a radical definition: Substance dualism solves the hard problem, in Amoroso, R.L.,
Antunes, R, Coelho, C., Farias, M., Leite, A., & Soares, P. (eds.) Science & the Primacy of Consciousness, Orinda: Noetic Press.
54 Amoroso, R.L (1999) An introduction to noetic field theory: The quantization of mind, Noetic J. 2:1, pp. 28-37.
55. Amoroso, R.L. & Martin, B.E. (2002) Consciousness: ‘A thousand points of light’, The emergence of self-organization from
the noumenon of the conscious universe, The Noetic Journal, 3:4, 289-311.
56 Amoroso R.L. (2003) Awareness: physical cosmology of the fundamental least unit, Noetic Journal 4:1, 1-15
57 Amoroso, R.L. (2003) The Fundamental Limit and Origin of Biological Systems, Noetic Journal 4:1; 24-32.
58. Amoroso, R.L. (2003) The physical basis of qualia: Overcoming the 1st person 3rd person barrier, Noetic J. 4:3, pp. 212-230.
59. Amoroso, R.L. (2002) The physical basis of consciousness: A fundamental formalism, Part 1 Noesis, XXVI, Bucharest:
Romanian Acad.
60. Dubois, D.M. (2001) Theory of incursive synchronization and application to the anticipation of delayed linear and nonlinear
systems, in D.M. Dubois (ed.) Computing Anticipatory Systems: CASYS 2001, 5th Intl Conf., Am Inst of Physics: AIP Conf.
Proceedings 627, pp. 182-195.
61. Antippa, A.F. & Dubois, D.M. (2008) The synchronous hyperincursive discrete harmonic oscillator, in D. Dubois (ed.)
proceedings of CASYS07, preprint.
62. Dubois, D.M. (2008) The quantum potential and pulsating wave packet in the harmonic oscillator, in D. Dubois (ed.)
proceedings of CASYS07, preprint.
63. Antippa, A.F. & Dubois, D.M. (2004) Anticipation, orbital stability and energy conservation in discrete harmonic oscillators,
in D.M. Dubois (ed.) Computing Anticipatory Systems, AIP Conf. Proceedings Vol. 718, pp.3-44, Melville: American Inst. of
Physics.
64. Icke, V. (1995) The Force of Symmetry, Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.
65. Mackay, A.L. & Pawley, G.S. (1963) Bravais Lattices in Four-dimensional Space, Acta. cryst. 16: 11–19.
66. Calzolari, A., Marzari, N., Souza, I. & Nardelli, M.B. (2003) arXiv:cond-mat/0311018.
67. Schwinger, J. (1992) Casimir energy for dielectrics, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA 89, 4091-3.
68. Schwinger, J. (1993) Casimir light: The source, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci USA 90, 2105-6.
69. Schwinger, J. (1994) Casimir energy for dielectrics: spherical geometry, Proc. Nat. Acad. Math. Psych. 41:64-67, San
Ffrancisco: W.H. Freeman.
70. Witten, E. (1996) Reflections on the fate of spacetime, Phys. Today, (April) pp. 24-30.
71. Amoroso, R.L. (2005) Application of double-cusp catastrophe theory to the physical evolution of qualia: Implications for
paradigm shift in medicine & psychology, in G.E. Lasker & D.M. Dubois (eds) Anticipative & Predictive Models in Systems
Science, Vol. 1, pp. 19-26, Windsor: The International Institute for Advanced Studies in Systems Research & Cybernetics.
72. Gilmore, R. (1981) Catastrophe Theory for Scientists & Engineers, New York: Dover.
73. Poston T. & Stewart, I (1978) Catastrophe Theory & Its Applications, New York: Dover; Gilmore, R. (1981) Catastrophe
Theory for Scientists & Engineers, Dover.
74. Qin, S. et al. (2001) Int. J of Solids & Structures, 38, pp. 8093-8109.
75. Stevens, H.H. (1989) Size of a least unit, in M. Kafatos (ed.) Bell’s Theorem, Quantum Theory and Conceptions of the
Universe, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
76. Cardone, F. & Mignani, R. (2004) Energy and Geometry - An Introduction to Deformed Special Relativity, Singapore: World
Scientific.
77. Cardone, F., Marrani, A. & Mignani, R. (2003) The electron mass from deformed special relativity, Electromagnetic
Phenomena Vol.3, N.1; 9, special number dedicated to Dirac’s centenary; (2008) hep-th/0505134.
78. Cardone, F., Marrani, A. & Mignani, R. (2008) A new pseudo-Kaluza-Klein scheme for geometrical description of
interactions, arXiv:hep-th/0505149v1.
79. Bohm, D. (1963) Quantum Theory, pg. 353, Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
80. Messiah, A. (1999) Quantum Mechanics, pg 438, 444, New York: Dover.
81. Hatfield, B. (1992) Quantum Field Theory of Point Particles and Strings, Reading: Addison-Wesley.
82. Grotz, K. & Klapdor, H.V. (1990) The Weak Interaction in Nuclear, Particle and Astrophysics, New York: Adam Hilger.
83. Slichter, C.P. (1990) Principles of Magnetic Resonance, 3rd edition, Springer Series in Solid-State Sciences 1, New York:
Springer.
84. Schumacher, R.T. (1970) Introduction to Magnetic Resonance, Menlo Park: Benjamin-Cummings.
85. Farrar, T.C. & Becker, E.D. (1971) Pulsed and Fourier Transform NMR, New York: Academic Press.
86. Abragam, A. (1961) Principles of Nuclear Magnetism, Oxford: Clarendon Press.
87. Dehmelt, H.G. (1954) Nuclear quadrupole resonance, Am. J. Physics, 22:110.
88. Semin, G.K, Babushkina, T.A. & Yakobson, G.G. (1975) Nuclear Quadrupole Resonance in Chemistry, New York: Wiley.
89. Atkinson, P.W. (1994) Molecular Quantum Mechanics, 2nd edition, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
90. Hausser, O. (1974) Coulomb reorientation, in J. Cerny (ed.) Nuclear Spectroscopy and Reactions, Part C, New York:
Academic Press.
91. Humieres, D., Beasley, M.R., Huberman, B.A. & Libchaber, A. (1982) Chaotic states and routes to chaos in the forced
pendulum, Physical Rev A, 26:6, 3483-34.
92. Rueda, A. & Haisch, B. (1998) Contributions to inertial mass by reaction of the vacuum to accelerated motion, Found. of
Phys, 28:7, 1057-1108.
93. Rueda, A. & Haisch, B. (1998) Physics Lett. A, 240, 115.
94. Rueda, A., Haisch, B.& Puthoff, H.E. (1994) Phys.Rev. A, 49, 678.
95. Rueda, A. & Haisch, B. (2002) The inertia reaction force and its vacuum origin, in R.L. Amoroso, G. Hunter, M. Kafatos &
J-P Vigier (eds.), Gravitation & Cosmology: From the Hubble Radius to the Planck Scale, pp. 447-458, Dordrecht: Kluwer
Academic.
96. Vigier, J-P (1997) New non-zero photon mass interpretation of the Sagnac effect as direct experimental justification of the
Langevin paradox, Physics Let. A, 234:2, 75-85.
97. Garcia-Ripoli, J.J., Zoller, P. & Cirac, J.I. (2005) Coherent control of trapped ions using off-resonant lasers, Phys. Rev. A 71,
062309; 1-13.
98. Vigier-J-P (1995) Derivation of inertial forces from the Einstein-de Broglie-Bohm causal stochastic interpretation of quantum
mechanics, Found. Phys. 25:10, 1461-1494.
99. Sakharov, A.D. (1968) Sov. Phys. Dokl. 12, 1040.
100. Puthoff, H.E. (2002) Polarizable vacuum approach to General Relativity, in R.L. Amoroso, G. Hunter, M. Kafatos & J-P
Vigier (eds.), Gravitation & Cosmology: From the Hubble Radius to the Planck Scale, pp. 431-446, Dordrecht: Kluwer
Academic.
101. Burns, J.E. (1998) Entropy and vacuum radiation, Found. Phys. 28 (7), 1191-1207.
102. Burns, J.E. (2002), Vacuum radiation, entropy and the arrow of time, in R.L. Amoroso, G. Hunter, S. Jeffers & M. Kafatos,
(eds.) Gravitation & Cosmology: From the Hubble Radius to the Planck Scale, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
 Empirical Protocol for Measuring Virtual Tachyon /
Tardon Interactions in a Dirac Vacuum

Richard L. Amoroso* & Elizabeth A.Rauscher#

* # Noetic Avanced Studies Institute, Oakland, CA 94610-1422 USA
*amoroso@moeticadvancedstudies.us

Abstract. Here we present discussion for the utility of resonant interference in Calabi-Yau mirror symmetry as a
putative empirical test of the existence of virtual tachyon / tardon interactions in a covariant Dirac polarized vacuum

INTRODUCTION - MULTIDIMENSIONAL GEOMETR Y

AND CLOSED TIME-LIKE LOOPS

It appears that a resolution of the problem of closed time-like loops (CTL) lies in developing a model in
terms of a space of higher dimensionality, HD. What appears to be a closed loop in 4D spacetime may in
fact not have an intersection in an HD space [1].. Normal macroscopic causality demands that no point in the
forward lightcone is connected to another point outside the forward lightcone; that is, all signals are time-
like [2]. Real events involve simultaneity which is defined by signals that do not exceed the velocity of light,
v ≤ c where v is the velocity of propagation and c is the velocituy of light. Causality conditions for
superliminal signals in constructing a Lorentz invariant quantum field theory are given in [3,4]. Tipler
examines the problem of CTLs in general relativity for a rapidly rotating gravitational field [5]. The
relationship of causality and locality conditions is dicussed in [6].

• First, the case in which there is no connection of past and future is represented, i.e., there is no causal
connection.
• Second, the usual Minkowski diagram for a single valued present. In quantum mechanical terms, the
collapse of the wave function describing the system under consideration allows only one world line.
• Third, the present or ‘now’ condition is not single valued. The event wave function no longer collapses
to a point, localized region of spacetime, and more than one world line can represent the present.

In fact, for point-like events, one could conceivably have an infinite number of world lines passing
through the present. Everett, Graham and Wheeler have examined the quantum mechanical implications of a
multi-valued universe theory [7]. More detail is presented in [6]. Information about a future event may then
be traced back to the present via another world line and that actual time sequencing experienced is
associated with the first world line or possibly a third world line. Of course one of the major problems of a
theory containing multivalue solutions is the difficulty in defining a reasonable and useful causal
relationship. The 4-space description gives us CTL which yield difficulties in describing prior and post event
occurrences [5]..
Intuitively, considering HD geometric models appears to reconcile the problem of CTL. For example, a
helical world line in a 3-space would be single valued but would appear to contain multiple intersections if
viewed at a 45° angle to the vertical helical axis as represented in a 2D space. This representation would
contain multiple intersections even with a large pitch to the perpendicular to axis radius and hence act like a
CTL [8].
A number of HD geometries (Fig. 1) have been examined, in terms of reconciling complex anticipation and
precognition-like signaling and causality as well as their possible relationship to superluminal signals [9,10].
In particular we have examined some 5D and 6D geometries where the additional dimensions, XD are
space-like and time -like. In [11], instead of hypothesizing a model which involves energy transmission and
associated problems of energy conservation, we chose to develop a model in which remote information is
accessed in 4-space as though it was not remote in a HD geometry. The relativity theory formally describes
the relationship of macroscopic events in spacetime and, in particular, their causal connection is well
specified. HD geometries appear to reconcile anticipation or precognition and causality and define a
formalism in which the spatial and temporal separation of events in 4-space appear to be in juxtaposition in
the HD geometry. This model can well accommodate information and perhaps energy transmission cond-
itions as we will discuss in more detail in this volume.
There appears to be a reasonable relationship between these complex spaces and real 4, 5 and 6D spaces.
The generalized causal relations in the complex space are consistent with the usual causality conditions, and
exclude the CTL paradox. Multidimensional models appear to reconcile Maxwell's equations with the
structure of general relativity in the weak gravitational field limit having some quantum mechanical features
such as quantum nonlocality.
We introduce a complex 8D matrix in which the real components comprise the usual 4-space of three
real space components and a real time component and four imaginary components composed of three
imaginary space components and one imaginary time component [6,11].
Hansen and Newman [12] and Rauscher [6,11,13,14] developed the properties of a complex Minkowski
space and explored the properties of this geometry in detail. The formalism involves defining a complex
space Z μ = X Reμ + iX Imμ where the metric of the space is obtained for the line element
ds 2 = g μν dZ μ dZ *ν where indices μ and ν run 1 to 4.
In defining conditions of causality for ds2 = 0 for the metrical form we have the usual 4-space
Minkowski metric with signature (+++-)
ds 2 = g μν dx μ dxν (1a)

using units c = 1 and dx1 = dx, dx2 = dy, dx3 = dz and dx4 = cdt where the indices μ and ν run 1
to 4; where also
⎡1 0 0 0 ⎤
⎢0 1 0 0 ⎥
g μν =⎢ ⎥ (1b)
⎢0 0 1 0 ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎣0 0 0 −1⎦
which is a sixteen element mattrix where the trace, tr = 2.
In complex 8D space, we have for our differential line element with coordinates labeled
dZ μ = dX Re
μ μ
+ idX Im (in which dZ is complex and dX Re and dX Im are themselves real), with a complex
matric where ηιν is analogous to g μν such that

ds 2 = ημν dZ μ dZ *μ (.2)
so that, for example, dZ μ dZ *μ = ( dX Re
μ 2 μ 2
) + ( dX Im ) . We can write in general for real and imaginary
space and time components:
2
(
ds = dxRe + dxIm + dyRe + dyIm
2 2
) ( 2 2
)
(3)
+ ( dz + dzIm ) − c ( dt + dt Im )
2 2 2 2 2
Re Re

In [11] we represent the three real spacial components, dxRe , dy Re , dz Re , as dX and the three
imaginary spacial components, dxIm , dy Im , dzIm as dX Im and similarly for the real time component
dt Re ≡ dt and dt Im = dτ . We then introduce complex spacetime -like coordinates as a space-like part
xIm = χ and a time-like part t Im = τ as imaginary parts of X and t.
Now we have the invariant line elements as

2 2 2 2
s2 = x ' − c t ' = x ' − t ' (4)

again where we choose units where c 2 = c = 1 and

x ' = X Re + iX Im (5)
and
t ' = t Re + itIm (6)
as our complex dimensional component [15]. We use

2
x '2 = x ' = X Re
2
+ X Im
2
(7)
and
2
t '2 = t ' =t Re
2
+ t Im
2
. (8)

Recalling that the square of a complex number is given as the modulus

x ' = x ' x '* = ( X Re + iX Im )( X Re − iX Im ) (9)

for X Re and X Im real. The fundamental key to this set of calculations is that the modulus of the product of
complex numbers is real. Therefore, we have the 8-space line element.
s 2 = xRe
2
− c 2t Re
2
+ x Im
2
− c 2t Im
2

(10)
= xRe
2
− tRe2 + x 2Im − t Im
2

Causality is defined by remaining on the right cone, in real spacetime, as

s 2 = xRe
2
− c 2t Re
2
= xRe
2
− t Re
2
(11)

using the condition c = 1. Then generalized causality in complex spacetime is defined by

s 2 = xRe
2
− tRe2 + xIm
2
− tIm
2
(12)
in the xRe , tRe ,x Im ,t Im generalized light cone 8D space.
Let us calculate the interval separation between two events or occurrences Z1 and Z2 with real separation
ΔxRe = x2Re − x1Re and imaginary separation ΔxIm = x2Im − x1Im . Then the distance along the line
element is Δs 2 = Δ( xRe
2
+ x2Im − t2Re − tIm
2
) and it must be true that the line interval is a real separation.
Then
Δs 2 = ( x2,Re − x1,Re )2 + ( x2,Im − x1,Im )2
(13)
−( t2,Re − t1,Re ) 2 − (t 2,Im − t1,Im ) 2
or

(14)

Because of the relative signs of the real and imaginary space and time components and in order to
achieve the causality connectedness condition between the two events, or Δs , we must "mix" space and
2

time. That is, we use the imaginary time component to effect a zero space separation. We
identify ( x1,Re , t1,Re ) with one spacetime event causally correlated with another spacetime event,
( x2,Re , t2,Re ) [16].
By introducing the imaginary time component, one can achieve a conditon in which the apparent
separation in the real physical plane defined by xRe, tRe is zero, given access to the imaginary time, tim, or the
xRe , t im plane yielding spatial nonlocality.
The lightcone metric representation may imply superluminal signal propagation between an event A
transmitter and even in the four real subset space by the event B (receiver) or two simultaneously remotely
connected events. Separation will not appear superluminal in the 8-space representation. The causality
conditions, which do not contain closed time-like loops, are for the complex 8-space geometry, where 4-
space is a cut through the 8-space [11]. Newton examines causality conditions in 4-space with superluminal
signals [4] and the problem of closed time-like loops posed by Feinberg's classic "Tachyon" paper [3]. These
problems appear to be resolved by considering spaces of higher (>4D) dimensions and are consistent with
subliminal and superliminal signals [9].
In a later section we will discuss the relationship between subliminal, time-like, and superliminal, space-
like, interpretation of the remote connectedness phenomena, such as the nonlocality test of Bell's theorem.

LORENTZ CONDITION IN COMPLEX 8-SPACE

AND TACHYONIC SIGNALING

In order to examine as the consequences of the relativity hypothesis that time is the fourth dimension of
space, and that we have a particular form of transformation called the Lorentz transformation, we must
define velocity in the comple space. That is, the Lorentz transformation and its consequences, the Lorentz
contradiction and mass dielation, etc., are a consequence of time as the fourth dimension of space and are
observed in three spaces [17,18]. These attributes of 4-space in 3-space are expressed in terms of velocity, as
γ = (1 − β 2 )
−1/2
in the form for β ≡ vRe / c where c is always taken as real.
If complex 8-space can be projected into 4-space, what are the con-sequences? We can also consider a
4D slice through the complex 8D space. Each approach has its advantages and disadvantages. In projective
geometries information about the space is lost. What is the comparison of a subset geometry formed from a
projected geometry or a subspace formed as a slice through an XD geometry? What does a generalized
Lorentz transformation "look like"? We will define complex derivatives and therefore we can define
velocity in a complex plane [11].
Consider the generalized Lorentz transformation in the system of xRe and tIm for the real time remote
connectedness case in the xRe , t Im plane. We define our substitutions from 4-to 8-space before us,
x → x ' = xRe + ixim
(15)
t → t ' = t Re + it im
and we represented the case for no imaginary component of xRe or xIm = 0 where the xRe , t Re plane
comprises the ordinary 4-space plane.
Let us recall that the usual Lorentz transformation conditions defined in four real space. Consider two
frames of reference, Σ , at rest and Σ ' moving at relative uniform velocity v. We call v the velocity of the
origin of Σ ' moving relative to Σ . A light signal along the x direction is transmitted by x = ct or x - ct = 0
and also in Σ ' as x' = ct' or x'-ct' = 0, since the velocity of light in vacuo is constant in any frame of
reference in 4-space. For the usual 4D Lorentz transformation, we have as shown in Eq. (2.16),
x = xRe , t = t Re and vRe = xRe / t Re .

x − vt
x' = = γ ( x − vt )
1 − v 2 / c2
y' = y
(16)
z'= z

t'=
(
t− v/c x
2
)⎛ ⎛ v
= γ ⎜t −⎜ 2
⎞⎞
x⎟⎟
1− v2 / c2 ⎝ ⎝c ⎠⎠

for γ = (1 − β 2 ) −1/2 and β = v / c. Here x and t stand for xRe and tRe and v is the real velocity.
We consider the xRe , t Im plane and write the expression for the Lorentz conditions for this plane (Fig.
' '
2.1). Since again t Im like t Re is orthogonal to xIm and t Im is orthogonal to xIm we can write
x − ivt Im
x' = = γ v ( x − vt Im )
1 − v2 / c2
y' = y
(17)
z'= z

t'=
(
t− v/c x
2
)
⎛ ⎛ v ⎞⎞
= γv ⎜t − ⎜ 2 x⎟⎟
1− v / c 2
⎝ ⎝ c ⎠⎠ 2

where γ v represents the definition of γ in terms of the velocity v; also βv Im ≡ vIm / c where c is always
taken as real [19] where v can be real or imaginary.
' '
x ', x, t ' and t denote xRe
In Eq. 2.17 for simplicity we let , x Re , t Re and t Re and we denote script
v as vIm . For velocity, v is vRe = xRe / tRe and v = vIm = iIm / it Im ; where the i drops out so that
v = vIm = xIm / t Im is a real value function. In all cases the velocity of light c is c. We use this alternative
notation here for simplicity in the complex Lorentz transformation.
The symmetry properties of the topology of the complex 8-space gives us the properties that allow
Lorentz sonditions in 4D, 8D ans ultimately 12D space. The example we consider here is a subspace of the
8-space of xRe , tRe , xIm and t Im . In some cases we let xIm = 0 and just consider temporal remote
connectedness; but likewise we can follow the anticipatory calculation and formulate remote, nonlocal
solutions forxIm ≠ 0 and t Im = 0 or tIm ≠ 0. The anticipatory case for xIm = 0 is a 5D space as the
space for xIm ≠ 0 and t Im = 0 is a 7D space and for t Im ≠ 0 as well as the other real and imaginary
spacetime dimensions, we have our complex 8D space.
It is important to define the complex derivative so that we may define velocity, vIm. In the xRetIm plane
then, we define a velocity of vIm = dx/dit Im. In the next section we detail the velocity expression for vIm and
define the derivative of a comple x function in detail [3].
For vIm = dx / idt Im = −idx / dt Im = −ivRe for vRe as a real quantity, we substitute into our xRe , t Im
plane Lorentz transformation conditions as

xRe − vRet Im
x' =
1 + vRe
2
/ c2
y' = y
(18)
z'= z
t Re − vRe xRe
'
t Im =
1 + vRe
2
/ c2

These conditions will be valid for any velocity, vRe = - v.

Figure 1. We illustrate an example in which a real space-like separation of events P1 and P2 appears to be contiguous by
the introduction of the complex time, t x Re + it x Im such that from the point of view of event P3, the time-like separation

between ( x2 ( P2 ) − x1 ( P1 )) appears to be zero.

Let us examine the way this form of the Lorentz transformation relates to the properties of mass dilation.
We will compare this case to the ordinary mass dilation formula and the tachyonic mass formula of Feinberg
[3] which nicely results from the complex 8-space. See Fig. 1.
In the ordinary xRe tRe plane then, we have the usual Einstein mass relationship of
 m0
m= for vRe ≤ c (19)
1 − vRe
2
/ c2
and we can compare this to the tachyonic mass relationship in the xt plane
m0* im0 m0
m= = = (20)
1− v / c 1− v / c v / c −1
2 2 2 2 2 2
Re Re Re

for vRe now vRe ≥ c and where m* or mIm stands for m* = im and we define m as mRe,
m0
m= (21)
1 + v2 / c2
For m real (mRe ), we can examine two cases on v as v < c or v > c, so we will let v be any value from
− ∞ < v < ∞ , where the velocity, v, is taken as real, or vRe .
Consider the case of v as imaginary (or vI m) and examine the consequences of this assumption. Also we
examine the consequences for both v and m imaginary and compare to the above cases. If we choose v
v*2 / c2 = −v 2 / c 2 and 1 + v / c
*2 2
imaginary or v* = iv (which we can term vIm) the becomes

1 − v*2 / c 2 or
m0
m= (22)
1 − vRe
2
/ c2

We get the form of this normal Lorentz transformation if v is imaginary ( v* = vIm )

If both v and m are imaginary, as v* = iv and m* = im, then we have
m*0 im0 m0
m= = = (23)
1 + v *2 / c 2 1 − v 2 / c2 v2 / c 2 − 1

or the tachyonic condition.

If' we go "off" into xRe tRe tim planes, then we have to define a velocity "cutting across" these planes, and
it is much more complicated to define the complex derivative for the velocities. For subliminal relative
systems Σ and Σ ' we can use vector addition such as W = vRe + ivIm for vRe < x, v Im < c and W < c.
In general there will be four comp lex velocities. The relationship of these four velocities is given by the
Cauchy-Riemann relations in the next section.
1
These two are equivalent. The actual magnitude of v may be expressed as v = [ vv*] 2 vˆ (where v̂ is the
unit vector velocity) which can be formed using either of the Cauchy-Riemann equations. It is important that
a detailed analysis not predict any extraneous consequences of the theory. Any possibly new phenomenon
that is hypothesized should be formulated in such a manner as to be easily experimentally testable.
Feinberg suggests several experiments to test for the existence of tachyons [20]. He describes the
following experiment – consider in the laboratory, atom A, at time, t0 is in an excited state at rest at x1 and
atom B is in its ground state at x2 . At time t1 atom A descends to the ground state and emits a tachyon in the
direction of B. Let E1 be this event at t1 , x1 . Subsequently, at t 2 > t1 atom B absorbs the tachyon and ascends
to an excited state; this is event E2 , at t2 , x2 . Then at t3 > t 2 atom B is excited and A is in its ground state. For
an observer traveling at an appropriate velocity, v < c relative to the laboratory frame, the events E1 and E2
appear ro occur in the opposite order in time. Feinberg describes the experiment by stating that at t 2' atom B
spontaneously ascends from the ground state to an excited state, emitting a tachyon which travels toward A.
Subsequently, at t1' , atom A absorbs the tachyon and drops to the ground state.

Figure 2 Transactional model. a) Offer-wave, b) confirmation-wave combin-ed into the resultant transaction c) which
takes the form of an HD future-past advanced-retarded standing or stationary wave. Figs. Adapted from Cramer [21].

It is clear from this that what is absorption for one observer is spontaneous emission for another. But if
quantum mechanics is to remain intact so that we are able to detect such particles, then there must be an
observable difference between them: The first depends on a controllable density of tachyons, the second
does not. In order to elucidate this point, we should repeat the above experiment many times over. The
possibility of reversing the temporal order of causality, sometimes termed ‘sending a signal backwards in
time’ must be addresses [22]. Is this cause-effect statistical in nature? In the case of Bell’s Theorem, these
correlations are extremely strong whether explained by v > c or v = c signaling.
In [23], Bilaniuk, et al formulated the interpretation of the assocition of negative energy states with
tachyonic signaling. From the different frames of reference, thus to one observer absorption is observed and
to another emission is observed. These states do not violate special relativity. Acausal experiments in
particle physics have been suggested by a number of researchers [24,25]. Another approach is through the
detection of Cerenkov radiation, which is emitted by charged particles moving through a substance traveling
at a velocity, v > c. For a tachyon traveling in free space with velocity, v > c Cerenkov radiation may occur
in a vacuum cause the tachyon to lose energy and become a tardon [26].
In a prior joint volumes [27,28] in discussions on the arrow of time we have developed an extended
model of a polarized Dirac vacuum in complex form that makes correspondence to both Calabi-Yau mirror
symmetry conditions which extends Cramer’s Transactional Interpretation [21] of quantum theory to
cosmology. Simplistically Cramer models a transaction as a standing wave of the future-past.
However in the broader context of the new paradigm of Holographic Anthropic Multiverse (HAM)
cosmology it appears theoretically straight forward to ‘program the vacuum’ The coherent control of a
Cramer transaction can be resonantly programmed with alternating nodes of constructive and destructive
interference of the standing-wave present. It should be noted that in HAM cosmology the de Broglie-Bohm
quantum potential becomes an eternity-wave, ℵ or super pilot wave or force of coherence associted with
the unified field ordering the reality of the observer or the locus of the spacetime arrow of time.
Figure 3 Basic mathematical components of the applied harmonic oscillator: classical, quantum, relativistic,
transactional and incursive are required in order to achieve coherent control of the cumulative resonance coupling
hierarchy in order to produce harmonic nodes of destructive and constructive interference in the spacetime backcloth.

To perform a simple experiment to test for the existence of Tachyons and Tardons and atom would be
placed in a QED cavity or photonic crystal. Utilizing the resonant hierarchy illustrated in Fig. 2.18, through
interference the reduced eternity wave, ℵ is focused constructively or destructively as the experimental
mode may be and acording to the paramters illustrated by Feinberg above temporal measurements of
emission are taken.

VELEOCITY OF PROPAGATION IN COMPLEX 8-SPACE

In this section we utilize the Cauchy-Riemann relations to formulate the hyperdimensional velocities of
propagation in the complex plane in various slices through the hyperdimensional complex 8-space. In this
model finite limit velocities, v > c can be considered. In some Lorentz frames of reference, instantaneous
signalling can be considered. In Fig. 1 is displayed the velocity connection between remote nonlocal events,
and temporal separated events or anticipatory and real time event relations.
It is important to define the complex derivative so that we can define the velocity, vyIm . In the xit plane
then, we define a velocity of v = dx / d (iτ ). We now examine in some detail the velocity of this
expression. In defining the derivative of a complex function we have two cases in terms of a choice in terms
of the differential increment considered. Consider the orthogonal coordinates x and it Im ; then we have the
generalized function, f ( x, t Im ) = f ( z ) for z = x + it Im and f(z) = u (x , t Im ) + iv( x , tIm ) where
u (x ,t Im ) and v ( xIm , t Im ) are real functions of the rectangular coordinates x and t Im of a point in space,
P(x ,t Im ) . Cooose a case such as the origin z 0 = x 0 + it 0Im and consider two cases, one for real
increments h = Δx and imaginary increments h = i Δt Im . For the real increments h = ΔtIm we form the
derivative f '( z 0 ) ≡ df ( z) / dzz0 which is evaluated at z0 as
 ⎧ u ( x0 + Δx, t0Im ) − u ( x0 , t0Im )
f ' = lim Δx → 0 ⎨ +
⎩ Δ x
(2.24a)
v ( x0 + Δx, t0Im ) − v ( x0 , t0Im ) ⎫
i ⎬
Δx ⎭

f ' ( z0 ) = u x ( x0 ,t 0Im ) + ivx (x 0 , t 0Im ) for

or ∂u ∂v (2.24b)
ux ≡ and vx ≡ .
∂x ∂x
Again x = xRe , x 0 = x0Re and vx = v x Re .
Now for the purely imaginary increment, h = i Δt Im we have
⎧1 u ( x0 , t0Im + Δt Im ) − u ( x0 , t 0Im )
f ' ( z0 ) = lim ΔtIm → 0 ⎨ +
⎩i Δt Im
(2.25a)
v ( x0 , t0Im + Δt Im ) − v ( x0 , t0Im ) ⎫
⎬
Δt Im ⎭

and f ' ( z0 ) = −iut Im ( x0 , t0Im ) + vt Im ( x0 , t 0Im ) (2.25b)

for uIm = ut Im and vIm = vt Im then
∂u ∂v
ut Im ≡ and vt Im ≡ . (2.25c)
∂t Im ∂t Im
Using the Cauchy-Reimann equations
∂u ∂v ∂u ∂v
= and =− (2.26)
∂x ∂t Im ∂t Im ∂x
and assuming all principle derivations are definable on the manifold and letting h = Δx + iΔt Im we can use
f ( z0 + h) − f ( z0 ) df ( z )
f ' ( z0 ) = lim h → 0 = z0 (2.27a)
h dz
∂u ( x0 , t0Im ) ∂v
and u x ( x0 , t 0Im ) + ivx (x 0 , t0Im ) − +i ( x0 , t 0Im ) (2.27b)
∂x ∂x
with v x for x and t Re that is uRe = ux Re , with the derivative form of the charge of the real space
increment with complex time, we can define a complex velocity as,
dx 1 dx
f ' ( z0 ) = = (2.28a)
d ( itIm ) i dt Im
we can have x (t Im ) where xRe is a function of tIm and f(z) and using h = i Δt Im , then
dx dx
f ' ( z0 ) = x ' ( tIm ) = = . (2.28b)
dh idtIm
Then we can define a velocity where the differential incrrement is in terms of h = i Δt Im . Using the first
u ( x0 , t0Im ) as and obtaining dt0Im / Δx (with i’s) we take the inverse. If u x which is vx in the
case as
h → iΔt Im case have both u x and vx , one can be zero.
In the next section, we present a brief discussion of n > 4D geometries. Like the complex 8D space, the
5D Kaluza-Klein geometries are subsets of the supersymmetry models. The complex 8-space deals in
extended dimensions, but like the TOE models, Kaluza -Klein models also treat n > 4D as compactified on
the scale of the Planck length, 10-33 cm [27].
In 4D space (Fig. 1) event point, P1 and P2 are spatially separated on the real space axis as x0Re at point P1
and x1Re at point P2 with separation ΔxRe = x1Re − x0Re . From the event point P3 on the tIm axis we move in
complex space from event P1 to event P3 . From the origin, t0Im we move to an imaginary temporal separation
of tIm to t2Im of Δt Im = t2Im − t0Im . The distance in real space and imaginary time can be set so that
measurement along the tIm axis yields an imaginary temporal separation Δt Im subtracts out, from the
spacetime metric, the temporal separation ΔxRe . In this case occurrence of events P1 and P2 can occur
simultaneous, that is, the apparent velocity of propagation is instantaneous.
For the example of Bell’s Theorem, the two photons leave a source nearly simultaneously at time, t0Re
and their spin states are correlated at two real spatially separated locations, x1Re and x2Re separated by
ΔxRe = x2Re − x1Re . This separation is a space-like separation, which is forbidden by special relativity;
however, in the complex space, the points x1Re and x2Re appear to be be contiguous for the proper path
‘traveled’ to the point.
We design our tachyon measurement experiment by initially considereing Bohr's starting point for the
development of quantum theory, i.e. the emission of photons by atoms from quantum jumps between stable
Bohr orbits. We do this from the point of view of the de Broglie -Bohm causal stochastic interpretation in
order to take into consideration new laser experimental results described by Kowalski [29]. As one knows
light emitted from atoms during transitons of electrons from higher to lower energy states takes the form of
photon quanta carrying energy and angular momentum. Any causal description of such a process implies
that one adds to the restoring force of the harmonic oscillator an additonal radiation (decelerating) resistance
associated (derived from) with the electromagnetic (force) field of the emitted photon by the action equal
reaction law. Any new causal condition thus implies that one must add a new force to the Coulomb force
acting at random and which we suggest is related to ZPF vacuum resonant coupling and motions of the
polarized Dirac aether. We assume that the wave and particle aspects of electrons and photons are built with
real extended spacetime structures containing internal oscillations of point-like electromagnetic topological
±
charges, e within an extended form of the causal stochastic interpretation of quantum mechanics.
Kowalski's interpretation drawn from recent laser experiments [29] showing that emission and absorbtion
between Bohr atomic states take place within a time interval equal to one period of the emitted-absorbed
photon wave, the corresponding transition time is the time needed for the orbiting electron to travel one full
orbit aroound the nucleus.
• This suggests that electrons (like all massive particles) are not point-like but must be considered as
extended spacetime topological structures imbedded in a real physical Dirac aether [30].
• These structures contain internal oscillations of point-like quantum mechanical charges around
coresponding gravitational centers of mass, Yμ so that individual electrons have different centers
of mass and electromagnetic charge in the particle’s and piloting fields.
• The Compton radius of mass is much larger than the radius of the charge distribution [30,31].
• The centers of charge, X μ rotates around the center of mass, Yμ with velocity near the velocity of
light, c so that individual electrons are real oscillators with Broglian internal oscillations [32].
• Individual photons are also extended spacetime structures containing two opposite point-like
 charges, e ± rotating with the nearly the velocity of light, v  c at opposite sides of a rotating
−65
diameter, with a mass, mγ  10 gm. and an internal oscillation, E = mc =  . (Fig. x)
2

• The real aether is a covariant polarized Dirac-type stochastic distribution od such extended photons
which carry electromagnetic waves built with sets of such extended photons beating in phase amd
thus constituting subluminal and superluminal collective electromagnetic fields detected in the
Casimir Effect so that a Bohr transition with one photon absorption occurs when a non-radiating
Bohr orbital electron collides and beats in phase with an aether photon. In that case a photon is
emitted and Bohr electron’s charge e- spirals in one rotation towards the lover level (Exceplex)

Figure 4. Diagram conceptualizing two oppositely charged sub-elements rotating at v ≅ c around a central point 0
behaving like a dipole bump and hole on the topological surface of the covariant polarized Dirac vacuum.

POSSIBLE NEW CONSEQUENCES OF THE MODEL

Since such models evidently imply new testable properties of electromagnetic and gravitational phenomena
we shall conclude this work with a brief discussion of the points where it differs from the usual
interpretations and implies new possible experimental tests.
If one considers gravitational and electromagnetic phenomena as reflecting different behaviors of the
same real physical field i.e. as different collective behavior, propagating within a real medium (the aether)
one must start with a description of some of its properties.
We thus assume that this aether is built (i.e. describable) by a chaotic distribution ρ ( x μ ) of small
extended structures represented by four-vectors Aμ ( xα ) round each absolute point in I0 . This implies

• the existence of a basic local high density of extended sub-elements in vacuum

• the existence of small density variations δρ ( x μ ) Aα ( xμ ) above δρ > 0 for light and below (δρ < 0) for
gravity density at x μ .
• the possibility to propagate such field variations within the vacuum as first suggested by Dirac [33].

One can have internal variations: i.e. motions within these sub-elements characterized by internal
motions associated with the internal behavior of average points (i.e. internal center of mass, centers of
charge, internal rotations: and external motions associated with the stochastic behavior, within the aether, of
individual sub-elements. As well known the latter can be analyzed at each point in terms of average drift and
osmotic motions and Aμ distribution. It implies the introduction of non-linear terms.

To describe individual non-dispersive sub-elements within I 0 , where the scalar density is locally
constant and the average Aμ equal to zero, one introduces at its central point Yμ (θ ) a space-like radial four-
vector Aμ = rμ exp(iS / ) (with rμ r μ = a2 = constant) which rotates around Y μ with a frequency
ν = m γ c 2 / h . At both extremities of a diameter we shall locate two opposite electric charges e + and e − (so
that the sub-element behaves like a dipole). The opposite charges attract and rotate around Y μ with a
velocity ≅ c. The +e and –e electromagnetic pointlike charges correspond to opposite rotations (i.e ±  /2)
and Aμ rotates around an axis perpendicular to Aμ located at Y μ , and parallel to the individual sub-element’s
four momentum ∂ μ S .

Assuming electric charge distributions correspond to δm >0 and gravitation to δm < 0 one can describe
such sub-elements as holes (δm < 0) around a point 0 around which rotate two point-like charges rotating in
opposite directions as shown in Figure 6.1 below.
These charges themselves rotate with a velocity c at a distance rμ = Aμ (with rμ rμ = Const.). From 0
one can describe this by the equation
1/2
⎡ ∗ ⎤
2 2 ⎢ [](A α A α )⎥
mγ c ⎣ ⎦
? Aμ − ⋅ Aμ = ⋅ Aμ (31)
∗
 2
( Aα Aα ) 1/ 2

with Aμ = rμ ⋅ exp[iS( xα ) / ] along with the orbit equations for e+ and e − we get the force equation
m ⋅ ω 2 ⋅ r = e 2 / 4π r 2 (32)
and the angular momentum equation:

mγ ⋅ r 2 ⋅ ω =  / 2 (33)

Eliminating the mass term between (31) and (33) this yields

ω = e 2 / 2r (34)

where e2 /2r is the electrostatic energy of the rotating pair. We then introduce a soliton-type solution
sin ⋅ K ⋅ r
Aμ0 = ⋅ exp [i (cot− K 0 x) ] (35)
K ⋅r
where

K = mc / , ω = mc 2 /  and K 0 = mv /  (36)
satisfies the relation (31) with r = (( x − vt) 2 ⋅ (1 − v 2 / c 2 ) −1 + y 2 + z 2 ) 1/ 2 i.e.

? Aμ0 = 0 : (37)

so that one can add to Aμ0 a linear wave, Aμ (satisfying ? Aμ = ( m γ2 c 2 /  2 ) Aμ ) which describes the new
average paths of the extended wave elements and piloted solitons. Within this model the question of the
interactions of a moving body (considered as excess or defect of field density, above or below the aether’s
neighboring average density) with a real aether appears immediately 1 .
As well known, as time went by, observations established the existence of unexplained behavior of light
and some new astronomical phenomena which led to discovery of the Theory of Relativity.
In this work we shall follow a different line of interpretation and assume that if one considers particles,
and fields, as perturbations within a real medium filling flat space time, then the observed deviations of
Newton’s law reflect the interactions of the associated perturbations (i.e. observed particles and fields) with
the perturbed average background medium in flat space-time. In other terms we shall present the argument
(already presented by Ghosh et al. [34]) that the small deviations of Newton’s laws reflect all known
consequences of General Relativity
The result from real causal interactions between the perturbed local background aether and its apparently
independent moving collective perturbations imply absolute total local momentum and angular momentum
conservation resulting from the preceding description of vacuum elements as extended rigid structures.

Figure 5 a) 2D drawing of a 3D view of a 4D hyperstructure. A Minkowski spacetime diagram of the electric vector
only in terms of a present moment of 'tiled' Planck units utilizing the Wheeler-Feynman theory of radiation. The vertices
represent absorption & emission. The observable present is represented by bold lines, and nonlocal components by
standard line. Each event is a hyperstructure of Past, Present, and Future interactions, ultimately governed by the
quantum potential. b) In the reference circle photon mass and energy fluctuate harmonically during propagation of the
wave envelope (wave) and internal rotation of the ZPF during coupling (particle).

1
According to Newton massive bodies move in the vacuum, with constant directional velocities, i.e. no directional acceleration,
without any apparent relative friction » or drag » term. This is not true for accelerated forces (the equality of inertial and gravitational
masses are a mystery) and apparent absolute motions proposed by Newton were later contested by Mach.
Figure 6 4D Minkowski light-cone of advanced and retarded waves (Eq. 1) emitted from a locus at (x,t) = (0,0).
Adapted from concepts of Cramer [21].

Retarded: F1 = F0 e −ikx e − 2π ift , F2 = F0 eikx e −2π ift (1a)

Advanced: F3 = F0 e− ikx e2π ift , F4 = F0e ikx e2π ift (1b)

As part of the symmetry breaking process the continuous-state spin-exchange compactification dynamics
of the vacuum hyperstructure is shown to gives rise naturally to a 2.735  K degree Hawking type radiation °5
2 . 7 3K

from the topology of Planck scale (albeit a whole new consideration of how the Planck regime operates)
micro -black hole hypersurfaces. All prior considerations of ‘tired-light mechanisms have been considered
from the perspective of 4D Minkowski space [27]. This new process arises from a richer open (non-
compactified) Kaluza-Klein dimensional structure of a continuous-state cosmology in an M-Theory context
with duality-mirror symmetry; also supporting the complex standing-wave postulate of the model.
or to a lower state Ek ( < EiL ) (CMBR-emission) according to the relation hv = E j − EiL = EiH − Ek .
Thus we postulate that boundary conditions inherent in continuous standing-wave spacetime spin exchange
cavity compactification dynamics of vacuum topology also satisfy the requirements for photon emission. In
metaphorical terms, periodic phases or modes in the continuous spacetime transformation occur where
future-past exciplex2 states act as torque moments of CMBR/Redshift BB emission/absorption equilibrium.
In reviewing atomic theory Bohm, [34] states:

2
An exciplex (a form of excimer- short for excited dimer), usually chemistry nomenclature, used to describe an excited, transient,
combined state, of two different atomic species (like XeCl) that dissociate back into the constituent atoms rather than reversion to some
ground state after photon emission. An excimer is a short-lived dimeric or heterodimeric molecule formed from two species, at least
one of which is in an electronic excited state. Excimers are often diatomic and are formed between two atoms or molecules that would
not bond if both were in the ground state. The lifetime of an excimer is very short, on the order of nanoseconds. Binding of a larger
number of excited atoms form Rydberg matter clusters the lifetime of which can exceed many seconds. Exciplex An electronically
excited complex of defin ite stoichiometry, ‘non-bonding’ in the ground state. For example, a complex formed by the interaction of an
excited molecular entity with a ground state counterpart of a different structure. When if hits ground photon emitted Quasiparticle
soliton
 Inside an atom, in a state of definite energy, the wave function is large only in a toroidal region
surrounding the radius predicted by the Bohr orbit for that energy level. Of course the toroid is not
sharply bounded, butψ reaches maximum in this region and rapidly becomes negligible outside it. The
next Bohr orbit would appear the same but would have a larger radius confining ψ and propagated with
wave vector k = ρ / h with the probability of finding a particle at a given region proportional
= f ( x, y , z ) . Since f is uniform in value over the toroid it is highly probable to find the
2
to ψ
2

particle where the Bohr orbit says it should be [34].

Figure 7 Geometric model for a spacetime C-QED black body Exciplex for red-shift-CMBR absorption-emission
equilibrium dynamics.

POSSIBILITY OF CAVITY QED EMISSION FROM CONTINUOUS

SPACETIME COMPACTIFICATION

It is also suggested that further development of the C-QED model of CMBR emission could be extended to
include spontaneous emission from the continuous dimensional reduction process of compactification. This
would follow from modeling spacetime cavity dynamics in a manner similar to that in atomic theory for
Bohr orbitals. As well known photon emission results from electromagnetic dipole oscillations in boundary
transitions of atomic Bohr orbitals. Bohr’s quantization of atomic energy levels is applied to the topology of
Spacetime C-QED boundary conditions in accordance with equation (7.1) where spacetime QED cavities of
energy, Ei undergo continuous harmonic transition to a higher state, E j ( > EiH ) (redshift-absorption
mode).
The general equations for a putative spacetime exciplex are:
G* + G* ⇔ Z * ; Z * + mγ ⇔ X *

X * − mγ ⎯⎯⎯→
emission
Z * orG * (38)

X * + mγ → Z * or G *
where G is the ZPF ground, Z black body cavity excited states and X the spacetime C-QED exciplex
coupling. The numerous configurations plus the large variety of photon frequencies absorbed allow for a full
black body absorption-emission equilibrium spectrum. We believe the spacetime exciplex model also has
sufficient parameters to allow for the spontaneous emission of protons by a process similar to the
photoelectric effect but from spacetime C-QED spallation rather than from metallic surfaces.
A torus is generated by rotating a circle about an extended line in its plane where the circles become a

( )
2
continuous ring. According to the equation for a torus, ⎡ x 2 + y2 − R ⎤⎥ +z 2 = r 2 , where r is the
⎣⎢ ⎦
radius of the rotating circle and R is the distance between the center of the circle and the axis of rotation. The
volume of the torus is 2π
2
Rr 2 and the surface area is 4π 2 Rr , in the above Cartesian formula the z axis is
the axis of rotation.
Electron charged particle spherical domains fill the toroidal volume of the atomic orbit by their wave
motion. If a photon of specific quanta is emitted while an electron is resident in an upper more excited Bohr
orbit, the radius of the orbit drops back down to the next lower energy level decreasing the volume of the
torus in the emission process.
We suggest that these toroidal orbital domains have properties similar to QED cavities and apply this
structure to topological switching during dimensional reduction in the continuous state universe (HAM)
model [27]. To summarize pertinent aspects of HAM cosmology:

• Compactification did not occur immediately after a big bang singularity, but is a continuous process of
dimensional reduction by topological switching in view of the Wheeler-Feynman absorber model where
the present is continuously recreated out of the future-past. Singularities in the HAM are not point like,
but dynamic wormhole like objects able to translate extension, time and energy.
• The higher or compactified dimensions are not a subspace of our Minkowski 3(4)D reality, but our
reality is a subspace of a higher 12D multiverse of three 3(4)D Minkowski spacetime packages.

During the spin-exchange process of dimensional reduction by topological switching two things
pertinent to the discussion at hand:

• There is a transmutation of dimensional form from extension to time to energy ; in a sense like
squeezing out a sponge as the current Minkowski spacetime package recedes into the past down to
the Planck scale ; or like an accordion in terms of the future-past recreating the present.
• A tension in this process (string tension, T0 in superstring theory) allows only specific loci or
pathways to the dimensional reduction process during creation of the transient Planck scale domain. Even
though there are discrete aspects to this process it appears continuous from the macroscopic level (like
the film of a movie); the dynamics of which are like a harmonic oscillator.

With the brief outline of HAM parameters in mind, the theory proposes that at specific modes in the
periodicity of the Planck scale pinch effect, cavities of specific volume reminiscent of Bohr toroidal atomic
orbits occur. It is proposed rather speculatively at present that these cavities, when energized by
stochastically driven modes in the Dirac ether or during the torque moment of exc ess energy during the
continuous compactification process, or a combination of the two as in standard C-QED theory of
Rabi/Rydberg spontaneous emission, microwave photons of the CMBR type could be emitted spontaneously
from the vacuum during exciplex torque moments. This obviously suggests that Bohr atomic orbital state
reduction is not the only process of photon emission; (or spacetime modes are more fundamental) but that
the process is also possible within toroidal boundary conditions in spacetime itself when in a phase mode
acting like an atomic volume. A conceptualization of a Planck scale cavity during photon emission is
represented in figure 7.1c with nine dimensions suppressed.
 REFERENCES

1. Kholmetsky, A.L. (1995) On relativistic kinematics in the Galilean space, Galilean electrodynamics, 6:3S; 43-50.
2. Nakano, I. (1956) Progress in Theoretical Physics, 15.
3. Roscoe, D.F. (2006) Maxwell’s equations: New light on old problems, Apeiron, Vol. 13, No. 2.
4. Krogh, K. (2006) Gravitation without Curved Spacetime, arXiv:astro-ph/9910325v23.
5. Graneau,P.,Graneau, N., Hathaway, G. & Hull, R. (2002)
6. Lehnert, B & Roy, S. (2000) Extended Electromagnetic Theory, Singapore: World Scientific.
7. Assis, A.K. (1994) Weber's Electrodynamics, Dordrecht: Kluwer.
8. Barrett, T.W. (1993) Electromagnetic Phenomena not Explained by Maxwell’s Equations: Essays on the Formal
Aspects of Electromagnetic Theory, Singapore: World Scientific.
9. Einstein, A. (1955) Relativity, Princeton : Princeton Univ. Press.
10. Rauscher, E.A. (1976) Bull. Am. Phys. Soc. 21, 1305.
11. Rauscher, E.A. (1968) J. Plasma Phys. 2, 517.
12. Hanson, R.O. & Newman, E.T. (1975) Gen. Rel. & Grav. 6, 216.
13. Inomata, I. (1976) Consciousness and complex EM fields, Electrotechnical Laboratory, MITI, Tokyo.
14. Minkowski, H. (1915) Ann, Phys. Lpz. 47; 927; Jber. Deutsche Mat. Vev. 24; 372.
15. Weyssenhof, J.V. & Raabi, A.(1947) Acta Phys. Polon., 9, 7-18. 3.
16. Vigier, J-P (1997) Phys. Lett. A., 235.
Why does lightning explode and generate MHD power? Infinite Energy, 5:25; 9-11.
17. Saumont, R. (1998) Undermining the foundations of relativity, 21st Century Science & Technology, Summer, pp
83-87. Proc. Cold Fusion and New Energy Symposium, Manchester.
18. Rauscher, E.A.& Targ, R. (1973) Why only 4D will not explain nonlocality, J Sci. Explor. 16, 655.
19. Ramon, C. & Rauscher, E.A. (1982) Remote connectedness in complex geometries, PSRL-4105.
20. Feinberg, G. (1967) Phys. Rev. 159, 1089.
21. Cramer, J. (1986) The Transactional Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, Rev. Mod. Phys 58, 647-687.
22. [1] Einstein, A (1922) Geometry and Experience Sidelights on Relativity, Denver.
23. Bass, L. & Schrödinger, E. (1955) Proc. Roy. Soc. A 232.
24. Maxwell, J.C. (1954) A Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism, New York: Dover.
25. Sakharov, A.D. (1968) Dokl. Akad. Nauk Ser.Fiz.,177:70-71;
26. Swetman, T.P. (1971) Tachyons, Phys. Educ. 6:1; 1-6.
27. RL Amoroso & EA Rauscher (2009) The Holographic Anthropic Multiverse, Singapore: World Scientific.
28. EA Rauscher, RL Amoroso, (2011) Orbiting the Moons of Pluto: Complex Solutions to the Maxwell, Einstein,
Schrodinger and Dirac Equations, Singapore: World Scientific.
29. M. Kowalski (1999) Classical description of photon emission from atomic hydrogen, Physics Essays, 12:2; 312-331.
30. Dirac, P.A.M. (1951) Nature, 906.
31. Puthoff, H.E. (2002) Polarizable vacuum approach to General Relativity, in R.L. Amoroso, G. Hunter, M. Kafatos &
J-P Vigier (eds.), Gravitation & Cosmology: From the Hubble Radius to the Planck Scale, pp. 431-446, Dordrecht:
Kluwer Academic.
32. Kaluza, T. (1921) Sitz. Berlin Preuss. Akad. Wiss., 966.
33. Weyl, H. (1957) Space-Time-Matter, New York: Dover.
34. Ghosh, A. (2000) Origin of Inertia, Apeiron, Montreal.
35. Bohm, D (1951) Quantum Theory, Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
 ‘Number States’ and ‘Pilot Waves’ Hidden in Maxwell’s
Classical Equations
John E. Carroll
Centre for Advanced Photonics & Electronics, Cambridge University, JJ Thompson Av., Cambridge CB3 0FA, UK

Abstract. Schrödingers equation with boundary conditions gives quantized energy states for electron waves, but Maxwell’s
wave equations have quantized states only by analogies with harmonic oscillators. This problem is addressed by a novel
theory of wave-packets using diffracting Transverse Electric and Transverse Magnetic fields defined by axial H- and E-
fields. All transverse fields and gradient operators can together be rotated about the propagation axis at frequencies,
independent of the modal frequency. Without altering the axial fields, any helical motion propagates at the group velocity.
This is quite different from single frequency helical modes (e.g. Laguerre Gaussian) travelling at the phase velocity.
Reversing time and frequency, allows counter rotating helical solutions. These are referred to as adjoint or a fields that may
interact and propagate with the classical causal reference or r fields. Overlapping and counter rotating r and a fields with
slightly different frequencies interfere, leaving circular polarization states unaltered and creating a nodal structure in the
transverse fields distinct from the nodal structure in the axial fields. Number states arise from requiring that transverse and
axial nodes co-locate with integral spacings to form a wave-packet,. The a fields act as pilot waves for future potential
positions of a quantized interaction between r and a fields. Uncertainty in the position of the overlap leads to conventional
probabilistic quantum interpretations. The a fields are not fully determined until their detection with the r wave and this
late determination can offer explanations for non-local entanglement.

Keywords: Maxwell’s Equations, Number States, Photons, Entanglement.

PACS: 41.20.Jb Electromagnetic wave propagation 14.70.Bh Photons 03.65.Ud Entanglement.

INTRODUCTION
Vigier, with wide ranging interests, considered pilot waves [1], wave function collapse [2], classical spin [3, 4],
entanglement [5], and stochastic quantum theory [6] to give but a small selection. Similar topics are considered here
to discover novel photonic packets from Maxwell’s classical equations. It is therefore hoped that readers will see
this paper as appropriate to a Vigier symposium, although Vigier’s discussions are very different from those here.
The problem of what is a photon has been extensively discussed [7,8,9,10] but with no universal agreement
about an ideal answer. Links between single photon waves and Schrodinger’s equation [11] have been made.
Similarly single photon waves are associated with Maxwell’s classical equations [12] particularly using ‘wave
functions’ such as … = E + iB known as the Riemann-Silberstein vector [13, 14]. Theories about photon
localization [15, 16], visualization [17] , abstract structure [18, 19] and soliton-like behavior [20, 21] have all been
examined. Localised electromagnetic pulses that might form candidates for single photons have variously been
considered. Ziolkowski for example offers complex packets [22, 23] that have been used by Adlard et al. [15] as
the basis for localized one-photon states. From Ziolkowski’s pulses, Lekner has devised wave-packets based on
Transverse Electric and Transverse magnetic modes of Maxwell’s equations that travel with a group velocity
slightly less than c the velocity of light so that one may move in a ‘zero momentum frame’ [24-27]. Two features
standout in all this varied work. First, semi-classical treatments deal with single photons. Second, while
Schrödinger’s equation gives directly quantized energy states for electron waves from boundary conditions,
standard methods of quantizing Maxwell’s equations use analogies with quantized harmonic oscillators [28, 29].
Carroll and Beals [30] considered a novel approach starting from a concept that all waves diffract so that
Transverse Electric (TE) and Transverse Magnetic (TM) modes (Fig. 1) form the start for any wave-packet theories.
Number states in plane waves are found from boundary conditions that nodes in both transverse and axial fields are
co-located even as the axial fields tend to zero. Improved foundations here recognize the importance of the plane
wave limit, the essential role of polarization, a ‘zero momentum frame’ [24] and relativistic invariance.
These foundations start with TE and TM solutions for Maxwell’s equations even though the initial choice does
not immediately give convergent classical energy [30]. Two types of both solutions will be demonstrated: a
conventional causal ‘reference’ (‘r’) solution with a wave-front and an unconventional ‘adjoint’ (‘a’) wave with a
wave-rear. Both r and a waves can propagate together but their interaction energy occurs only in a region where
these waves ‘overlap’. Wave-packets, with finite energy, of circularly polarized r and a waves can be formed that
require innovative combinations of TE and TM fields. Without changing the axial fields or polarization , novel
counter rotating helical structures in the transverse fields within the packet lead to additional nodes that have to fit
integrally into the nodes in the axial fields. Quantized plane wave-packets arise as a limiting process where the axial
fields tend to zero. Advantages of the r and a overlap concept are discussed and a ‘Poynting’ theorem reveals more
about the r-a field interactions. A final discussion considers entanglement in terms of r and a waves.

Transverse Transverse Magnetic

Electric (TE) Mode (TM) Mode
(a) (b)
ETe
Hze

HTe
main propagation
direction kz

FIGURE 1. Schematic of diffracting electromagnetic waves. (a) Transverse Electric (TE) and (b) Transverse Magnetic (TM)

TE AND TM FIELDS IN FREE SPACE LIGHT-CONE FORM

Plane electromagnetic waves with uniform electric and magnetic fields at right angles to the direction of
propagation are special because, over a range of frequencies, they can give a Fourier synthesis of arbitrary field
profiles. Introductions to field quantization also use plane waves with their mathematical analogies to quantized
harmonic oscillators. However unless plane waves are considered as limiting combinations of TE and TM modes as
the axial fields tend to zero, then significant solutions of Maxwell’s equations will be shown to be lost. TE and TM
modes in free space are now developed as required for this work, normalizing E, D, B and H so that they have
common dimensions in the form:
~ ~
E = E = D / ε o , H = c{o H = cB . (1)

Subscripts z and ⊥ refer to axial and transverse components, allowing Maxwell’s vector equations in free space to
be written as two sets of independent TE modes and TM modes which are also called ‘dual’ modes [31]:
`
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
TE fields : div H = 0; (curl E + ∂ | H ) z = 0; (curl H − ∂ | E)⊥ = 0; ∂ | = ∂ ∂τ ; | = ct. (2)

~ ~ ~ ~ ~
TM fields : div E = 0; (curl E + ∂ | H ) ⊥ = 0; (curl H − ∂ | E)z = 0. (3)

Equations (2) and (3) can be expanded into transverse and axial vectors [32] but using notation as below:

~ ª Ex º ª∂ x º ª0 − 1º ~ ª− E y º
E ⊥ = « »; ∇ ⊥ = « »; † = « » ; †E ⊥ = « »; † 2 = − 1; †t † = 1. (4)
«Ey » «∂ y » «1 0 »¼ « E »
¬ ¼ ¬ ¼ ¬ ¬ x ¼

Here † represents a 90o rotation about the Oz axis with the superscript t indicating transposition of rows and
columns. Subscripts ‘ ⊥ eu ’ and ‘ ⊥ mu ’ will be used where ⊥ e ( ⊥ m ) denotes the transverse TE (TM) fields
while the additional subscript u delineates different waves, such as r or a.
 Any photon theory needs to be appropriately Lorentz invariant, a concept limited here to changes of frame
moving along the Oz axis and referred to as L-invariant. This is aided by the use of light-cone coordinates [33, 34].
On the two branches of the light-cone one may re-define z and t coordinates to give differentials and properties:

| = ct , z± = ½ ( z | ), ∂ z = ∂ ∂z , ∂ | = ∂ ∂τ , ∂ ± = ½ (∂ z ± ∂ | ), ∂ ± z = 1, ∂ ± z± = 0. (5)

The subscripts ± designate any entity as lying on ‘+’ or ‘–‘ branches of the light-cone respectively. On moving to
a primed frame with z ' , | ' co-ordinates, replacing z, | , moving along the Oz-axis with velocity v/c = tanh β , then
any light-cone entity (e.g. operator or field) transforms in the same way as given below:

O± ' = O± exp( ± β ), F± ' = F± exp( ± β ), O± ' F ' = O± F . (6)

Expand the TE and TM fields using the notation discussed from equations (4) to (5). After some algebra, this
gives light- cone TE and TM field equations for the propagating fields in the form:

~ ~ ~ ~ ~
H ⊥eu ± = ½ ( H ⊥eu †E ⊥eu ) ; ∇ ⊥t H ⊥eu ± = −∂ ± H zu . (7)

~ ~ ~ ~ ~
H ⊥mu ± = ½ (H ⊥mu †E ⊥mu ) ; ∇ ⊥t H ⊥mu ± = i†∂ ± (iE zu ) . (8)

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
∂ + H ⊥ eu − + ∂ – H ⊥ eu + = ∇ ⊥ H zu ; .∂ + H ⊥ mu − − ∂ – H ⊥ mu + = −i†∇ ⊥ (iE zu ) . (9)

The equations (9) are L-invariant and if the transverse fields are eliminated in favor of the gradient of the axial field
then these equations lead to the L-invariant scalar wave-equation for either E- or H-axial fields:

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
(∂ + ∂ − + ∂ −∂ + ) Fu = (∂ ¼ 2 − ∂ z 2 ) Fu = −∇ ⊥t ∇ ⊥ Fu ; ∇ ⊥t ∇ ⊥ Fu = (∂ x 2 + ∂ y 2 ) Fu = −~ 2 Fu ; Fu = H zu / E zu . (10)

The value of ~ gives a single measure of diffraction imposing minimal constraints on the transverse field pattern.
Eventually ~ → 0 to find plane wave solutions. With u designating the particular wave, the solutions propagate as:

Ξ u = exp[i( ku z – wu τ + δ u )] . (11)

The w terms are normalized angular frequencies while k terms are axial propagation constants. The phase terms δ
allow for arbitrary phase differences. With ~ ≠ 0 it is possible to find solutions to the transverse fields from
equations (7) and (8) that can be checked by substitution using equations (9) and (10):

~ ~
H ⊥eu ± = H ⊥eu ± Ξu = ∇ ⊥∂ ± (Ξu H zu ) / κ 2 ; H ⊥mu ± = H ⊥mu ± Ξu = ± i†∇ ⊥∂ ± (Ξu E zu ) / κ 2 . (12)

A straight bar over a field indicates its phasor amplitude; usually a function of (x, y). Equation (11) in light-cone
form gives:

Ξu = exp[i ( ku + z− + ku − z+ + δ u )] ; ku ± = ½ (ku wu ); ∂ ± Ξu = i ku ± Ξu . (13)

ku + ku − = −½κ 2 ; ku + = − ½ κ exp(− βu ); ku − = + ½ κ exp(+ βu ) . (14)

To change to a frame of reference moving at velocity v/c = tanh( β ) one replaces β u → ( βu − β ) . In all frames,
all waves satisfy equations (10) with local values of ku and wu and have their group and phase velocities satisfying:

(v group / c) = (c / v phase ) = (ku / wu ). (15)

 Circular polarization is essential to this work. Consequently, in this introductory section, circular polarization
~
projection operators Π p and Π n are defined along with their properties and actions on fields such as E ⊥ :

Π p / n = ½(1 + / − † i); Π p / n Π p / n. = Π p / n , , Π pΠ n. = Π nΠ p = 0, Π p† = −i Π p , Π n† = +i Π n (16)

~ ª ( E x − iE y ) º ~ ª ( E x + iE y ) º
Π p E⊥ = « », Π E = «
n ⊥
». (17)
« + i ( E x − iE y ) » « − i ( E x + iE y ) »
¬ ¼ ¬ ¼

A feature of these operators is that they equalize the magnitudes of the x- and y- fields and set the net x-field in
phase quadrature with the net y-field: a signature of circular polarization. The relative phasing of the x- and y- fields
determine the type of polarization. Equation (16) shows that having selected, for example, negative polarization
one cannot subsequently select positive polarization: the result is zero. Selecting negative polarization yet again,
makes no change. An essential characteristic of circular polarization is that a phase change of 900 and a rotation of
900 are interchangeable: e.g. Π n † = i Π n . As a consequence, projecting out a polarization turns phase changes into
rotations about the Oz axis, For example set ( kr z – wr τ + δ r ) = θ to generate a rotation operator ‡ where:

‡ = cosθ − / + † sinθ ; Π p / n{exp(iθ ) F⊥} = {exp(− / + †θ ) Π p / n F⊥} = ‡ (Π p / n F⊥ ) . (18)

Now apply the polarization projection operators to equations (9) and (12):
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Π p / n [∂ + H ⊥eu − + ∂ – H ⊥eu + ] = Π p / n∇ ⊥ H zu ; Π p / n [− / + ∂ + H ⊥mu − + / − ∂ – H ⊥mu + ] = Π p / n∇ ⊥ (iE zu ). (19)

~ ~ ~ ~
Π p H ⊥eu ± = Π p∇ ⊥∂ ± ( H zu / κ 2 ) ; Π n H ⊥eu ± = Π n∇ ⊥∂ ± ( H zu / κ 2 ) . (20)

~ ~ ~ ~
Π p H ⊥mu ± = ± Π p∇ ⊥∂ ± (iE zu / κ 2 ); Π n H ⊥mu ± = Π n∇ ⊥∂ ± (iE zu / κ 2 ). (21)

This gives the polarized TE and TM fields. Suppose that the electric and magnetic axial normalized fields are not
only chosen to be equal in amplitude but also in phase quadrature then one has the following results:
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
H zu = H o ( x,y ) Ξu , iE zu = H o(x,y) Ξu . → Π p H ⊥mu ± = ±Π p H ⊥eu ± ; Π n H ⊥mu ± = Π n H ⊥eu ± . (22)

‘TM+TE’ transverse fields now lie on the positive (negative) light-cone with positive (negative) polarization. The
~ ~
equality of the polarized TM and TE fields will also simplify the algebra at a later stage. By choosing − iE zu = H zu
in equation (22), the p and n polarization linkage to + and – light-cones can be interchanged.

ADJOINT SOLUTIONS WITH TIME REVERSAL

Fields with subscripts r and a may appear to be identical because both waves satisfy equations (7) - (9) with u =
r or a. However a special point has to be made. If for example in equations (7) and (9), the normalized time and
rotation operation change: τ → −τ , † → −† setting the subscript u = a, one finds the equations:

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
H ⊥ea ± = ½ ( H ⊥ea ± †E ⊥ea ) ; ∇ ⊥t H ⊥ea = −∂ H za ; ∂ − H ⊥ea + + ∂ + H ⊥ea − = ∇ ⊥ H za . (23)

The changes only cause all the subscripts ± to be trivially interchanged into . The same comments apply to TM
waves. The a wave may appear as an advanced wave [35] where, in equation (15), the phase velocity would be
negative. However on reversing the sign of w, the a waves propagate as in equation (12) with (− wa )(−τ) = wa τ . If
wa = wr , both waves propagate together so that the difference between r and a waves needs further discussion.
 Suppose one wants Fourier spectral components F(w) to form a signal valid from its source up to a wave-front
at time τ r (i.e. τ < τ r ): also given by [1 − sgn(τ − τ r )] = 0 for τ > τ r . Then with a given sign convention, the form
of these components is [F(w) + i FH(w)] where FH is the Hilbert transform of F in w-space [36]. Suppose, on the
other hand, one wants Fourier components valid from a wave-rear at time (i.e. τ > τ a ) into the future: also
[1 − sgn(τ a − τ )] = 0 forτ < τ a . Then the spectral components have the general form [F(w) – i FH(w)] . On reversing
the sign of w, this changes the components into [F(–w) + i FH(–w)]. Now, in w-space, the Hilbert transform of
cos[ w(τ − τ u )] is − sin [ w(τ − τ u )] so that the spectral components of both r and a waves can have the same general
form { cos[ w(τ − τ u )] + i sin[ w(τ − τ u )] } similar to equation (11) but with totally different interpretations.
Figure 2 sketches the key difference. Waves with time reversal that violate causality must be disallowed [37],
but causality is maintained here by the r waves delineating a path from the source up to their wave-front. The a
waves act as ‘pilot-waves’ delineating future permitted paths for any overlap region after their wave-rear. The
present is the region between the wave-rear and wave-front. However a waves are not like the deBroglie-Bohm-
Vigier pilot-wave fully explained by Holland [38]. The a wave concept retains the quantum interpretation that,
when there is a choice of path, the probability of any particular path is proportional to the square of the field
amplitudes along that path. A region of zero intensity means there is ‘no possibility’ of any overlap. The a waves
for τ > τ a remain just as possibilities and are determined only when the r and a waves reach their detector.

adjoint field: (– t, – ωa , – ϕ)
travelling to a ‘future’ detector Detector
?

overlap Detector
adjoint reference
wave-rear or wave-front ?
z=v(t –ta) ‘present’ z = v(t –tr)

Source
reference field: (+ t, + ωr , + ϕ)
travelling from source in the ‘past’

FIGURE 2. Causal reference waves: valid for times behind a wave-front. Adjoint waves: valid for times ahead of wave-rear.
Wave-collapse now only requires the overlap region to collapse: an easier concept than a wave collapse from source to detector.

There are similarities between the concepts of a waves given here and the conjugate waves Ψ ∗ of Cramer’s
transactional quantum theory [39], but changing the sign of † is not the same as conjugation. The ‘r-a’ wave
theory has a special feature in that it helps to resolve the problem of a wave-collapse after a measurement while still
allowing a real existence for the waves [40,41]. On extracting energy from the overlap region all that is required is
an ‘instantaneous’ removal of the fields in a short overlapping region of interacting r and a waves. One is not
presented with the need to devise an argument whereby light years of wave appear to collapse, as if they were never
there, in an instant when detecting photons from a distant star.
An interesting feature is seen on changing to Lekner’s ‘zero momentum frame’ [24] using a boost
parameter β = ½( β r + β a ). Using equations (13) and (14) and denoting parameters in the new frame with primes:

kr′ ± = ½ κ exp[ ½( β r − β a )]; ka′ ± = ½ κ exp[ ½( β a − β r )]. (24)

wr′ = wa′ = w′ = κ cosh[½(β r − β a )]; ka′ = − kr′ = k ′ = κ sinh[½( β r − β a )]. (25)

In this ‘zero momentum frame’ the r and a waves can have the same frequencies w′ but opposing wave-vectors k ′.
This is reminiscent of a Fabry Perot resonator. This suggests that an a wave can resonantly link with an r wave in a
zero-momentum frame. The existence of this zero-momentum frame for wave-packets is always a reality because
all real waves diffract and will travel at a velocity less than c even if this is only by an immeasurably small amount.
The task now is to demonstrate how two-frequency wave-packets can form.
 TOWARDS TE-TM TWO-FREQUENCY WAVE-PACKETS

The interference of waves with normalized frequencies wr and wa is now studied. With phase factors Ξ u as in
equations (12), the equations (22) show the equality of TE and TM amplitudes allowing just TE fields to be
evaluated. Mean and difference frequencies ws and wd with matching propagation constants k s and k d are given
from:-

ws / d = ½( wr + / − wa ); k s / d = ½(k r + / − k a ); δ r = −δ a = δ ; ku ± = ½ (ku wu ) : u = s or d . (26)

~
The r and a axial H-fields then combine to give FHz :

~ ~ ~
FHz = H zr + H za = H o ( x,y)( Ξr + Ξa ) = 2 H o ( x,y) cos(kd z − wdτ + δ ) exp[i ( ks z – ws τ )] (27)

Equations (22) and the duality of TE and TM modes [31] ensure that the net axial E-fields behave similarly. All
axial fields then have co-located nodes that in principle trap the axial energy. However perfect nodes in transverse
fields do not form because the different frequencies of the r and a waves mean different amplitudes of the r and a
transverse fields. The magnitude of these differences can be determined from results given in equations (12) - (14):

~ ~
H ⊥eu ± = (1 / κ 2 )∇ ⊥ (∂ ± H zu ) . = (1 / κ 2 )∇ ⊥ [i ku ± H o ( x,y ) Ξu ] (28)

~ ~ ~ ~
| H ⊥er + | / | H ⊥ea + | = kr + / ka + = | H ⊥ea − | / | H ⊥er − | = ka − / kr − = exp(−δβ ); δβ = ( β r − β a ). (29)

~ ~
Given L-invariant ratios in equations (29), the problem now is to find methods to equalize H ⊥er ± and H ⊥ea ± .

Novel Solutions with Distributions of Internal Transverse Orientation

Phase changes do not change transverse field profiles [ c.f. phase shifts of δ in equation (13)] but here rotations
~ ~ ~
are considered about the Oz axis where all transverse vectors G ⊥u (i.e. H ⊥ eu ± , E ⊥ eu ± and also ∇ ⊥ ) are rotated
but axial field profiles are unaltered. A rotation operator ‡u = (cos θu + † sin θu ) = exp(†θu ) is defined similar to
equation (18) but now with an angle θ u . With a superscript ‘t’ denoting row-column transposition one finds:

(‡u )t ‡u = 1 . (30)

Equation (30) applies even with space-time variations in θu . Equations (7) and (9) can then be written as:

~ ~ ~ ~
( ‡u∇⊥ )t ( ‡u H ⊥eu± ) = ( ∇⊥ )t (‡ut ‡u ) H⊥eu± = ( ∇⊥ )t H ⊥eu± = −∂± H zu . (31)

~ ~ ~ ~ ~
‡u (∂ − H ⊥eu+ ) + ‡u (∂ + H⊥eu− ) = [∂ − ( ‡u H⊥eu+ ) + ∂ + ( ‡u H ⊥eu− )] = ( ‡u∇⊥ ) H zu (32)

The term in [ ] within equation (33) applies even if θ u is space-time dependent provided that one also satisfies:

~ ~
[ (∂ − ‡u ) ‡u t ](‡u H ⊥eu + ) + [ (∂ + ‡u ) ‡u t ](‡u H ⊥eu − ) = 0 (33)

If θu ( x, y ) is independent of z and τ , equation (33) automatically holds thus validating equation (32). All
~ ~
transverse vectors G ⊥ u can be replaced with ‡ u G ⊥ u as in equations (31-33). Operating on equation (32)
~ ~
with ( ‡ u ∇ ⊥ ) t and using equation (7) recovers the wave-equation (10) for H zu showing that the axial fields H zu
remain unchanged.
 ET (∇⊥ r) xθ ΘET
x ETθ z x θ E /H
Ez/Hz θ z z
z Ezθ/Hzθ P z
P
O Pθ (Θ
Θ∇⊥ r)
HT (∇
∇⊥ rθ) ΘHT
O HTθ O
yθ y
y (a) (b) (c)

FIGURE 3. Fields, gradient operator and rotations

(a) Schematic electromagnetic fields showing ∇ ⊥ r so as to show in (b) and (c) how the operator ∇ ⊥ rotates.
(b) Conventional rotation of whole space about Oz axis, rotating axial field patterns as well as transverse fields.
(c) DITO shown as a local change of orientation of all transverse vectors but with no change of the axial fields

Because θu ( x, y ) can be an arbitrary function of x and y, the changes of orientation are referred to here as
Distributed Internal Transverse Orientations (DITOs). Figure 3(a) sets up vectors with a reference vector ∇ ⊥ r
while 3(b) shows a conventional rotation. Figure 3(c) sketches the operation of a DITO. The term ‘spin’ was added
to describe DITOs in previous work [29] but has been dropped here because not all DITOs represent ‘spin’ changes.
Consider positive circularly polarized TE fields which [equations (20)-(22)] are linked to the positive light-cone:

~ ~ ~
Π p‡u H⊥eu+ = Π p (√ ½)‡u (H⊥eu − † E⊥eu ) = Π p‡u∇⊥ (∂ + H oΞu /κ 2 ) = Π p‡u ku + [∇⊥ (iH o /κ 2 )]Ξu , (34)

Now circular polarization and DITOs have remarkable interactions caused by the interchangeability of i and † .
Consider DITOs ‡r = exp(i ϕ ½ δβ ) and ‡a = exp(−i ϕ ½δβ ) . Transposition does not imply conjugation so that
these satisfy equation (30) as required for all DITOs. Now use the polarization projection operators to show that:

Π p ‡r = Π p exp(i ϕ ½δβ ) = Π p exp(+½δβ ); Π p‡a = Π p exp(−i ϕ ½δβ ) = Π p exp(−½δβ ). (35)

With negative polarization in equation (36), exp(+ / − ½δβ ) would change to exp(− / + ½δβ ) . The amplitudes of the
transverse fields can then be changed through interactions of DITOs and circular polarization. Using equations (29)
for the propagation constant ratios, it is of particular interest to see that the DITOs can be chosen so that:

Π p ‡r kr + = Π p ‡a ka + ; Π n ‡r kr − = Π p ‡aka − (36)

These are the very conditions required by equations (34) to equalize the r- and a- transverse field amplitudes for
positive polarization associated with the positive light-cone. Similar results hold for negative polarization
associated with the negative light-cone. The field equalization can be seen to be L-invariant.
Using equation (34) with values u given by r and a for ‡r and ‡a as above, add the equalized transverse r-
fields and a-fields to find the total transverse TE fields as F⊥e + / − on each of the two light-cone branches:

~ ~
F⊥e + / − = Π p / n (‡r H ⊥er + / − + ‡a H ⊥ea+ / − ) = Π p / n ko + / − [∇ ⊥ (iH o /κ 2 )](Ξ r + Ξ a ) (37)

ko+ / − = − / + ½ κ exp[− / + ½(βr + β a )]; (Ξr + Ξ a ) = 2 cos(kd z − wdτ + δ ) exp[i(ks z – ws τ )]. (38)

Comparing equations (27) and (38) shows that nodes in the transverse and axial fields can be co-located at points
where cos [kd z − wdτ + δ ] = ±½π . Energy in circularly polarized plane waves can then be trapped between two
adjacent space-time positions along the axis of propagation as required for a classic two-frequency wave packet.
 It is essential to recognize that the process fails if one sets κ = 0. From equations (13) and (14),
κ exp[½(β r + β a )] = √ [(k r + ωr / c)(ka + ωa / c)] so for a given κ ≠ 0 one finds a matching value of ½( β r + β a ).
One always has non-zero diffraction but can allow κ → 0 to find the plane wave limit for circularly polarized
waves. In this limit in equation (28), [ H o ( x, y ) / κ 2 ] can tend to any desired value.

DITO giving
Gaussian
transverse
envelope
Axial -
z
envelope

Packet holds
as Ez & Hz → 0
inside packet

FIGURE 4. Schematic wave-packet for each circularly polarized waves where appropriate DITOs equalize the amplitudes of
the transverse fields at the reference and adjoint frequencies creating fields with common axial and transverse nodes. An extra
DITO is able to confine the transverse fields about an arbitrary axis. This two frequency (reference and adjoint frequency) wave-
packet still holds in the plane wave limit as the diffraction and axial fields tend to zero.

In spite of the success of having formed a packet by trapping energy in the fields between adjacent field nodes,
there remains a further serious difficulty. With any single value of κ , the transverse fields with their infinite
transverse extent fail to give a finite total energy as measured by the squared magnitude of the fields integrated over
the (x, y) space. This has been clearly recognized by many other workers [31,42, 43]. To counter this difficulty, act
upon FT+ / − with yet a further DITO ‹ ± where again one uses the interaction of circular polarization with DITOs:

‹± = exp( i ϕ Ξ xy ), Ξ xy = ½[ξ 2 ( x − xo )2 + ζ 2 ( y − yo )2 ], Π p ‹± = Π p exp(−Γxy ) . (39)

n n

Π p ‹± FT+ / − = Π p FT+ / − exp{−½[ξ 2 ( x − xo )2 + ζ 2 ( y − yo )2 ]}. (40)

n n

It is emphasized again that appropriate complex DITOs have a remarkable organizational ability by interacting
with circular polarizations. They can equalize the amplitudes of TE+TM light-cone fields at two different
frequencies so that transverse nodes can form co-located with axial nodes. This confines the energy axially. DITOs
also provide transverse confinement for such wave-packet about an Oz axis centred on any arbitrary ( xo , yo ).
Figure 4 suggests a Gaussian envelope. Other confining profiles of the form f ( x − xo , y − yo ) could be chosen: e.g.
an exponential profile as suggested for example by Bialynicki-Birula [44].

MAXWELL’S EQUATIONS WITH NUMBER STATES

A significant aim of this paper is to demonstrate how number states can be found in Maxwell’s classical
equations without any analogies with harmonic oscillators. To find number states, extra DITOs r/a are chosen
where the DITOs now depend on ( z , τ ) for r- and a-waves using notation similar to equations (13) and (26):

u. = exp{ηu ϕ [ „u z − Wu τ ]}= exp{ηu ϕ [ „u − z+ + „u + z− + Δ]}, ut u = 1, ηr / a = + / − 1. (41)

Ku ± = ½ ( Ku Wu ) = K s ± + ηu Kd ± = ½ [(K s Ws ) + ηu ( Kd Wd )];ηr / a = + / − 1. (42)

The DITOs r and a with their changed sign of † through η r / a create counter rotating helical motion that
form additional nodes in the transverse fields. At present, angle Δ in equation (41) is arbitrary. Equation (33),
replacing ‡ u with  u (u set at r or a), gives the condition for  u to act as a ( z , τ ) dependent DITO: :

~ ~
[(∂ ± u )]ut = ηu † „u ± ; u ( „u −H⊥eu+ + „u + H ⊥eu− ) = 0. (43)

~
Using equation (28) to eliminate H ⊥eu ± from equation (43) gives an L-invariant equation:

„u − ku + + „u + ku − = 0 :→ „u ± = M ku ± . (44)

where M is an arbitrary scalar. From equations (13),(41), (42) and (44), the DITO u may then be written as:

u. = exp{ηu †[‡ (ku − z+ − ku + z− ) + Δ]} = exp{ηu †[ ‡ (wu z − kuτ ) + Δ]}, ηr / a = + / − 1. (45)

Equation (45) shows that u represent counter rotating internal helical rotations with a normalized frequency
Wu = ‡ku propagating at the normalized modal group velocity v g = (ku wu ) , shown schematically in Fig. 5.
It is emphasized that these are not the modes with helical phase fronts often explained in terms of Laguerre-
Gaussian (LG) modes [44-48]. The helical motion , determined by the DITOs, has an arbitrary angular frequency
independent of the modal frequency, propagates at the modal group velocity and does not alter the state of circular
polarization of any wave-packet that they may help to form. Figure 6 attempts to offer an insight into this type of
helical organization using an analogy with a pulsating inviscid fluid impinging on a perforated rotating disc.

ET helical rotation vg
Wr

HT

HT
vg
ET helical counter rotation (ϕ reversed)
Wa

FIGURE 5. Schematic of counter rotating DITOs: the modal frequency and rotational frequency are completely independent.
Neither the axial fields nor the polarization state are altered by this counter rotating re-organization of the fields but the counter
rotation creates additional nodes in the transverse fields.

Ω internal rotation
vgroup
Internal helical
organisation

Fluid flow with

density variations
at modal frequency ω Density variations at modal
frequency ω propagate at the
rotating perforated disc
fluid’s ‘group’ velocity

FIGURE 6. Inviscid Fluid Analogy: a cylinder of inviscid fluid, pulsating at some frequency ω , impinges on a perforated disc
that is rotating at an independent frequency Ω . Water emerging from any one perforation is then organized into helical motion
propagating along the axis. Frequencies ω and Ω remain in principle completely independent.
 With the additional DITOs u , the amplitude equalizations created by ‡r and ‡a [equations (36)] still hold.
Taking for example the positively polarized TE field, consider Π p Ξ r / a  r/a with u as in equation (45) with mean
and difference wave terms as in equation (26). The operator Π p changes i in Ξ r / a into † so that:

Π pΞ r / a r/a = Π p exp[†{[( Mwd − ks ) + / − ( Mws − kd )]z – [( Mkd − ws ) + / − ( Mks − wd )]τ − / + δ + / − Δ}]. (46)

Adding the two counter-rotations shows how the amplitudes for the transverse fields are proportional to

Π p (Ξ r r + Ξ a a ) = Π p exp{†[(Mwd − ks ) z − (Mkd − ws )τ ]}cos{Mws − kd ) z – ( Mks − wd )τ − δ + Δ]}]. (47)

Because the a- and r-waves satisfy the same wave-equation (10) one finds, after some algebra, ws wd = k s k d and
this allows one to replace the arbitrary constant M with a different constant N in the following way:

wd / ks = kd / ws → M ks = 2 N wd ; M ws = 2 N kd . (48)

Choosing Δ = 2 Nδ one finds that the positively polarized transverse TE light-cone fields vary as:

F⊥e+ ∝ Π p ko + [∇⊥ (2iH o /κ 2 )] cos[(2N − 1)(kd z − wdτ + δ ) ] (49)

Equation (22) ensures equality of TE and TM field amplitudes thus ensuring that TM fields have the same nodes as
their TE counterparts. The helically modulated transverse fields then have a pair of nodes that are co-located with a
pair of axial nodes. For the shortest packet with appropriate symmetry one requires N to be an integer so that:

cos[(2 N ± 1)(kd z − wdτ + δ ) ] = 0 ; cos(kd z − wdτ + δ ) = 0 ; (kd z − wdτ + δ ) = + / − ½π (50)

It is now seen how the co-location of axial and transverse nodes forms the boundary condition that gives number
states for Maxwell’s equations. The transverse confinement afforded by the transverse Gaussian envelope described
in Fig. 4 for example, can still apply. The whole wave packet still holds as the diffraction tends to zero ( κ → 0 ) to
give quantized plane-wave circularly polarized packets. The axial nodes never vanish because κ is never absolutely
zero though may be as small as one wishes. Setting κ = 0 prevents the discovery of these number states.

(a) axial (N=0) (c) 2×[axial + helical (N=1)]

(b) axial + helical (N=1) (d) axial + helical (N=2)

FIGURE 7. Schematic of different ‘envelopes’ for different fields: (dots= axial fields, dashes = transverse fields).
(a) Axial envelope no helical DITO (b) Counter-rotating DITOs with N= 1.
(c) Two concatenated envelopes for counter-rotating DITOs with N= 1.
(d) Counter rotating DITOs with N=2

Figure 7 sketches the intervals between of the outer nodes, determined by the axial fields, with the nodes in the
transverse fields created by helical modulation that determines the shorter intervals. The required symmetry is
maintained through setting N as an integer. With N=0 there are no inner nodes while for the number states N =1 (2)
[3]… there are 2 (4) [6]… additional inner nodes. Panarella [49] has suggested that photons ‘clump’ together rather
than being single. Figure 7 (c) sketches ‘clumping’ of two N =1 modal states that is quite different from the N =2
state. Similar concatenation could lead to clumps of M packets that are very different from N=2M packets.
 INTERACTION ENERGY

A rigourous ‘Poynting’ theorem that connects power flow and energy storage [50] but will also allow for a
combined TE/TM field with helical DITOs remains a task for a further paper. Here only some elements are
presented. Physically the helical rotations increase the optical path length inside the packet so that any energy
flowing into the packet from any field-dipole interactions have 2N+1 times longer to stabilize than in the ground
state where N= 0. The discussion here is limited to circularly polarized waves where the TM and TE fields are equal
in magnitude, equation (22), giving equality in TE and TM energies and allowing only the TE field to be
considered. This is chosen because, as the plane wave limit is reached, it is only the TE fields that interact with any
currents to gain energy. The TE fields have DITOs ‡u [equations (36) for equalizing fields] and u [equations (45)
for helical organization] along with the propagation term Ξu (equation 11) so that TE fields (u = r or a) may be
written as:

~
H ⊥eu ± = ½ Ξu u‡u H ⊥eu ± = ½ Ξu u‡u ( H ⊥eu † E⊥eu ). (51)

~
The TE field in equation (9) is modified to allow for DITOs and transverse driving currents J ⊥u :-

~ ~
∂ + (H ⊥eu − ) + ∂ – (H ⊥eu + ) = Ξu u‡u∇ ⊥ H zu − †Ξu u‡u J ⊥u . (52)

Simplification of the analysis has two strands. First, only the limiting case where the axial fields H zu tend to zero is
considered. Second, only circularly polarized fields are considered which means, with the notation used here, that
the positive (negative) light-cone terms are positively (negatively) polarized so that the polarization splits equation
(52) into two parts with oppositely polarized terms that tend in the plane wave limit to give:

∂ + (Π nΞ u u‡u H ⊥eu − ) → −Π n†Ξu u‡u J ⊥u ; ∂ – (Π p Ξ u u‡u H ⊥eu + ) → − Π p†Ξu u‡u J ⊥u (53)

The algebra is outlined for only the positive polarization which allows i in Ξ r / a to be exchanged for −† [equation
(16)] so that with a notation that is similar to equations (41)- (42) one may write:-

Π p Ξ r / a r / a = Π p exp{+ / − †[( K s + z− + K s − z+ ) + / − ( K d + z− + K d − z+ )]} (54)

Equations (53) with (54) allow cancellation of Ξu u (for u = r or a) by re-writing equation (53) as:

∂ − (Π p‡u H ⊥eu + ) + ηu †K s − (Π p‡u H ⊥eu + ) + †K d − (Π p‡u H ⊥eu + ) → −†Π p‡u J ⊥u ; ηr / a = + / − 1 (55)

The aim is to find the influence of adding helical rotations on the energy exchange in comparison to the energy
exchange in the absence of such rotations. The r and a field interaction is considered from using the sum of their
fields, as in the previous packets, and now also their differences. Consequently it is found helpful to write:

Σ + = Π p‡u ( H ⊥er + + H ⊥ea + ); Δ + = Π p‡u ( H ⊥er + − H ⊥ea + ) ; I ⊥u = Π p‡u J ⊥u . (56)

Adding and subtracting the r and a equations in equation (57) using a fairly obvious notation, yields:

∂ − (Σ + ) + K s − (†Δ + ) + K d −†Σ + → −†(I ⊥Σ ) ; ∂ − (†Δ + )† − K s − (Σ + )† − K d − Δ + † → (I ⊥ Δ )† . (57)

Here † implies complex conjugation with row-column transposition so that Π n †Π n = Π n . The term in K d − is
removed by combining equations (57) appropriately to form an interaction equation:

− ∂ − [(†Δ + )† (Σ + )] + K s −U + + → I + : I + = Δ +† (I ⊥Σ ) − (I ⊥ Δ )† Σ + : U + + = {(Σ + )† (Σ + ) − (†Δ + )† (†Δ + )}. (58)

 Detailed evaluation of the interaction I + that includes fields and currents is not undertaken here awaiting further
work. The derivative in equation (60) will integrate over the packet length to give zero because of the nodes in the
fields given from (Σ + ) . In the field ‘energy’ K s −U + + on the positive light-cone one finds that only cross product
terms like (Π p‡a H ⊥ea + )† (Π p‡r H ⊥er + ) survive but from equations (35)-(36), (Π p‡a )† (Π p‡r ) = Π p so that one
can eliminate the DITOs ‡a and ‡r to leave:

K s − U + + = 2 K s − [( H ⊥er − † E⊥er )† Π p ( H ⊥ea − † E⊥ea ) + c.c] = 2 K s − (Q − P ). (59)

< 2Q > = < ½( H ⊥er † H ⊥ea + E⊥er † E⊥ea ) + c.c >; < 2 P > = < ½( H ⊥er†† E⊥ea − E⊥er ††H ⊥ea ) + c.c > . (60)

The term c.c. stands for the complex conjugate. The < > indicate an average of the effects of polarization over the
packet so that Π p averages to ½ . In terms of Gibbsian vector notation one could write:

< 2Q > = < ½( H ⊥er* • H ⊥ea + E⊥er* • E⊥ea ) + c.c >; < 2 P > = < ½( E⊥ea × H ⊥er* + E⊥er* × H ⊥ea ) + c.c > (61)

So that when r = a, <Q> is the proportional to the traditional energy density for the transverse fields while <P> is
proportional to the traditional Poynting vector in the absence of DITOs. The negative light cone similarly has:

K s + U − − = 2 K s − [( H ⊥er − † E⊥er )† Π n ( H ⊥ea − † E⊥ea ) + c.c] = 2 K s + (Q + P). (62)

To find the effect of just the helical DITOs on the energy exchange, the terms K s + and K s − are taken to have the
values in equation (42) which from equations (15), (26), (44) and (48) show that

K s + + K s − = M (−ks + + ks − ) = 2 Mws = 4 Nkd = 2 N (vg / c)( wr − wa ). (63)

− K s + + K s − = M (ks + + ks − ) = 2 Mks = 4 Nwd = 2 N (v p / c)(kr − ka ). (64)

As the diffraction parameter κ tends to zero so (v p / c) and (vg / c) tend to unity then the total interaction energy on
both light cones and with both polarizations is proportional to:

½[ K s − U + + + K s + U − − ] → N [ ( wr Q + kr P) − ( waQ + ka P)]. (65)

This ‘Poynting’ like analysis then suggests that there is indeed quantization of the energy and momentum but
the interpretation of the r - a photonic packet as a ‘photon’ needs more thought. Fourier analysis shows that
creating a signal at a normalized frequency w over a normalized time Δτ introduces an uncertainty Δw in the
value of w where Δw • Δτ ~ π . This suggests that Δw = wr − wa is the uncertainty in the emission/absorption
process and the r - a packet determines where an emission/absorption interaction could occur between the source
and final detector.

ENTANGLEMENT
It is of interest to see how the r - a packet concept might explain entanglement through the additional degrees of
freedom afforded by the adjoint or a-waves. To correspond to experiments outlined by Aspect et al. [51], the
discussion below uses linear polarizations. Figures 8(a) and (b) show schematically r-waves travelling away from a
single source in opposite directions. The causal r fields are assumed to be such that experimentalists, Alice and Bob,
would experience similar fields allowing both to measure independently without any correlation either horizontal or
vertical polarization provided that such measurements required only r fields. However the proposal here is that
entanglement implies that the two r-a packets, one travelling to Bob and one travelling to Alice, are also determined
by a choice of four different a waves that are determined only at the time a measurement is made.
 ALICE BOB ALICE BOB

V V V V V V V V
(r) reference fields (r) reference fields
H H H H H H H H

V V V V H H H H
V V V V H H H H
(a) (a-v) adjoint fields (b) (a-h) adjoint fields

FIGURE 8. Entanglement: possible explanation for polarization correlation using r-a waves (see text).

The four different independent a waves to be considered in relation to the two r-waves in each direction are as
follows. The adjoint or a- waves are represented by solid lines in the lower halves of Fig.8(a) and Fig.8(b) [with
vertical polarization represented by ↑ and horizontal polarization represented by → ]. Each a-wave can extend from
the overlap region travelling to the right/left up to the detector on the left/right. However the appropriate adjoint
field can be determined only when either Alice or Bob makes a measurement. If Bob is the first to make a
measurement and this happens to be vertical polarization then his measurement has selected one type of a wave so
that both r and a waves resonate with vertical polarization. This particular a-wave will then be picked out by Alice
when making her subsequent measurement forcing this to be correlated with that of Bob. If Bob, finds that he has
measured horizontal polarization then the available a and r waves resonate with horizontal polarization. As before
this different a-wave is picked out by Alice creating a correlation with horizontal polarization. If Alice makes a
measurement before Bob, then yet another a-wave is picked out by Bob but again with an independent choice of
vertical or horizontal polarization that is not decided until the measurement is made by Alice. Once Alice makes her
measurement then any later measurement by Bob is correlated through the a-waves. Lack of availability of
appropriate a-waves to match the r-waves may mean that measurements cannot be made. The important suggestion
is that a-waves add extra degrees of freedom and are not determined until measurements are actually made.

CONCLUSIONS
Two important aspects of Maxwell’s vector equations have been investigated relying on the fact that all waves
diffract even if only by a very small amount. Diffraction means that there is no physical reality to a perfect plane
wave and that all electromagnetic waves should be made up from Transverse Electric and Transverse Magnetic
modes. The first feature to mention in these conclusions is that rotations of all transverse vectors and the transverse
vector gradient operator can be made without violating Maxwells equations. Elsewhere [30] these changes have
been called Distributed Spin Rotations (DSRs) but definitive links with quantum spin have yet to be established and
so here they are called Distributed Internal Transverse Orientations (DITOs). These can be constant, distributed
over the transverse x and y coordinates or form helical changes of orientation about the axis Oz with a frequency
that is independent of the modal frequency although propagating at the modal group velocity. DITOs do not alter
the polarization though they can significantly modify the transverse fields through their interaction with circular
polarizations, allowing these fields to be confined in very flexible ways. They should not be confused with the
single frequency modes with helical phase fronts, such as Laguerre-Gaussian modes, that have been extensively
studied by other workers [45-48].
The second aspect that has been investigated is reversal of time with reversal of the direction of the rotation of
DITOs that help to create the ‘wave-packets’. These properties lead to adjoint or a waves that complement the
causal reference or r-waves that are emitted from a source with their wave-front observed in the ‘present’ where
they may, if an appropriate a-wave is present, resonate with that a-wave. However it is not until ‘detection’ are both
r- and a- waves determined. If there are no appropriate a waves then detection is claimed not to be possible. When
there are multiple paths between source and detector, there are choices of a-wave and the choice is decided again
only on detection. This concept means that any collapse of a wave-function at the measurement is only a collapse of
the overlapping a and r waves. The a- and r- wave concept might help to explain entanglement through additional
degrees of freedom giving solutions that are determined only on detection.
The DITOs, generating counter rotating helical organization for the r- and a- waves, create nodes for the
transverse fields that are additional to nodes in the axial fields. A wave-packet is formed only if these additional
nodes are appropriately co-located with the nodes in the axial fields. It is this boundary condition which leads to
number states in the Maxwell equations which it is suggested correspond to number states in quantum theory. Initial
attempts at Poynting like theorems suggest that the r- and a-wave-packets represent localised regions where energy
could be extracted from the field in integer quanta, if an appropriate detector was present. The duration of the packet
Δτ represents the temporal uncertainty of the exchange process while the spectral width Δw represents the
uncertainty in the energy exchange with Δw • Δτ ~ π . The ‘photon’ then in this theory takes on the character of
overlapping waves where energy may be exchanged but is not fully defined until ‘detection’ is completed.
Much further work needs to be carried out. Connections between photon spin and helical DITOs needs
examining. Can an r-a packet emerge only at one side or the other of a beam splitter like a photon [52]. Can random
choices of θ(x, y) in DITOs, tie in with random electro-dynamics [53-55]? Could DITOs have applications in other
field theories? A big practical challenge is to gain experimental access to control helical DITOs for the purposes of
communications [56]. Indeed is the theory capable of evaluating Planck’s constant? In conclusion, it is hoped that
this Maxwellian picture of overlapping r-a waves can offer insight into wave-particle duality for photons.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Ian White’s continual support and strong interest in this work is much appreciated. The author is indebted to
Joseph Beals IV who was a valued co-author in an earlier version [30]. Ruth Thompson and Jonathan Ingham are
thanked for valuable contributions to earlier work on single photons [57] that helped some ideas here. Gratitude is
given to Jose Rosas-Fernandez for his continued interest in this work. Rodney Loudon is also thanked for
suggesting at some uncertain date that Schrodinger frequencies represented a rate of change of some phase:
translated here into a rate of change of internal transverse orientations. Albrecht Giese is sincerely thanked for
pointing out errors in the original section about entanglement.

REFERENCES
1. L. Chebotarev, “The de Broglie-Bohm-Vigier Approach in Quantum Mechanics” in Jean-Pierre Vigier and the Stochastic
Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, edited by S. Jeffers, B. Lehnert, N. Abramson, and L. Chebotarev, Montreal:Apeiron
2005, pp.1-17.
2. C. Dewdney, J. A. Garuccio, Ph. Gueret, A. Kyprianidis, and J. P. Vigier, Found. Phys. 15, 1031-1042 (1985) .
3. C. Fenech, M. Moles and J. P. Vigier, Lett. Nuovo Cimento 24, 56-62 (1979).
4. S. Depaquit, Ph. Guéret and J. P. Vigier, Int. J. Theor. Phys. 4,19-32 (1971).
5. P. R. Holland and J. P. Vigier, Found. Phys. 18,741-750 (1988).
6. Ph. Gueret and J. P. Vigier, Found. Phys. 12, 1057-1083 (1982).
7. Papers in “The Nature of light: what is a photon ?” edited by C.Roychoudhuri, A.F.Kracklauer and K.Creath, CRC Press,
Boca Raton, 2008.
8. Papers in “The Nature of light: what are photons ?” edited by C.Roychoudhuri, A.F.Kracklauer and A.Y.Krennikov,
Proc.SPIE 0277-786X 7421, (2008).
9. B. J. Smith and M. G. Raymer, New Jnl. Phys, 9, 414 (1-35) (2007).
10. M. Evans, J. P. Vigier, S. Roy, and S. Jeffers, The enigmatic photon: Vol.3 Theory and practice of the B3 field, Kluwer
Academic Publishers, Dordrecht 1994.
11. D. H. Kobe, Found. Phys. 29, 1203-3 (1999).
12. A. Gersten, Found. Phys Lett. 12, 291-8 (1999).
13. I. Bialynicki-Birula, Acta Phys. Pol. B. 37, 935-946 (2006).
14. I. Bialynicki-Birula and Z. Bialynicki-Birula, Opt. Comm. 264, 342-351 (2006).
15. C. Adlard , E. R. Pike and S. Sarkar, Phys. Rev. Lett. 79, 1585-7 (1997).
16. M. Hawton, Phys. Rev. A 75, 062107 (2007).
17. M. Ligare and R. Oliveri, Am. J. Phys. 70, 58-66 (2001).
18. J. Dainton, Phil.Trans: M.P.E. 359, 279-308 (2001).
19. H. Stumpf and T. Borne, Ann. Fond. Louis de Broglie 26 429–448 (2001).
20. P. Kamenov and B. Slavov, 1998 Found.Phys.Lett.11, 325-342 (1998).
21. G.Hunter and R. L. P. Wadlinger, Phys. Essays, 2, 158-172 (1989).
22. R.W. Ziolkowski, J. Math. Phys. 26, 861-863 (1985).
23. R.W.Ziolkowski, Phys. Rev A 39, 2005-2033 (1989).
24. J. Lekner, J. Opt. A: Pure Appl. Opt. 5, L15–L18 (2003).
25. J. Lekner, J. Opt. A: Pure Appl. Opt. 6, 146–147 (2004).
26. J. Lekner, l J. Opt. A: Pure Appl. Opt. 6, 711–716 (2004).
27 J. Lekner, J. Opt. A: Pure Appl. Opt. 6, S128-S133 (2004).
28. R. Loudon, The Quantum Theory of Light, 3rd Edition, OUP, Oxford, 2000, pp126-148.
29. D. A. B. Miller, Quantum Mechanics for Scientists and Engineers, CUP, Cambridge 2008, pp361-382.
30. J. E. Carroll and J.Beals IV, “Photon-like solutions of Maxwell’s equations in dispersive media” in The Nature of light: what
are photons edited by C. Roychoudhuri, A.F. Kracklauer and A. Y. Khrennikov Proc.Spie 0277-786X 7421 , 2009,
pp.74210M1-13.
31. J. Lekner, J. Opt. A: Pure Appl. Opt. 3, 407–412 (2001).
32. S. Ramo, J. R. Whinnery and T. Van Duzer, Fields and Waves in Communication Electronics, 3rd edition, J. Wiley, New
York, 1994, pp.396-398.
33. Y. S. Kim and M. E. Noz, Am.J.Phys. 50, 721-724 (1982).
34. L. Parker and G. M. Schmieg, Am.J.Phys. 38, 218-222 (1970).
35. J. A. Wheeler and R.P. Feynman, Rev. Mod. Phys. B7, 157-181 (1945)
36. R. N. Bracewell, The Fourier Transform and its Applications, 3nd edition, McGraw Hill, Singapore, 2000, pp359-364.
37. A. Garuccio, G. D. Maccarrone, E. Recami and J. P. Vigier, Lett. Nuovo Cimento 27, 60-64 (1980).
38. P. R. Holland, The Quantum Theory of Motion : An Account of the de Broglie–Bohm Causal Interpretation of Quantum
Mechanics, Cambridge: CUP, Cambridge, 1993.
39. J. G. Cramer, Rev. Mod.Phys. 58, 647– 68 (1986).
40. L. E. Ballentine, Found. Phys. 20, 1329-1343 (1990).
41. P. J. Lewis Stud. .Hist. Philos. M. P. 36, 165-180 (2005).
42. A. Sezginer, J. Appl. Phys. 57, 648-683 (1985).
43. C. J. R. Sheppard, J. Opt. Soc. Am. A18, 2594-2600 (2001).
44. I. Bialynicki-Birula and Z. Bialynicka-Birula, J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys. 39, 545 (2006).
45. J. Enderlein and F. Pampaloni, J. Opt. Soc. Am. 21, 1553-1558 (2004).
46. L. Marrucci Mol. Cryst. Liq. Cryst. 488, 148–162 (2008).
47. M. V. Berry, J. Opt. A; Pure Appl. Opt. 6, 259–268 (2004).
48. S. Sundbeck, I. Gruzberg and D. G. Grier, Opt. Lett. 30, 477-479 (2005).
49. E. Panarella, “Single photons have not been detected: the alternative photon-clump model” in “The Nature of light: what is
a photon ?” edited by C.Roychoudhuri, A.F.Kracklauer and K.Creath, CRC Press, Boca Raton, 2008, Ch.7.
50. J. A. Stratton, Electromagnetic Theory McGraw-Hill, New York 1941 pp131-137.
51. A. Aspect, P. Grangier and G.Roger , Phys.Rev.Lett. 49, 91-84 (1982)
52. P. Grangier, G.Roger and A. Aspect, Europhys. Lett. 1, 173-179 (1986)
53. T. W. Marshall, Proc.Roy.Soc.A 276, 475-491 (1963).
54. L. de la Peña and A. M. Cetto, The Quantum Dice: an Introduction to Stochastic Electrodynamics, Kluwer, Dordrecht, 1996
55. A. Khrennikov, Found.Phys. Lett., 18, 637-650 (2005).
56. J. E. Carroll, El Lett. 43, 429-431 ( 2007).
57. J. D. Ingham, J. E. Carroll, I. H. White and R.M.Thompson, Meas. Sci. Technol. 18, 1538-1546 (2007).
 The Metaplectic Sampling of Quantum Engineering
Walter J. Schempp
Lehrstuhl für Mathematik I, University of Siegen, 57068 Siegen, Germany

Abstract. Due to photonic visualization, quantum physics is not restricted to the microworld. Starting off with synthetic
aperture radar, the paper provides a unified approach to coherent atom optics, clinical magnetic resonance tomography and
the bacterial protein dynamics of structural microbiology. Its mathematical base is harmonic analysis on the three–dimensional
Heisenberg Lie group with associated nilpotent Heisenberg algebra Lie(N).
Keywords: Heisenberg Lie group, compact Heisenberg nilmanifold, Heisenberg nilpotent Lie algebra and its vector space dual, coadjoint
orbit picture, symplectic structure, Kepplerian areal tracking method, pulsar astrophysics, metaplectic representation, data sampling, long–
range coherence, synthetic aperture radar imaging, photonics, coherent atom optics, Bose–Einstein condensation, de Broglie matter wave
holography, spectral geometry, quantum phase transition, clinical magnetic resonance tomography, diffusion–weighted magnetic resonance
tensor imaging, tractography, bacterial protein dynamics, flagellar motor, cooperative spin switching, protein signaling, Poisson random flight,
Lévy–Hinčin assessment formula, tracking during chemotaxis
PACS: 02.20.Sv, 02.20.Rt, 02.30.Px, 02.50.Fz, 03.67.Bg, 04.20.Jb, 06.30.Ft, 42.25.Kb, 42.40.Ht, 42.40.Kw, 42.50.Ex, 76.60.Lz, 76.60.Pc,
87.16.Nn, 87.15.hj, 87.15.Vv, 87.61.Tg, 96.15.De, 97.60.Gb

1. LONG-RANGE COHERENCE AND THE HEISENBERG LIE GROUP

Consider a particle in a one–dimensional space. Its quantum mechanical description is obtained by introducing
variables suggested by the classical theory in its Hamiltonian form. These variables which are not numbers and do
not commute in general, form an algebraic structure generated by two basic self–adjoint elements P and Q satisfying
the Heisenberg commutation relation
[P, Q] = −i
where the bracket denotes the commutator. The elements P and Q are supposed to be represented by self–adjoint
operators in Hilbert space. These operators are unbounded and this might involve domain problems which Werner Karl
Heisenberg (1901 to 1976) was unable to appreciate. Heisenberg did not recognize the difference between bounded
and unbounded linear operators in infinitely dimensional Hilbert spaces, which is at the origin of distribution theory
created by Laurent Schwartz (1915 to 2002). Similarly, Erwin Schrödinger (1887 to 1961) strongly believed that even
thought–experiments with just one electron or atom or small molecule invariably entail ridiculous consequences. From
this opinion, the advances of present–day quantum physics and quantum engineering can be easily recognized.
The three–dimensional Heisenberg Lie group N with one–dimensional center implements the Heisenberg commu-
tation relation. As a central extension of the symplectic plane R ⊕ R it is isomorphic to the direct sum C ⊕ R under the
multiplication law
 
   1  
w1 , z1 w2 , z2 = w1 + w2 , z1 + z2 + ℑ w̄1 w2
2
for elements (w, z) ∈ C ⊕ R. Note that the constitutional Hermitian form
 
C × C  w1 , w2 → w̄1 w2 ∈ C

corresponds to the Born interference pairing of quantum mechanics. Even if multiple particles are involved, quantum
interference occurs in pairs. The experimental verification depends on a three–slit mask where the photons travel
through a movable blocking mask and then through a stationary slit mask ([22]). The symplectic form
 
  1 x x
(R ⊕ R) × (R ⊕ R)  (x1 , y1 ), (x2 , y2 ) → det 1 2
2 y1 y2
associated with the constitutional Hermitian form is at the basis of the Kepplerian areal tracking method of planetary
motion.
FIGURE 1. Nuclear spin excitation procedure of clinical magnetic resonance tomography. The two–dimensional Bloch sphere
S2 → Lie(N)∗ of nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy allows to coherently control the nuclear spin choreography in a strong
magnetic field B of homogeneous density. The homogeneity of the magnetic field density governs the contrast resolution of the
tomographic modality.

The fact that the one–dimensional center {(0, z)|z ∈ R} of N is non–trivial implies dramatic deviations from
commutative Fourier analysis of signal analysis and communication theory. Roughly speaking, the Fourier transform
and the Fourier cotransform on the real line R have to be replaced by equivalence classes of irreducible unitary linear
representations of N and their contragredient siblings. Every irreducible unitary linear representation of N is unitarily
equivalent to either a unitarily induced representation or to a unitary character. The one–dimensional representations
of N are, evidently, pairwise inequivalent. The unitarily induced representations of N can be realized on the standard
complex Hilbert space L2 (R) and provide a model of long–range phase coherence. Due to an application of the
Mackey machinery, their equivalence classes can be visualized by inhomogeneous planes transversal to the central axis
{(0, z)|z ∈ R} of N and are therefore square integrable modulo center ([23]). The planes are symmetrically organized
with respect to the origin so that they belong to the complex vector bundle TS2 ∼ = TP1 (C) of the two–dimensional
Bloch sphere S2 → Lie(N)∗ of nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy. The contact points of the Bloch sphere
S2 = SO(3, R)/SO(2, R) which forms a real compact homogeneous manifold and simultaneously a one–dimensional
complex manifold holomorphically diffeomorphic to the complex projective line P1 (C), but not a Lie group, allow
to coherently control the nuclear spin choreography: Its north pole represents the spin–up state ↑, its south pole the
spin–down state ↓.
The realization of Bose–Einstein condensation in dilute gases of trapped atoms provides samples of bosonic atoms
with a macroscopic population occupying the ground state of the quantum system. The population forms a phase
coherent matter–wave packet and is described by a single macroscopic wave function. A pulsed output coupler which
coherently extracts atoms from a Bose–Einstein condensate is often referred to as an atom laser, which performs
ultimate control over frequency, intensity, and direction of matter–wave packets ([6]). Phase coherence over a long
range is the crucial concept underlying Bose–Einstein condensation and related macroscopic quantum phenomena,
such as de Broglie matter–wave holography, superconductivity and superfluidity. Because the irreducible unitary linear
representations of N form a model of long–range phase coherence, Bose–Einstein condensation sources are ideal
realizations of the Heisenberg Lie group N and the compact Heisenberg nilmanifold N/L over an optical lattice. Using
intersecting laser beams, the interference pattern L acts as a periodic potential on atoms. The symmetries associated
with the so–called coadjoint orbit picture of N in the vector space dual Lie(N)∗ of its Lie algebra, the real Heisenberg
FIGURE 2. The axisymmetric and time asymmetric coadjoint orbit picture of the Heisenberg Lie group N in the three–
dimensional real projective space P3 (R) of lines passing through the origin of R4 visualizes pairs of non–equivalent symplectic
tomographic slices. The associated Hopf fibration S1 → S3 −→ S2 of the Bloch sphere S2 → Lie(N)∗ allows to implement the
linear gradient
  control of magnetic resonance tomography and bacterial chemotactic sensory systems in terms of the homotopy
group π3 S2 of classes of continuous mappings S3 −→ S2 . The circular boundary of the closed disc in the equatorial plane ν = 0
indicates the points of angular momentum transfer. The symmetry in the longitudinal direction is represented by the Galois group
GalR C whereas in the transversal direction it is represented by the metaplectic group Mp(1, R).

algebra Lie(N), is two–fold. In the longitudinal direction it is represented by the Galois group GalR C which acts in
binary terms by reflecting the central axis {(0, z)|z ∈ R}. In the transverse direction it is represented by the metaplectic
group Mp(1, R) which acts as a two–fold cover of the unimodular Lie group SL(2, R) by letting the one–dimensional
center pointwise fixed. The symplectic group SL(2, R) is at the basis of the Kepplerian areal tracking method of
planetary motion.
To summarize, the main mathematical tool for a unified approach to quantum holographically data organizations is
the three–dimensional real Heisenberg Lie group N which allows to bridge the gap between abelian and nonabelian
harmonic analysis by showing how various important filtering results in abelian harmonic analysis may be enriched
through an interpretation in terms of the Heisenberg group N and its nilpotent Lie algebra, the Heisenberg algebra
Lie(N). Obviously, it needs some habituation to get familiar with these mathematical concepts. However, the broad
range of ensuing results makes it worthwhile to think in the broad category of holographically encoded data organiza-
tions.
Unfortunately, harmonic analysis on the Heisenberg Lie group N is not a very popular research subject today. Why
has a mathematical object with applications of such a wide spectrum gone relatively unnoticed until recently? One can
only speculate. Hermann Weyl (1885 to 1955), one of the outstanding pioneers in introducing the Heisenberg group
into quantum physics, overlooked the natural occurrence of the Heisenberg group, exploitation of which yields results,
for instance in photonics and coherent atom optics, which one feels he would have liked very much. An obstacle to the
appreciation of the common underlying structure may have been the very diversity of the topics, for detection of its
presence in one place need not suggest its presence elsewhere. Indeed, investigators in one field may very well never
have been aware that the Heisenberg Lie group had been found in some area not seemingly related to theirs ([19],
[20]). To these areas belongs general relativity theory. It is the coadjoint orbit picture of the Heisenberg Lie group N
which provides the Hopf fibration
S1 → S3 −→ S2
FIGURE 3. Geometry of the three–dimensional real projective space P3 (R): Rotations induced by the symplectic structure of
the planar detector. As the earth spins beneath the stars, a long exposure photograph records their concentric circular tracks across
the sky. The star trails seem to circle a fixed point on the sky which is the earth’s axis of rotation projected into space. Had this
photograph been taken at the earth’s geographic poles, this point on the sky would be directly overhead. The exposure time is over
10 h.

of the spin group S3 ∼

= Spin(3, R) ∼= SU(2, C) over the two–dimensional Bloch sphere S2 → Lie(N)∗ . The phase
circle S1 ∼
= SO(2, R) is diffeomorphic to the one–dimensional compact torus group T ∼ = R/Z, and the homotopy
group formed by classes of continuous mappings S3 −→ S2 is given by the character group
 
π3 S2 ∼= T̂ ∼
=Z
In view of the metaplectic sampling procedure of interrogating by counterpropagating laser beams the two–paths
phase difference in the matter–wave interferometric
   configuration
 on the rotating platform, the Hopf fibration over S2
together with the homotopy group π3 S2 = π3 P2 (R) represent the key mathematical structures of the gravitational
red shift controversy ([13]). As a consequence of harmonic analysis on the thre–dimensional Heisenberg nilpotent Lie
group N ([23]), the universal free fall interpretation of the atom interferometry experiment has to be rejected.

2. SYNTHETIC APERTURE RADAR IMAGING

In 1903, a mere 15 years following the seminal studies of Heinrich Hertz (1857 to 1894) on the generation, reception,
and scattering of electromagnetic waves, the engineer Christan Hülsmeyer (1881 to 1957) demonstrated a ship collision
avoidance radar system which he later patented. The range of the first remote sensing system was about 3 km. Although
there was a demand for such remote sensing modalities, time was not mature enough to recognize the importance of
Hülsmeyer’s discovery. It needed several generations of scientists after Hülsmeyer’s breakthrough to evaluate the
information contents of the sophisticated echo or response signals generated by remote sensing modalities other
than radar systems. Due to theoretical insights into the application of the Hanbury Brown–Twiss phenomenon of
photon bunching to astrophysics, the link between radar technology and quantum engineering has been established.
Important technological advances in varied applications of photonics have made the breadth of this link by far more
apparent. They demonstrated that quantum physics and quantum engineering are not restricted to the visualization of
the microworld.
FIGURE 4. Spaceborne Magellan’s synthetic aperture radar observations reveal the planet’s Venus landscape by mapping radar
mosaics onto a computer–simulated two–dimensional sphere S2 in the three–dimensional real projective space P3 (R). The global
radar view of the shrouded surface of Venus is centered at 180o east longitude. Remarkably, Galileo concluded "with absolute
necessity that Venus revolves about the sun just as do all the other planets", thus consenting to Nicholas Copernicus and Johannes
Keppler in discrediting geocentric cosmologies.

Astronomy is considered to be the most ancient of all the sciences. The role of planetary exploration and imaging
is quite unusual in the history of science: A research subject that was created almost instantaneously when an esoteric
speciality was elevated to prominence during the space race. One of the culminations in the development of remote
sensing systems represented the spaceborne Magellan’s synthetic aperture radar which has penetrated the Venusian
clouds to furnish 100–meter resolution, false–colour images. Once considered the earth’s twin because of its similar
size and mass, the planet Venus which is completely shrouded in dense clouds is now known as strikingly different.
Indeed, a carbon dioxide atmosphere caused a runaway greenhouse effect that today produces scorching temperatures
that induced nearly all of the planet’s water to escape. Venus’ thick clouds are made of sulphuric acid, not water
droplets like the earth’s clouds. The planet’s surface is surprisingly young, and volcanoes are widespread. Lava
flooding is thought to have obliterated most surface features only 800 million years ago. The earth’s nearest planetary
sibling presents an impressive example of how a planet’s surface conditions are sensitive to its atmospheric content. It
demonstrates that advances in high technology enhanced considerably the range of our knowledge.
Radar systems have been operated since the early 1930s, but with rapidly increasing sophistication of technology.
Nearly 60 years have passed since Carl A. Wiley first observed that a side–looking radar system can considerably
improve its azimuth resolution by utilizing the Doppler spread of the echo signal. In the ensuing years, a flurry of
activity followed, leading toward steady advancement in performance of both the sensor and the echo signal processor
technology. Although much of the early work on remote sensing was aimed toward detection and tracking of moving
targets, the potential for utilizing this technology as a tomographic imaging modality for scientific applications was
widely recognized, and an apex in the development of high resolution imaging modalities has been achieved by
synthetic aperture radar systems of airborne or spaceborne platforms. Later on, orbital spin geometry, fast nuclear spin–
echo strategies, and photon–echo formation opened new horizons to innovative non–invasive tomographic imaging
modalities which offered a stepwise improved contrast resolution of the echo signals ([8]).
A mathematical cross–correlation analysis of the holographic organizations of synthetic aperture radar data in
terms of the radar ambiguity function leads to harmonic analysis on the Heisenberg group N ([17]). The most
common synthetic aperture radar mode, the spotlight mode, is operating analogously to the lighthouse model of pulsar
astrophysics ([11]). The word pulsar is an acronym based on the phrase "pulsating source of radio emission". The
prototypical neutron–star binary pulsar PSR B1913 + 16 at a distance of 21000 light years from the earth cannot be
observed by using the visible light even by means of the most sensitive telescopes. The neutron star rotates on its axis
17 times per second. Thus the pulse period is T = 59 ms on the time scale. The orbital period of 7 34 hours is remarkably
short. The pulsar and its companion both follow highly elliptical orbits around their common center of mass. The major
axis of the star’s orbit is only 6.4 light seconds, and the minor axis is 5 light seconds. Each star moves on its orbit
according to the Kepplerian laws of orbital motions. Notice that the eccentric Kepplerian motions are cross–sections
of the corotating circular bicylinder passing through the torque ring. It is the image of the projectivized coadjoint orbit
picture of the Heisenberg Lie group N under the conformal Möbius inversion.
According to the lighthouse effect, the pulsar’s beams of radio waves sweep the earth producing highly regular
sequences of radio pulses. The extraordinary stability of the pulse sequences makes pulsars very accurate clocks,
rivaling the best atomic clocks on earth, and makes a transversal matched filter bank reconstruction possible. Pulses
from the neutron star traverse the interstellar medium before being received at the radio telescope where they are
de–dispersed and added to form a mean pulse profile. During the observation, the data regularly receive a time
stamp, usually based on a caesium time standard or hydrogen maser at the observatory plus a signal from the
global positioning system (GPS) of satellites. The time–of–arrival measurement can be accurately determined by
photon cross–correlation of the observed profile with a high signal–to–noise template profile obtained from the linear
superposition of many observations at the particular observing frequency label of the filter bank which reconstructs
holographically the pulsar’s parameters under consideration.

3. THE COMPACT HEISENBERG NILMANIFOLD AND QUANTUM PHASE

TRANSITION
The lattice L underlying the reconstruction procedure of the pulsar’s parameters leads to the concept of compact
Heisenberg nilmanifold N/L which is associated to the Heisenberg Lie group N ([17]). It is diffeomorphic to a principal
circle bundle of counterpropagating collimated linear de Broglie waveguides over the two–dimensional compact torus
group T × T spaced by half an optical wavelength. The Heisenberg nilmanifold N/L forms a model of long–range
phase coherence by implementing the symplectic Poisson summation formula as a spectral–geometric trace formula
on the one–dimensional compact torus group T ∼ = SO(2, R) which is diffeomorphic to the phase circle S1 ([21]).
Long–range phase coherence of matter–wave packets can be achieved at ultralow temperatures in the microkelvin
(μK) range.
Laser cooling and electromagnetic traps have led to a revolution in atomic physics, yielding dramatic discoveries
ranging from Bose–Einstein condensation and de Broglie matter wave holography to the quantum control of single
atoms. The wave function of the Bose–Einstein condensate in a magnetic trap in the optical lattice L can be expressed
by the symplectic Poisson summation formula as a superposition of localized wave functions on each lattice site. If
such a localized wave function is described by a Gaussian kernel for the ground state of the tightly confining radial
axis of a single lattice tube, the elegant tricks used as a standby by William Feller (1906 to 1970) yield the celebrated
Jacobi theta–function identity ϑ (t) = √1t ϑ ( 1t ), or explicitly,

1 n2
∑ e− 2t = ∑ e−2π n t
2 2
√ (t > 0).
2πt n∈Z n∈Z

The summation runs over the elements of the fundamental character group
 
Z∼
= T̂ ∼
= π1 S1

Why assemblies of cold atoms? For atoms cooled to a temperature of 1 μK, their thermal velocity is about 1 cm/s.
When atoms are slow, their observation time can be chosen long enough to measure with high precision the transition
frequency between two energy levels. Atomic clocks and matter–wave inertial sensors have thus become two of the
most important applications of cold atoms ([3], [4]).
When the temperature of a classical system approaches zero, all the thermal fluctuations die out. This prohibits
phase transitions in classical systems near zero temperatures. Heisenberg’s uncertainty relation, however, implies that
in a quantum system some fluctuations are present even near zero temperatures. These quantum fluctuations may be
FIGURE 5. Bosonic atom distribution in a three–dimensional body–centered cubic lattice L defining the compact Heisenberg
nilmanifold N/L and measured after time–of–flight: Phase transition from a superfluid phase to a Mott insulator phase at ultralow
tempertures. The direction of the one–dimensional center {(0, z)|z ∈ R} of the Heisenberg group N for which the atomic momentum
remains unchanged and the polarization is purely circular corresponds to the diagonal of the cubic unit cell of L. In the superfluid
phase, each atom is spread out over the entire lattice L. The various peaks reveal the long–range coherence of the matter–wave
packets over several sites of the lattice L. The periodicity of the optical potential along the the central axis {(0, z)|z ∈ R} of N is
equal to 34 of the wavelength due to the dual four–wave mixing procedure. In the insulating phase, exact numbers of atoms are
localized at individual lattice sites, with no phase coherence across the lattice L. When phase coherence is completely lost, the
metaplectic symmetry of the two–fold matter–wave interference pattern is still visible.

strong enough to drive a transition from one phase to another, bringing about a macroscopic change. A prominent
example of such a boundary crossing quantum phase transition is the change from the superfluid phase to the Mott
insulator phase in a dilute gas of trapped bosonic atoms with repulsive interactions hopping through an optical lattice
L of standing wave laser fields. In the superfluid regime, the excitation spectrum is gapless, wheras the Mott insulator
phase exhibits a gap in the excitation spectrum of dilute atomic gases. Even for long storage times, when the phase
coherence between neighboring lattice sites is completely lost and no interference pattern is visible, the radial motion
of atoms remains confined to zero point oscillations ([21]).

4. CLINICAL MAGNETIC RESONANCE TOMOGRAPHY AND ANGIOGRAPHY

Clinical magnetic resonance tomography has dramatically altered the diagnostic prowess in the assessment of various
disease conditions. It has provided the radiologist with the ability to render rather sophisticated diagnostic opinions.
Understanding the characteristics of the magnetic resonance tomography appearance of the various stages of disease
is essential in this pursuit. In this non–invasive clinical imaging modality, the symplectic structure of planar cross–
sections, called tomographic slices, is used to install the PROPELLER (Periodically Rotated Overlapping ParallEL
Lines with Enhanced Reconstruction) strategy of nonuniformly data sampling to mitigate quantum holographically
the signal instability present in all multiple–shot fast spin–echo pulse trains. And further, analogously to quantum
holographic rotation sensing with a dual atom–interferometer Sagnac gyroscope, the PROPELLER sampling modality
of magnetic resonance tomography provides greater immunity of the linear gradient contrast image formation against
geometric distortion ([14], [18]).
The second–generation imaging variant of the nuclear magnetic resonance technology, magnetic resonance tomog-
raphy and magnetic resonance microscopy, provides a unique window to quantify the diffusional characteristics of a
wide range of biological specimens. Anisotropic diffusion of water molecules in neural fibers such as nerve, white
matter in spinal cord, or white matter in human brain forms the basis for the utilization of diffusion–weighted mag-
netic resonance tensor imaging to track fiber pathways by means of synchronized connectivity assessment according to
the binding problem of neurophysiology. The fact that molecular water diffusion within confining cellular structures is
FIGURE 6. Coordinatization procedure in a magnetic resonance tomography scanner by the basis {X,Y, Z} of the nilpotent
Heisenberg algebra Lie(N), where the vector Z spans the center of Lie(N). The exponential diffeomorphism gives rise to the
coordinatization of the three–dimensional real Heisenberg Lie group N by unipotent matrices. The Fourier equivalent polarization
planes spanned by {X, Z} and {Y, Z} in Lie(N) induce the coadjoint orbit picture in the three–dimensioanl real projective space
P3 (R). Modern high end clinical magnetic resonance tomography scanner for routine radiological examinations implement a
magnetic field density of 3 Tesla.

FIGURE 7. Reconstruction procedure of quantum holography for planar signal detectors: The coaxisymmetric data collection
trajectory for the metaplectic PROPELLER sampling modality. The bold lines indicate the measured area, called a blade, by one
echo train in a fast spin–echo experiment. In subsequent steps, the frequency and phase encode linear gradients are rotated about the
tomographic slice selection coaxis. The central core data are resampled for every blade. The data are then combined to the robust
formation of a high resolution magnetic resonance tomography contrast image.
FIGURE 8. Magnetic resonance tomographic imaging: Transversal slice or axial cross–section of the brain with motion cor-
rection. The metaplectic PROPELLER sampling modality reduces dramatically the sensitivity to movement under high resolution
magnetic resonance tomographic scanning.

FIGURE 9. Pediatric neuropathology: The morphological magnetic resonance tomographic image demonstrates cystic en-
cephalomalacia and volume loss due to right middle cerebral artey embolic occlusion secondary to traumatic internal carotid artery
dissection. The diffusion–weighted magnetic resonance tensor image demonstrates disruption of the major white matter tracts.

sensitive to the underlying tissue microstructure provides a unique technique of measuring the orientation and integrity
of these neural fibers which may be useful for assessing a variety of neurological disorders and monitoring the course
of these diseases.
The clinical utility of diffusion–weighted magnetic resonance tensor imaging is well established ([5], [12], [24]).
Few advances in magnetic resonance tomography have had the impact that diffusion–weighted and tensor imaging
have had in the evaluation of the human brain. A significant benefit of the PROPELLER sampling modality in
high–resolution diffusion–weighted magnetic resonance tensor imaging is its immunity to image warping from eddy
FIGURE 10. Left hand side: Contrast enhanced magnetic resonance angiography of the cranium. The paramagnetic contrast
agent gadolinium chelate was administered via a power injector. Notice how well the origins of the carotid and vertebral vessels
from the Arcus aortæ were visualized. Right hand side: Three–dimensional reconstruction algorithm of a high–resolution computer
tomographic image of the cerebral vasculature. In clinical neuroradiology, magnetic resonance tomography is more sensitive in the
detection of early infarction than computer tomography, and in any case less invasive because it avoids ionizing radiation. Magnetic
resonance tomography better maps lesions due to its higher soft tissue resolution, its tissue contrast capabilities and its multiplanar
capability. However, the most efficient method of tirage for acute trauma remains computer tomography. It is fast and very accurate
at detecting acute hemorrhage, and excellent for assessing facial and skull fractures.

currents. The warping phenomenon is a challenge in echo–planar imaging based protocols, since pixels in different
regions of the head are warped in a manner that depends on the direction of the diffusion gradient, making image fusion
problematic. In the robust PROPELLER sampling modality, tractographic images of fiber pathways corresponding to
different diffusion gradient directions are very well registered.
The modality of magnetic resonance angiography capitalizes on creating contrast differences between flowing tissue
and stationary tissue. By suppressing background stationary tissue and filtering the high–signal flowing blood, the
radiologist can obtain a data set that depicts only vascular structures. Magnetic resonance angiography is of great
diagnostic value in case of ischemic cerebrovascular diseases, because the vast majority of ischemic strokes result
secondary from embolic occlusions ([9], [25]). Even with complete occlusion of the vessel lumen, infarction may not
occur because of the redundancy of collateral circulation.

5. BACTERIAL PROTEIN DYNAMICS OF STRUCTURAL MICROBIOLOGY

Bacteria and their genome sequences are evolutionarily and physiologically interesting microbiological objects ([2]).
Many motile species of bacteria are propelled by spinning flagella, which are rigid helical filaments controlled by
rotary motors in the cell membrane. The bacterial flagellar motor is a remarkable nanobiological machine: built
from approximately 25 different proteins, it drives the rotation of the helical filaments at speeds of up to 2000 Hz,
efficiently propelling bacteria through viscous media. The rotation rates of the flagellar motor had been reported to be,
for instance, 170 Hz for Salmonella typhimurium, 270 Hz for Escherichia coli, and 1700 Hz for Vibrio alginolyticus.
Indeed, the flagella of V. alginolyticus are one of the fastest molecular rotors in biological systems with a pitch of its
flagellar helix of 1.58 μm ([10]).
The structure of the bacterial flagellar motor excites considerable interest because of the ordered expression of
FIGURE 11. Transversal visualization of the flagellin crystalline configuration: Distal view on the end of the protofilament.
Eleven subunits of protofilament and the central core are displayed by the tomographic cryomicroscopic image. The studs are
clearly outlined. The spatial resolution is about 2 Å. The data points correspond to a spinorial version of the Lévy–Hinčin assessment
formula for the expectation operator of synchronized connectivity filter bank in Fourier space.

its genes, its regulated self–assembly, the sophisticated interactions of its proteins, its cooperativity that exhibits
conformational spread, and its startling dynamics. A protein called FliG forms a ring in the spinning rotor of the
flagellar motor that is involved in the generation of torque through an interaction with the anion–channel–forming
stator proteins MotA and MotB. The latter form a ring of studs within and above the inner membrane that couple the
passage of protons across the membrane. A promising application of the sub–Riemannian geometry of the Heisenberg
Lie group N is in the bacterial protein dynamics of molecular systems biology. By winding up the Heisenberg helix
on the circular bicylinder passing through the torque ring, the central torus singularity and the Galois group GalR C
model in binary terms the molecular structure of the spin switching action on the torque ring in the full–length FliG
protein. The Heisenberg helix is a solution of the symplectic Hamilton–Jacobi equations, hence a geodesic trajectory
for the sub–Riemannian metric of N.
The diameter of the spinning rotor is about 30 nm. Its flagellas are embedded in the cell surface and constructed
by means of about 11 protofilaments of a single protein, flagellin. The filament can also be described as a tubular
structure comprising 11 strands of protofilaments, which are longitudinal helical arrays of subunits. The flagellar
motor of peritrichously flagellated bacteria uses the potential energy from an electrochemical gradient of anions
across the cytoplasmic membrane to impress angular momentum onto the FliG torque ring. A rapid spin switch from
anticlockwise to clockwise rotation determines whether a bacterium runs smoothly forward or tumbles to control the
orientation of its trajectory in response to chemotactic signals ([2]). A brief tumble is caused by such a quick reversal of
the flagellar motor to clockwise rotation, which generates spin twisting pulses that transforms the left–handed helical
trajectory of the filament into a right–handed pathway. The spin twist can be modelled in binary terms by random
action of the Galois group GalR C.
Bacterial chemotaxis is one of the most fascinating sensory systems in biology. The relevant proteins in the
underlying biochemical network generate one of the most suitable biological systems. It has two parts, the signaling
pathway and the flagellar motor. The signaling pathway controls the modulation of the tumbling frequency. When
moving up an attracted gradient, the bacteria encounter an attractant concentration that increases with time. In
response, they tumble less frequently and thus continue to move up the gradient. In this way, the analogy to the
gradient control of clinical magnetic resonance tomography becomes obvious. Due to the tumbling of the bacterium
in a random fashion, the modality of diffusion–weighted magnetic resonance tensor imaging suggests to apply the
spinorial version of the Lévy–Hinčin assessment formula for the expectation operator of synchronized connectivity
filter bank in Fourier space to the Poisson random flight of conformational spread ([7]). Its infinitely divisible Γ–
distribution μ on the real line R with parameters p > 0 and λ > 0 which is, for a Borel set B ⊂ R, given by

λp
μ(B) = t (p−1) e−λt dt
Γ(p) B∩R+

describes the stochastic growth and shrinkage of domains of adjacent subunits sharing a specific conformational state
([1]). The Fourier transform admits the form
1  il 
R  l → = exp −p logC (1 − )
(1 − λil ) p λ
where the Riemann surface of the complex logarithm log gives rise to its principal value logC . Its foliation simulates
the helical propeller of the bacterial flagellar filament ([16]).

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This work was financially supported by the European Union under the research programme "Geometric analysis of
Lie groups and applications" (GALA).

REFERENCES
1. F. Bai, R.W. Branch, D.V. Nicolau Jr., T. Pilizota, B.C. Steel, P.K. Maini, R.M. Berry, Science 327, 685–689 (2010).
2. H.C. Berg, D.A. Brown, Nature 239, 500–504 (1972).
3. J. Dalibard, C. Salomon, "Experiments with cold atoms," in Poincaré Seminar 2003, Birkhäuser Verlag, Basel, Boston, Berlin,
2004, pp. 53–83.
4. D. Jaksch, C. Bruder, J.I. Cirac, C.W. Gardiner, P. Zoller, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 3108–3111 (1998).
5. H. Johansen–Berg, T.E.J. Behrens, Editors, Diffusion MRI: From Quantitative Measurement to In vivo Neuroanatomy,
Elsevier, Amsterdam, Boston, Heidelberg, 2009.
6. M.A. Kasevich, Science 298, 1363–1368 (2002).
7. E.A. Korobkova, T. Emonet, H. Park, P. Cluzel, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 058105–1 to 058105–4 (2006).
8. E.N. Leith, "Synthetic Aperture Radar," in Optical Data Processing, edited by D. Casasent, Springer–Verlag, Berlin,
Heidelberg, New York, 1978, pp. 89–117.
9. J. Linn, M. Wiesmann, H. Brückmann, Editors, Atlas Klinische Neuroradiologie, Springer–Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, New
York, 2010.
10. S.A. Lloyd, F.G. Whitby, D.F. Blair, C.P. Hill, Nature 400, 472–476 (1999).
11. A.G. Lyne, F. Graham–Smith, Pulsar Astronomy, Third Edition, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, New York, 2006.
12. T. Moritani, S. Ekholm, P.–L. Westesson, Diffusion–Weighted MR Imaging of the Brain, Second Edition, Springer–Verlag,
Berlin, Heidelberg, New York, 2009.
13. H. Müller, A. Peters, S. Chu, Nature 463, 926–929 (2010).
14. J.G. Pipe, V.G. Farthing, K.P. Forbes, Magn. Reson. Med. 47, 42–52 (2002).
15. M.F. Reiser, W. Semmler, H. Hricak, Editors, Magnetic Resonance Tomography, Springer–Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, New
York, 2008.
16. F.A. Samatey, K. Imada, S. Nagashima, F. Vonderviszt, T. Kumasaka, M. Yamamoto, K. Namba, Nature 410, 331–337 (2001).
17. W.J. Schempp, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 92, 103–110 (1984)
18. W.J. Schempp, Magnetic Resonance Imaging: Mathematical Foundations and Applications, Wiley–Liss, New York,
Chichester, Weinheim, 1998.
19. W.J. Schempp, Math. Meth. Appl. Sci. 22, 867–922 (1999).
20. W.J. Schempp, "The Fourier holographic encoding strategy of symplectic spinor visualization," in New Directions in
Holography and Speckles, edited by H.J. Caulfield, C.S. Vikram, American Scientific Publishers, Stevenson Ranch,
California, 2008, pp. 479–522.
21. W.J. Schempp, Spectral geometry of Bose–Einstein condensates and the de Broglie matter–wave holographic approach to the
gravitational red shift experiment (to appear).
22. U. Sinha, C. Couteau, T. Jennewein, R. Laflamme, G. Weihs, Science 329, 418–421 (2010).
23. G. Warner, Harmonic Analysis on Semi–Simple Lie Groups I, Springer–Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York, 1972.
24. J.D. Schmahmann, D.N. Pandya, Fiber Pathways of the Brain, Oxford University Press, Oxford, New York, 2009.
25. D.M. Yousem, R.I. Grossman, R.D. Zimmerman, Neuroradiology: The Requisites, Third Edition, Mosby, Elsevier,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 2010.
 INERTON FIELDS: VERY NEW IDEAS ON
FUNDAMENTAL PHYSICS
Volodymyr Krasnoholovets

Indra Scientific SA, Square du Solbosch 26, Brussels, B-1050, Belgium

Abstract. Modern theories of everything, or theories of the grand unification of all physical interactions, try to describe the
whole world starting from the first principles of quantum theory. However, the first principles operate with undetermined
notions, such as the wave J-function, particle, lepton and quark, de Broglie and Compton wavelengths, mass, electric charge,
spin, electromagnetic field, photon, gravitation, physical vacuum, space, etc. From a logical point of view this means that such
modern approach to the theory of everything is condemned to failure… Thus, what should we suggest to improve the situation? It
seems quite reasonable to develop initially a theory of something, which will be able to clarify the major fundamental notions
(listed above) that physics operates with every day. What would be a starting point in such approach? Of course a theory of space
as such, because particles and all physical fields emerge just from space. After that, when a particle and fields (and hence the
fields’ carriers) are well defined and introduced in the well defined physical space, different kinds of interactions can be proposed
and investigated. Moreover, we must also allow for a possible interaction of a created particle with the space that generated the
appearance of the particle. The mathematical studies of Michel Bounias and the author have shown what the real physical space
is, how the space is constituted, how it is arranged and what its elements are. Having constructed the real physical space we can
then derive whatever we wish, in particular, such basic notions as mass, particle and charge. How are mechanics of such objects
(a massive particle, a charged massive particle) organised? The appropriate theory of motion has been called a sub microscopic
mechanics of particles, which is developed in the real physical space, not an abstract phase space, as conventional quantum
mechanics does. A series of questions arise: can these two mechanics (submicroscopic and conventional quantum mechanics) be
unified?, what can such unification bring new for us?, can such submicroscopic mechanics be a starting point for the derivation
of the phenomenon of gravity?, can this new theory be a unified physical theory?, does the theory allow experimental
verification? These major points have been clarified in detail. And, perhaps, the most intriguing aspect of the theory is the
derivation of a new physical field associated with the notion of mass (or rather inertia of a particle, which has been called the
inerton field and which represents a real sense of the particle’s wave J -function). This field emerges by analogy with the
electromagnetic field associated with the notion of the electric charge. Yes, the postulated inerton field has being tested in a
series of different experiments! Even more, the inerton field might have a number of practical applications…

INTRODUCTION
Typically the study of the fundamentals and the problems in the area of fundamental physics starts from the
reading of works of classical physicists and mathematicians of the past. As a rule, researchers begin from new ideas
of Einstein of 1905. Indeed, Einstein introduced an interesting abstract approach to physics, which nearer to the
mid-20th century was called the physical mathematics. The majority of physicists pointed out that Einstein showed a
new interpretation of physical laws, which do not require a detailed knowledge about the ether at all. And hence that
mysterious substrate was initially rejected from a physical pattern of the world at all, but later on it was substituted
with a vague physical vacuum that started to play an important role in quantum and particle physics simply as a
level of reference for the appearance of particles.
Modern physicists basing on an abstract formalism wish to develop a theory of everything, or a theory of the grand
unification of all physical interactions. By doing this, they put in the background of the theory a number of very
principal, but at the same time complete undetermined notions, such as the wave J-function, particle, lepton and
quark, de Broglie and Compton wavelengths, mass, electric charge, spin, electromagnetic field, photon, gravitation,
physical vacuum, space, etc.
Can we improve the situation and suggest something that will be able to shed light on the listed fundamental
notions? It seems quite reasonable to develop initially a theory of something, which will be able to clarify the major
fundamental notions that physics operates with every day. But what would be a starting point in such approach?
I was trained as a condensed matter physicist and defended a Ph.D. thesis just in this area. That is why my first
views on the fundamentals in many aspects were very different from those of colleagues who were trained from the
beginning as specialists in quantum theory and /or general relativity. In solid-state physics when one studies the
motion of particles, it is important to take into account a possible influence on this motion on the side of the crystal
lattice. The crystal lattice introduces a perturbation to the motion of the particle, which takes place first of all via the
phonon subsystem (for example, polarons, polaritons, the Cooper electron pairs in superconductors, etc.). Thus I
started to search for a background substrate, which could play the same role in quantum physics, as the crystal
lattice plays in solid-state physics. Such searches stimulated me to scrutinize works of high-level physicists
preceded Einstein.
So, what was before 1905? Lorentz and Poincaré believed that fundamental physics should be deterministic;
moreover, an important element of the theoretical physics was a detailed description of a physical process, not only
the prediction of a phenomenon. In contrast, in modern theoretical physics a detailed description becomes
practically impossible due to a probabilistic concept used by physicists, which is based on uncertain rules for
physical laws, and the complete indeterminism. It seems the difference in two kinds of the approaches is hidden in
the perception of a primary physical matter (an ether) in which all events were developing by previous physicists,
and the imperception of such a primary substrate by modern physicists.
Many scientists have read the fundamental work of Poincaré [1], but rather nobody paid attention to a pattern of
the moving electron, as it was understood by leading physicists at the border of 19th and 20th centuries. In the
meantime, the electron was treated as a singularity in the ether, which was moving surrounded by the ether
excitations. The next interesting remark of Poincaré, which also so far did not notice attention of physicists, dealt
with the nature of gravitation. He noted that the expression for the attraction should include two components: one
should be parallel to the vector that joins positions of both interacting objects and the second one be parallel to the
velocity of the attracted object; in other words: the velocity of an object must influence the value of its gravitational
potential.
In 1919th the verified predictions of Einstein’s general relativity stopped further development of ideas mentioned
in the paper of Poincaré [1] and physics became to advance in the framework of formal abstract approaches. In 1924
de Broglie [2] studying analytical mechanics of a material point compared the principles of least actions of
Maupertuis for a particle and the Fermat’s for a phase wave, which gave him a possibility to conclude that a point
particle is guided by a real phase wave. De Broglie suggested two major relationships for a particle that is
accompanied with such wave:

E 6 hK , p/h 6 3 . (1)

In 1952 David Bohm [3] further developed the initial ideas of de Broglie with the concept of a pilot wave, though
his wave still remained abstract. Bohm’s works [3] tuned de Broglie back to his previous ideas, which he formulated
as the search for a double solution theory [4]; he rejected the notion of wave-particle, but treated a solution for a
particle moving together with a real wave excited in a sub quantum medium, which guided the particle. Further
studies of de Broglie ideas by his followers J.-P. Vigier, J. Andrade e Silva and G. Lochak were directed to an
understanding of properties of this wave and the sub quantum medium in which the wave and the particle should
travel.
Although de Broglie’s thesis [2] was imbued with ideas of relativity, his attempt to unify a point particle with a
wave that accompanies it, as well as searching for a double solution theory allow us to conclude that his views
reflected a major concept of Poincaré: a moving particle is surrounded by excitations whose source is the ether.
Thus, we may assume that de Broglie’s theory of the real wave, which accompanies a moving particle, simply put in
order the ether excitations that surround a moving particle, as was prescribed by Poincaré.
My studies on the fundamentals started in the end of 1980s and the main challenge was to connect de Broglie’s
real wave, which accompanies a moving particle, with Poincaré’s excitations of the ether (or a sub quantum
medium), which surround a travelling particle. It was interested to put in order those excitations around a material
particle in such a way that they could form a de Broglie’s wave. Such connection would provide an opportunity to
investigate both the structure and properties of this sub quantum medium and the principles of motion of objects in
it. After that having known a detailed structure of a primary physical substratum, we could try to develop some other
fundamental notions, such as the spin, electric charge, gravitation and so on.
 THE STRUCTURE OF PHYSICAL SPACE

In physics space is defined via measurement and the standard space interval, called a standard meter or simply
meter, is defined as the distance traveled by light in a vacuum per a specific period of time and in this determination
the velocity of light c is treated as constant. In classical physics, space is a three-dimensional Euclidean space where
any position can be described using three coordinates. In relativistic physics researchers operate with the notion of
space-time in which matter is able to influence space. In microscopic physics, or quantum physics, the notion of
space is associated with an “arena of actions” in which all physical processes and phenomena occur. And this arena
of actions we feel subjectively as a “receptacle for subjects”.
However, let us critically look at the determination of physical space as an “arena of actions”. In such a
determination there exists, first, subjectivity and, second, objects themselves that play in processes that can not be
examined at all (for instance, size, shape and the inner dynamics of the electron; what is a photon?; what are the
particle’s de Broglie wavelength 3 and Compton wavelength 3 Com ?; how to understand the notion/phenomenon
“wave-particle”?; what is spin?; what is the mechanism that forms Newton’s gravitational potential 5 G m / r around
an object with mass m?; what does the notion ‘mass’ mean exactly?, etc.. Especially interesting are some examples
of the motion “on the arena of action, as a reservoir for objects”. For instance, when a vehicle suddenly jams on the
brakes, an experienced physicist sitting in the vehicle will feel that something pushes him forward. This example
clearly gives evidence of the existence of otherworldly forces at the scene of action among normal subjects.
However, this “arena of actions” can be completely formalized, such that those mystical forces (veiled under the
force of inertia and the centrifugal force) will unravel explicitly, because fundamental physical notions and
interactions are to be derived from pure mathematical constructions.
So far in mathematics, a space has been treated as a set with some particular properties and usually some
additional structure. It is not a formally defined concept as such but a generic name for a number of similar
concepts, most of which generalize some abstract properties of the physical concept of space. Distance measurement
is abstracted as the concept of metric space and volume measurement leads to the concept of measured space.
Generalization of the concept of space can be done [5-8] through set theory, topology and fractal geometry, which
will allow us to look at the problem of the constitution of physical space from the most fundamental standpoint. The
fundamental metrics of our ordinary space-time is a convolution product in which the embedded part looks as
follows:
S & & &P
U 4 6 M Q M 8dx T dy T dz 4N L d ( w) (2)
R dS O

where dS is the element of space-time, dU(x) is the function that accounts for the expansion of 3-D coordinates to
4-th dimension through the convolution with the volume of space. Set theory, topology and fractal geometry allow
us to consider the problem of structure of space as follows. According to set theory only an empty set V can
represent nothing. Following von Neumann, Bounias and the author considered an ordered set,

WWV, WVXXX, WWV, WV, WVXXXX, WWV, WV, W V, WVXXXXX,WWV, WV, WV, WV, WVXXXXXX and so on.
By examining the set, one can count its members: W VX 6 0, WV, WVXX 6 1, WV, W V, W VXXX 6 2, … This is the empty
set as long as it consists of empty members and parts. On the other hand, it has the same number of members as the
set of natural integers, N 6 0, 1, 2, 3, ..., n . Although it is proper that reality is not reduced to enumeration, empty
sets give rise to mathematical space, which in turn brings about physical space. So, something can emerge from
emptiness. The empty set is contained in itself, hence it is a non-well-founded set, or hyperset, or empty hyperset.
Any parts of the empty hyperset are identical, either a large part (V) or the singleton WVX ; the union of empty sets
is also the same: V Y (V) Y {V, {V}} Y {V, {V, {V}}} Y ... 6 V . This is the major characteristic of a fractal
structure, which means the self-similarity at all scales (from the elementary subatomic level to cosmic sizes).
One empty set V can be subdivided into two others; two empty sets generate something (V) Y (V) that is larger
than the initial element. Consequently, the coefficient of similarity is \ Z [1 / 2, 1] . In other words, \ realises
fragmentation when it falls within the interval ] 1 / 2, 1[ and the union of \ with interval ]0, 1 / 2] gives ] 0, 1 [ .
The coefficient of similarity \ allows us to estimate the fractal dimension of the empty hyperset; since this
dimension contains the interval ]0, 1[ as one of its components, it turns out that it is a “fuzzy” dimension. 4D
mathematical spaces have parts in common with 3D spaces, which yields 3D closed structures. There are then parts
in common with 2D, 1D and zero dimension (points). General topology indicates the origin of time, which should
be treated as an assembly of sections of open sets (Poincaré sections).
Primary topology is a topology of open sets (in particular, the empty set V is an open set, but its topological ball
is not open). That is why primary topology cannot be a physically measured space. However, the availability of
closed intersections (timeless Poincaré sections) of abstract mathematical spaces creates properties typical for a
physical space.
n
Any space can be subdivided in two major classes: objects and distances. In spaces of the type ^ , tessellation by
balls is involved, which again requires a distance to be available for measurement of diameters of intervals. Intervals
can be replaced by topological balls, and therefore evaluation of their diameter still needs an appropriate general
definition of a distance.
Providing the empty set (V) with mathematical operations Z and _ , as combination rules, and also the ability of
complementary (C) we obtain a magma (i.e. fusion) of empty sets: Magma is a union of elements (V) , which act
as the initiator polygon, and complementary (C) , which acts as the rule of construction; i.e., the magma is the
generator of the final structure. This allowed Bounias [5,6] to formulate the following theorem:
The magma VV 6 {V, C} constructed with the empty hyperset and the axiom of availability is a fractal lattice.

Writing (VV ) denotes the magma, and reflects the set of all self mappings of V. The space, constructed with the
empty set cells of the magma VV , is a Boolean lattice, and this lattice S (V) is provided with a topology of discrete
space. A lattice of tessellation balls has been called a tessel-lattice [6], and hence the magma of empty hyperset
becomes a fractal tessel-lattice.
Our space-time then becomes one of the mathematically optimal morphisms and time is an emergent parameter
indexed on non-linear topological structures guaranteed by discrete sets. This means that the foundation of the
concept of time is the existence of orderly relations in the sets of functions available in intersect sections. Time is
thus not a primary parameter and the physical universe has no beginning: time is just related to ordered existence,
not to existence itself. The topological space does not require any fundamental difference between reversible and
steady-state phenomena, nor between reversible and irreversible process. Rather relations simply apply to non-
linearly distributed topologies and from rough to finest topologies.
So real physical space can be presented in the form of a mathematical lattice: the tessel-lattice is regularly ordered
such that the packing has no gaps between two or more empty topological balls. Such tessel-lattice accounts for the
existence of relativistic space and the quantum void (vacuum), as: 1) the conception of distance and the conception
of time are defined and 2) such space includes a quantum void, because the mosaic space introduces a discrete
topology with quantum scales and, moreover, it does not have “solid objects” that would appear as real matter. The
tessel-lattice with these characters has properties of a degenerate physical space. The sequence of mappings from
one structural state to the other of an elementary cell of the tessel-lattice generates an oscillation of the cell’s volume
along the arrow of physical time. However, there is also an option of transformation of a cell under the influence of
some iteration similarity that overcomes conservation of homeomorphism (Figures 1 and 2).

FIGURE 1. The continuity of homeomorphic mappings of structures is broken once a deformation involves an iterated
transformation with internal self-similarity, which involves a change in the dimension of the mapped structure. Here the first 2 or
3 steps of the iteration are sketched, with basically the new figure jumping from (D) to approximately (D + 1.45). The mediator
of transformations is provided in all cases by empty set units.
FIGURE 2. A topological ball is represented as a triangle, figuring 3 dimensions in a metaphorical form. A degenerate ball
keeps the same dimension in contrast with a particled ball endowed with a fractal substructure. A complete decomposition into
one single ball (k = 1) conserves the volume without keeping the fractal dimension. The von Koch-like fractal has been
simplified to 3 iterations for clarity.

The universe can be treated as a tessel-lattice composed of a huge number of cells, or topological balls. The measure
includes such notions as length, surface and volume. Because of that a loop distance " of the universe (i.e. the
perimeter that would be measured by means of a ruler in principle) can be related to parameters of N balls.
Indeed, let @ be a measure of balls (their length, surface or volume with the corresponding dimensions ` 6 1-D,

2-D or 3-D). In the middle part of the universe with the dimension D we have N times @ ` , which equals
approximately " D , so that we estimate the dimention of this part of the universe:

D ~ (` T log @ : log N ) / log " (3)

Thus, from expression (3) we can see that at least a part of the universe having different dimension D can be
distinguished from the other universe, which can be perceived as the presence of dark matter there.
If we know the universe’s components, i.e. if we can describe sizes and shapes of topological balls (from the
Planck size), we will be able to re-establish an invisible structure of a large size (up to a cosmic size).
The organisation of matter at the microscopic (atomic) level has to recreate a sub microscopic spatial ordering.
Hence the crystal lattice is also a reflection of the sub microscopic ordering of real physical space that can be
associated with the tessel-lattice of tightly packed balls – elementary bricks of the primary substrate of the universe.
535
The size of a cell in the tessel-lattice can be equal to the Planck’s length lPlanck 6 !G / c 3 a 1.6 ? 10 m.

SUBMICROSCOPIC MECHANICS

In mechanics the behavior of a particle can be described on the basis of an appropriate Lagrangian. In the simplest
case when a potential energy is absent, a particle is characterized by its kinetic energy mb 2 / 2 .
Now let us consider mechanics of a local deformation (Figure 1, right) in the tessel-lattice, i.e. in the case of tight
contact of the deformation with surrounding cells. In the tessel-lattice balls are found in a degenerate state and their
characteristics are such mathematical parameters as length, surface, volume and fractality. Evidently, the removal of
degeneracy must result in local phase transitions in the tessel-lattice, which creates “solid” physical matter (Figure
1, right; Figure 2). A local fractal volumetric deformation of a ball in the tessel-lattice can be associated with the
physical notion of mass. The theorem of something occupies the first place, i.e. a peculiar object becomes primary,
which is typical for set theory. Then, having a definition of the primary ‘something’, we can study its behavior in the
tessel-lattice, i.e. space mosaically composed of primary bricks, or topological balls. Thus a mass of a particle has to
be considered as a ratio of the initial volume V0 of the degenerate ball in the tessel-lattice to a volume Vdef of a ball
that has undergone a fractal volumetric deformation, i.e.

m 6 const V0 / Vdef . (4)

The behavior of a particle has to obey a special kind of a mechanics, which includes the interaction of the moving
particle with the surrounding tessel-lattice. It is quite obvious that a moving particle excites the tessel-lattice, which
brings about the appearance of excitations. These excitations should go out of the particle and then come back to it.
Note these excitations must return to the particle, because in the other case the friction of the particle against the
tessel-lattice’s cells will stop the particle forever.
The Lagrangian that is able to satisfy the described motion of a particle and the ensemble of excitations can be
written as in (see more accurate presentation in Refs. [10-12])

dX i dX j dx (1 )i dx (1 ) j j h dx (1 ) j e
L6 1
2 g ij
dt dt
: 1
2 i
i , j ;1
g~ij(1 ) ~ ~
d t(1 ) d t(1 )
5 i f X i g g~ (1 ) ~
T(1 ) f is si d t(1 )
: b i
0 g ~ (1 ) x (1 ) j c
g
is sj
c
(5)
i, j
g d

where the first term characterizes the kinetics energy of the particle, the second term characterizes the kinetics
energy of the ensemble of N excitations emitted from the particle and the third term specifies the contact interaction
between the particle and the excitations: some excitations are emitted and the other are absorbed. X i is the ith
component of the position of the particle; g ij is metric tensor components generated by the particle; b0i is the ith
component of the initial particle’s velocity vector v0. Index 1 corresponds to the number of respective excitations;
(1 ) i
x is the ith component of the position of the 1th excitation; g~ij(1 ) is the metric tensor components of the position
of the 1th inerton. 1 / T(1 ) is the frequency of collisions of the particle with the 1th excitation. Proper times of the
~
particle and the 1th ecitation are t and t(1 ) , respectively.
In the so-called relativistic case when the initial velocity b 0 of the particle is close to the speed of light c, the
relativistic mechanics prescribes the Lagrangian

L rel 6 5m0 c 2 1 5 b 02 / c 2 . (6)

On examination of the relativistic particle, we shall introduce into the Lagrangian (6) terms, which describe the
moving particle and an ensemble of excitations that accompany it (see more accurate presentation in Refs. [11,12]):
1
q en 2
k 1 h dX i dX j d x (1 )i d x (1 ) j 2j SQ i ~ dx
(1 ) j
~ x (1 ) j PNc k (7)
Lrel. 6 5 gc 2 p1 5 2 f g i j : i
g~ij(1 ) ~ ~ 5
Q
Xig g
is sj ~ : b i
0 g g
is sj Nc m
ko gc fg d t d t i , j ;1 d t(1 ) d t(1 ) i , j ;1 T(1 ) R d t(1 ) Od kl

where g 6 g i j ` i j .

The Euler-Lagrange equations

d [r L / r (d Qn / dt n )] / d t n 5 r L / r Qn 6 0 (8)
written for the particle ( Qn s X i ) and the 1 th excitation ( Qn s x (1 )i ), where respectively t n s t and t n s t˜(1 ) ,
coincide for the Lagrangians (5) and (7). This is true only [11,12] in the case when the time t entered into the
Lagrangians (5) and (7) is considered as the natural parameter, i.e. t 6 " / b 0 where " is the length of the particle
~ ~
path (and the same for excitations, t s t(1 ) 6 " (1 ) / c ).
Omitting the index 1 at the corresponding excitation, we may present equation of extremals as follows
d2X k i
k dX dX
j
j ki j
~ dx 6 0 ,
: tij : g g g
iq q j (9)
dt 2 dt dt T dt
d 2 x k ~ k dx i dx j j ~ ki S dX j P
2
: ti j 5 g g i q g~q j QQ ~ 5 b 0j NN 6 0 ; (10)
dt dt dt T R dt O
~
here, tikj and tikj are symmetrical connections (see, e.g. Ref. [12]) for the particle and for the 1th excitation,
respectively; indices i, j, k and q take values 1, 2, 3. When the particle and the 1th excitation adhere, the termwise
difference between eqs. (9) and (10) becomes [10-12]

S d 2 X k d 2 x k P S k dX i dX j ~ k dx i dx j P
QQ 2
5 ~ 2 NN : QQ ti j 5 ti j ~ ~ NN 6 0 . (11)
R dt dt O R dt dt dt dt O

Eq. (11) specifies the merging the particle and the 1th excitation into a common system. This means the
accelerations, which the particle and the 1th ecitation experience, coincide. Then the difference in the first set of
parentheses in eq. (11) is equal to zero and we get
~ ~ ~
tikj (dX i / dt ) (dX j / dt ) 6 tikj (dx i / d t ) (dx j / d t ) (12)

~
Coefficients tik j and tikj are generated by the particle mass m and the 1th excitation mass m(1 ) , respectively, and
~
that is why tikj / tikj 6 m / m(1 ) . This signifies that relationship (12) can be rewritten explicitly

mb 02(1 ) 6 m(1 ) c 2 . (13)

for diagonal metric components of the particle and the excitation velocities, ( b 0(1 ) is the velocity of the particle after
its scattering by the 1th excitation with the initial velocity c). The relationship (13) allows us to solve the equations
of extremals (9) and (10).
We can see that these excitations appear as the inertia of the particle. That is why we [10] called them inertons.
If we consider the ensemble of inertons as the whole object, as an inerton cloud with the rest mass @ , which
surrounds a moving particle with the rest mass m 0 , then the Lagrangian may be presented as
1
qk 1 h S dX P
2
S dx P
2
2j S dx Pe nk
2
L rel 6 5 m0 c 2 p1 5 2 f m 0 Q N : @ Q N 5 m0 @ Q X : b 0 x Nc m (14)
ko m 0 c gf R dt O R dt O T R dt Odc kl

Thus the particle moves along the X-axis with the velocity dX / dt ( b 0 is the initial velocity); x is the distance
between the particle and the centre-mass of the inerton cloud, dx / dt is the velocity of the cloud, 1 / T is the
frequency of collisions between the particle and its inerton cloud, and t is the proper time of the particle. The
equations of motion become
d 2 X jb0 dx
: 6 0, (15)
dt2 cT d t

d 2 x j c S dX P
5 Q 5 b0 N 6 0 . (16)
d t 2 Tb 0 R dt O
The corresponding solutions to eqs. (15) and (16) for the particle and the inerton cloud are
 6 b 0 T 81 5 sin(j t / T ) 4 ,
dX
(17)
dt
3
X (t ) 6 b0 t :
j
W(51)[t / T ] cos(j t / T ) 5 (1 : 2 [t / T ])X, (18)

3 6 b 0T ; (19)

dx
6 c (51)[ t / T ] cos(j t / T ) , (20)
dt
u
x(t ) 6 sin (j t / T ) , (21)
j
u 6 cT . (22)
Expressions (17)-(22) show that the velocity of the particle periodically oscillates and 3 is the amplitude of
particle’s oscillations along its path. In particular, 3 is the period of oscillation of the particle velocity that
periodically changes between b 0 and zero. The inerton cloud periodically leaves the particle and then comes back;
É is the amplitude of oscillations of the cloud. Figures 3 show the solutions (17) and (18).

FIGURE 3. Behavior of the moving particle and its inerton cloud in space. In the section 3 of the particle’s pass the value of the
particle’s velocity oscillates between the initial magnitude b 0 and zero. T is the time period of these oscillations. Periodically
inertons fly away to the distance u from the particle and come back to it.

The frequency of collisions of the particle with the inerton cloud allows the presentation in two ways: via the
collision of the particle with the cloud, i.e., 1 / T 6 b 0 / 3 and via the collision of the inerton cloud with the particle,
i.e., 1 / T 6 c / u . These two expressions result into relationship
b0 / 3 6 c / u , (23)

which connects the spatial period 3 of oscillations of the particle with the amplitude É of the inerton cloud, i.e.,
maximal distance to which inertons are travelling from the particle.
If we introduce a new variable

dv / dt 6 dx / dt 5 (j / T ) m0 / @ X (24)

in the Lagrangian (14), we [11] can obtain an effective Hamiltonian of the particle that describes its behavior
relative to the center of inertia of the particle-inerton cloud system
2
p2 S 2j P X
2
H eff 6 :mQ N (25)
2m R 2T O 2
where m 6 m0 / 1 5 b 02 / c 2 . The harmonic oscillator Hamiltonian (25) allows one to write the Hamilton-Jacobi
equation for a shortened action S1 of the particle
1
2 8r S 1 /r X 4 2
/ m : 12 m 82j / 2T 4 X 2 6 E .
2
(26)

Here E is the energy of the moving particle. Introduction of the action-angle variables leads to the following
increment of the particle action within the cyclic period 2T,

w S1 6 M p dX 6 E T 2T . (27)

One can write eq. (27) via the frequency K 6 1/ 2T as well. At the same time 1/T is the frequency of collisions of
the particle with its inerton cloud. Owing to the relation E 6 mb 02 / 2 we also get

w S 1 6 m b 0 T b 0 T 6 p3 (28)

where p 6 mb 0 is the particle initial momentum. Now if we equate the value wS1 and Planck’s constant h, we
obtain instead of expressions (27) and (28) de Broglie’s relationships (1), which form the basis of conventional
quantum mechanics, as they allow us to obtain the Schrödinger eave equation for a particle (see, e.g. de Broglie
[13]).
In the submicroscopic mechanics presented, the oscillatory motion of the particle is characterized by the relation
3 6 b 0T , which connects the initial velocity b 0 of the particle with the spatial period 3 of the particle oscillations
(or the free path length of the particle), and the time interval T during which the particle remains free, i.e. does not
collide with its inerton cloud. On the other hand, this relation holds for a monochromatic plane wave that spreads in
the real physical space: 3 is the wavelength, T is the period and b 0 is the phase velocity of the wave. Thus with the
availability of the harmonic potential, the behavior of the particle follows the behavior of a wave and, therefore,
such a motion should be marked by a very specific value of the adiabatic invariant, or increment of the particle
action wS1 within the cyclic period. It is quite reasonable to assume that in this case the value of w S1 is minimal,
which is equal to Planck’s constant h. Such minimal action means that the motion obeys the tessel-lattice’s laws, i.e.
undisturbed space guides the particle.
It is known from solid-state physics that a foreign particle deforms the crystal lattice of the substance studied (for
instance, an electron or proton polaron in a polar medium). We have to anticipate that the same occurs in the tessel-
lattice at the creation of a particle in it. That is, the created particle forms a deformation coat around the particle in
the undisturbed tessel-lattice (Figure 4).

FIGURE 4. Particle forms the deformation coat in the tessel-lattice. The coat’s state migrates by a hopping mechanism together
with the moving particle. Cells from the deformation coat do not travel, but their tension state is transferred from cell to cell. The
moving particle emits a cloud of inertons. The diameter of the deformation coat can be associated with the Compton wavelength
3 Com of the particle. The deformation coat plays a role of a screen that shields the particle from the degenerated space, i.e.
undisturbed tessel-lattice.
 The relationship (13) shows that the motion of a particle results in a decay of its mass, i.e. the particle’s mass
decomposes to the mass of emitted inertons. It is interesting to note that de Broglie [14], by using the variation
principle applied for a relativistic particle, also showed that the motion should take place with a decay of the
particle’s mass. To understand this phenomenon, we have to look at the structure of the deformation coat that
surrounds the particle. Figure 5 displays two different types of possible local volumetric deformations of the tessel-
lattice.

FIGURE 5. Two types of volumetric deformations of the tessel-lattice. The left one (the local deformation) corresponds to the
physical notion of mass. The right one represents a new kind of physical property, a rugosity of the tessel-lattice (a kind of a
tension of space).

The introduction of the deformation coat allows us to decide a few serious problems, which so far have been
unsolved in quantum physics. First of them is the unification of the Schrödinger and Dirac formalisms. Let us
consider three relationships for a particle: respectively the de Broglie and Compton wavelengths
3 6 h /(mb ) , (29)

3 Com 6 h /( mc ) (30)

and our expression (23), u 6 3 c / b 0 , which characterizes the amplitude of inerton cloud. By combing these
relationships we derive

u 6 3 Com c 2 / b 02 . (31)

Correlation (31) shows that when the velocity of the particle b 0 satisfies the inequality b 0 xx c , the energy of
inerton cloud is equal to the kinetic energy of the particle E 6 12 mb 02 and the measuring device just fixes this energy
by catching the cloud of inertons. In the case when b 0 y c , the inerton cloud becomes practically closed in the
range of the deformation coat (Figure 4). Hence in this case the measuring device will measure not only the kinetic
energy of the particle, but its whole energy E 6 m0 c 2 / 1 5 b02 / c 2 , which is concetrated in the deformation coat
[16]. Thus two apparoaches to the description of a quantum system become complete clear: the Schrödinger
formalism describes a particle whose inerton cloud spread far beyond the deformation coat and the Dirac formalism
depicts a particle whose inerton cloud is practically closed in the framework of the deformation coat.
In submicroscopic mechanics the Dirac equation is derived [16] from the Hamiltonian that includes an intrinsic
&
motion of the particle under consideration, i.e., a new term c 2j |2(z ) that has not been taken into account so far and
which characterizes proper pulsations of the particle between a bean-like and spherical shapes in the section of 3
(the particle’s amplitude, or de Broglie wavelength)

& &
H |particle
(z)
total
6 c 2 p 2 : c 2j |2( z ) : m02 c 4 . (32)

The Hamiltonian (32) includes additional terms associated with two possible projections of intrinsic pulsations of
the particle: ahead and back. Therefore, if we decompose the square root in expression (32), which has a matrix
form, we must obtain the equation in a matrix form too. This is the inner reason why the Dirac equation should
possess matrix components associated with the particle spin. These inner pulsations make it possible to obtain the
eigenvalues of the spin operator in the form of S |z( z ) 6 ~ ! / 2 , which in the presents of a magnetic field B
renormalizes the eigenvalue E of the particle to the quantity E : eBS |z(z ) / m .
Particles that have an integral spin are particles combined of simple particles with half-integer spin.
The second problem, which resolved the sub microscopic concept, is associated with the nuclear forces. An
approach resting on deriving of the nuclear forces from the quark-quark interaction still prevails in nuclear physics.
Nevertheless, such an approach is open to question, especially owing to the confinement problem, which is the most
difficult one for quantum chromodynamics (QCD). It is a matter of fact that the understanding how QCD works
remains one of the great puzzles of many-body physics. Indeed, the degrees of freedom observed in low energy
phenomenology are totally different from those appearing in the QCD Lagrangian. In the case of many-nucleon
systems, the question of the origin of the nuclear energy scale is immediately arouse: the typical energy scale of
QCD is on the order of 1 GeV, though the nuclear binding energy per particle is very small, on the order of 10 MeV.
Is there some deeper insight from which this scale naturally arises? Or the reason should one searches in
complicated details of near cancellations of strongly attractive and repulsive terms in the in the nuclear interaction?
These issues were studied in paper [17].
In paper [17] the concept of the tessellated space and the sub microscopic mechanics were applied for in-depth
study of the nucleon-nucleon interaction. It is argued that a deformation coat must be available around a nucleon (as
is the case with any other canonical particle such as electron, muon, etc.) and that it is the deformation coat that is
responsible for the appearance of nuclear forces (Figure 6). The radius of nuclear forces is associated with the radius
of deformation coat of a nucleon, which in turn coincides with the nucleon’s Compton wavelength
3 Com
(nucleon)
6 h /( mproton c) a h /( mneutron c)  1.32 ? 10 515 m.

FIGURE 6. Two nucleons touch each other through their deformation coats. The radius of the deformation coat of each nucleon
exactly corresponds to the nucleon’s Compton wavelength

Thus the consideration [17] shows that the coupling of nucleons through their deformation coats is a beneficial
process. One more source of nuclear forces is associated with the overlapping of inerton clouds of moving nucleons,
because basically excitations of the deformation coat have the same origin, as inertons of the nucleon’s inerton
cloud.
The third problem, which resolved the sub microscopic concept, is associated with the origin of gravitation and the
quantum gravity.

GRAVITATION
Submicroscopic mechanics considered above looks like a kinetic theory of a particle that collides with its inerton
cloud. However, a question arises: Why do inertons emitted by the moving particle come back to it?
The answer is hidden in the inner properties of the tessel-lattice. Namely, we must assume that the tessel-lattice
posseses elastic properties and it is able to shrink due to a mechanical effect, but after that the tessel-lattice
immediately restores its original state. So inertons irradiated by the particle experiences an elastic resistance to their
migration on the side of the tessel-lattice: they gradually change their state, a local deformation @ disappears but a
local tension € appears (Figure 5). At the maximum distance u from the particle the inertons’ parameters are as
follows: @ y 0 , € y € max and the velocity cinerton y 0 . Then the locally shrank tessel-lattice restores its original
state, namely, it returns inertons backward to the particle: in the course of the backward migration inertons loose €
and gain @ . And this process represents the phenomenon of attraction, i.e. gravitation.
The cloud of inertons surrounding the particle spreads out to a range u 6 3 c / b 0 from the particle center where
3 is the particle’s de Broglie wavelength and b 0 and c are velocities of the particle and light, respectively. Since
inertons transfer fragments of the particle’s mass, they also play the role of carriers of gravitational properties of the
particle. First of all we should describe how inertons irradiated by the particle come back to it, returning fragments
of its mass as well as the velocity. The behavior of the particle’s inertons can be studied in the framework of the
Lagrangian [18,19]
1
q T2 T 2 & T &n 2
L 6 5m0 c p 2 m 2 : 2 € 2 5
2
m ‚€ m . (33)
o 2m0 2u m0 l

& & &

Here, m(r , t ) is the current mass of the {particle-inerton cloud} system; € (r , t ) is the variable that describes a local
distortion of the tessellattice, which can be called tor tension (or rugosity); T is the time period of collisions of the
&
particle and its inerton cloud. The Euler-Lagrange equations for variables m and € are

r 2 m m0 &
5 ‚€ 6 0 , (34)
r t2 T
&
r 2€ u2
5 ‚m 6 0 (35)
rt 2
m0 T

Taking the initial and boundary conditions as well as the radial symmetry into account, we can obtain the following
solutions to equations (34) and (35)

m0 jr jt
m(r , t ) 6 C1 cos cos , (36)
r 2u 2T
€ jr jt
€ (r , t ) 6 C2 max sin (51)[t / T ] sin . (37)
r 2u 2T

These solutions exhibit the dependence 1/ r , which is typical for standing spherical waves.
The solution for mass (36) shows that at a distance r xx u the time averaged distribution of mass of inertons
along the radial ray which originates from the particle, becomes

m0
m a lPlanck (38)
r

In this region the tension (or rugosity) of space, as followed from expression (37), is: € a 0 .
When the local deformation is distributed in space around the particle, it forms a deformation potential ƒ1/ r that
spreads up to the distance r 6 u from the particle’s kernel-cell. In the range covered by the deformation potential,
cells of the tessel-lattice are found in the contraction state and it is this state of space which is responsible for the
phenomenon of the gravitational attraction. In terms of physics, the distribution (38) is replaced with the Newton’s
gravitational potential
m
U 6 5G 0 (39)
r
where the gravitational constant plays the role of a dimensional constant.
An object, which consists of many particles (a solid, a planet, or a star), experiences vibrations of its entities
(atoms, ions, particles). Entities vibrate in the neighborhood of their equilibrium positions and/or move to new
positions. These amplitudes are de Broglie wavelength of entities. Hence the moving entities produce inerton
clouds, which of course overlap. Due to the overlapping a total inerton cloud of the object [20] is formed. The
spectrum of inertons is similar to the spectrum of phonons, as inertons immediately appear when entities move from
their initial position, which is discussed in submicroscopic mechanics (we may say that a body of phonons is filled
with inerton carriers). For instance, if we have a solid sphere with a radius Rsph , which consists of N sph atoms, the
spectrum of acoustic waves consists of N sph / 2 waves with the wavelengths 3n 6 2 a n where a is the lattice
constant (i.e. mid-distance between nearest atoms) and n 6 1, 2, 3, ..., N sph / 2 .
At the same time, inertons that accompany acoustically vibrating atoms produce also their own spectrum and the
wavelengths of these collective inertonic vibrations can be estimated by expression

u n 6 2 a n c / bsound . (40)

Also note that the behavior of these collective inerton oscillations obeys the law of standing spherical waves, i.e. the
dependence of the front of the inerton wave must be proportional to the inverse distance from the source irradiating
the wave, 1/ r . For instance, a solid sphere with volume 1 cm3 includes around 1022 atoms; estimating the velocity
of sound b sound a 103 m/s and the distance between atoms 0.5 nm, we obtain for the amplitude of the longest inerton
wave: u N / 2 ~ 1018 m. Thus, up to this distance the inerton field of the solid sphere is able to propagate in the form
of the standing spherical inerton wave. To the solid sphere studied we may now apply the same consideration, which
has been done above for the gravity of a particle. In particular, expression (39) is also applicable for the case of a
massive object; at distance r xx u N / 2 , which for the solid sphere of volume 1 cm3 is still a cosmic distance..
So, we are able to derive Newton’s potential (39) also for a macroscopic object in terms of short-range action
provided by inertons, carriers of mass properties of objects. Being averaged in time, a mass field around the object
studied can be considered as a stationary gravitational potential. The availability of the tension/ruggosity around a
massive object may be able to shed light on the problem of so-called ‘dark matter’, because places with a more or
less significant value of the distortion of the tessel-lattice is quite possible. Hence a kind of a repulsion force, which
is caused by a prolonged tension of space, can appear at the interaction of masses located in such places.
The theory presented sheds light on the principle of equivalence, which proclaims the equivalence of gravitational
and inertial masses: minertial 6 mgravitational . Namely, this equality, which is held in a rest-frame of the particle in
question, becomes invalid in a moving reference frame. In the quantum context, this equality should be transformed
to the principle of equivalence of the phases of gravitational and inertial waves. Because an averaged inerton filed of
the object studied manifests itself as the object’s stationary gravitational field. This correlation ties up the
gravitational and inertial energies of the particle and also shows that the gravitational mass is completely
allocated in the inertial wave that guides the particle, or macroscopic object. De Haas [21] was the first who
came to this conclusion when comparing Mie’s variational principle and de Broglie’s harmony of phases of a
moving particle. The exchange of mass and energy between a moving object and the tessel-lattice causes the
induction of the gravitational potential in the range of spreading of the particle’s/object’s inertons.
Now let us consider the gravitational interaction between two objects taking into account the note of Poincaré [1]
that an expression for the gravitation should include the velocity of the attractive object.
The sub-microscopic approach [22] points out to the fact that the gravitational interaction between objects must
consist of two terms: (i) the radial inerton interaction between masses M and m, which results in the classical
Newton gravitational potential energy
Mm
VNewton 6 5 G (41)
r

and (ii) the tangential inerton interaction between the central attracting mass M and the rotating attractable mass m,
which is specified by the tangential component of the motion of the test mass m.
Indeed, components of the inerton’s velocity in the vicinity of the particle, which moves with the velocity b , are:
b along the particle path and c in the transversal directions (Figure 7). The same should take place for a moving
macroscopic object, because of individual inerton clouds of vibrating entities in the object overlap forming a total
inerton cloud (see Ref. 20 for details). In the total inerton cloud inertons migrate by the same rule, as is the case for
inertons of a separate particle, i.e. they migrate far away of the object and then come back to it.
 Now let this object with the mass m enveloped in its total inerton cloud rotates around the attracting mass M. The
inerton cloud of the orbital mass m touches the central mass M and partly is absorbed by it, which results in the
r
reciprocal interaction of masses M and m. Components of the velocity of this total inerton cloud are c along the
&
radial line and rtan in the tangential direction (Figure 8). Hence the total velocity of inertons in the total inerton

cloud is cˆ 6 c 2 : r 2„ 2 where we put for the tangential velocity rtan 6 r „ . Then the kinetic energy of these
inertons is mc 2 T (1 : r 2„ 2 / c 2 ) . We may assume that this factor 1 : r 2„ 2 / c 2 affects the classical Newton
gravitational law (41), such that it is transformed to

FIGURE 7. Moving particle and components of the velocity of one inerton from the inerton cloud ( b is the velocity of the
particle in the current moment of time and c is the velocity of light).

FIGURE 8. The scheme of the orbital motion of the test mass m around the central bigger mass M.

Mm S r 2„ 2 P
Vtotal 6 5 G T Q1 : 2 NN . (42)
r QR c O

The generalized formula (42) of Netwon gravitational law can be checked by applying for the description of those
three phenomena that were decribed and predicted by the abstract formalism of general relativity, namely: 1) the
motion of Mercury’s perihelion; 2) the bending of light by the sun; 3) the gravitational red shift of spectral lines.
Expression (42) allows us to examine the three problems in the framework close to that carried out in terms of
classical physics, not general relativity. Expression (42) enables the immediate and easy derivation [22] of the same
equations of motion for the three abovementioned problems that general relativity derived by using geodesic
equations with complicated metric:

1) Motion of perihelion
I 6 m r 2… ,
M m S r 2… 2 P
E 6 12 m r 2 : 12 mr 2… 2 5 G T Q1 : 2 NN ;
r QR c O
2) Bending of light

I 6 m r 2… ,
M m r… 2
E 6 12 m r 2 : 12 m r 2… 2 5 G ;
c2

3) Red shift of spectral lines

Mm M m S l… 2 l 2… 2 P
E  12 ml 2… 2 5 G 5G TQ5 : 2 NN ,
r r QR 2 r c O
S GM P
K a Q1 5 NK 0 .
R c2r O

Having exactly the same equations describing these three problems, we can follow the same classical solutions (see,
e.g. Ref. 23) at the finding of the motion of perihelion, the bending of light and the red shift.
Therefore it does not make sense to use the complicated mathematics of general relativity to solve this or that
challenge in the sky. The physics of the phenomena studied is hidden in the potential energy (42), which describes
the interaction of two attracting objects.
The sub microscopic approach [22] to the description of macroscopic gravitation phenomena has disclosed that a
point mass does not have any peculiarity in its metric; the point mass metric is the conventional Minkowski
flat/linear-space metric. Only the orbital motion of a second test mass is able to alter the classical Newton
gravitational potential energy (41) leading it to the generalized form (42). This linear metric disturbed by a smaller
moving test mass changes to the Schwarzschild metric (or maybe another metric) in a range of space around these
masses. An interesting conclusion can be withdrawn from the obtained results [22]: The sub microscopic
consideration of gravity suggests no reasons to hypothesize a “black hole” solution at all. Only an outside source of
the gravitational field is able to disturb the flat metric of a heavy central mass. So researchers dealing with the
formalism of general relativity must be extremely careful in application of their theoretical studies to the description
of the reality.

ELECTROMAGNETISM
The physical notion of elementary electric charge follows from a mathematical theory of the constitution of real
physical space [24]. Set theory, topology and fractal geometry allow us to construct space, as a mathematical lattice
of topological balls – the tessel-lattice that possesses fractal properties. A fractal volumetric deformation of a
topological ball is associated with the notion of mass. A fractal surface deformation of a topological ball is
associated with notion of elementary electric charge (Figure 9).

FIGURE 9. Two kinds of local fractal deformations in the tessel-lattice: volumetric (a) and surface (b).
 In the degenerate tessel-lattice one can distinguish a middle radius of cells such that amplitudes of oscillations of
the cells’ surfaces (surface wavelets) cross the surface both out and in. Then the quant of surface deformation, when
all amplitudes, i.e. needles, of the surface oscillations are directed outward of the cell can be associated with a
positive electric charge. When all surface amplitudes, i.e. needles, are directed inward of the cell, the form can be
called a negative electric charge (Figure 10).

FIGURE 10. Completely free topological ball outside of the tessel-lattice (a); topological ball as part of the tessel-lattice, which
can be referred to here as a superparticle (b); the formation of the charged particle (positive with amplitudes out and negative
with amplitudes in) from the topological ball, or superparticle (c).

How many such amplitudes, or needles, cover the surface of a topological ball in the tessel-lattice? Obviously as
many as the number of harmonics in the tessel-lattice. This number is defined by the quantity of balls that forms the
tessel-lattice. Putting the middle size of a cell of the tessel-lattice equals the Planck’s fundamental length, l Planck ~
10535 m, and the radius of the visible universe Runiverse ~ 10 26 m, we can easily estimate the number of needles that
3
cover the cell forming an elementary electric charge: N surface needles ~ Runiverse / " 3Planck 6 10183 .
It is obvious that each nth small needle on the sphere surface can be regarded as the normal vector to the particle
r r
surface. If we designate the normal dimensionless unit vector as u , the combination u h 0 / † can be interpreted as an
r r
elementary vector of the electric field, i.e. ‡20 n 6 u h0 / † . We may assume that the height of the needle can vary. In
this case each of the needle states has its own surface stretched on the same base. Such kind of the needle motion is
potential and hence all states of the needle surface can be described by a scalar function ˆ n (h) . Then the field
r & &
‡2n can be associated with the scalar function ˆ n (h) ƒ h , i.e. ‡ n 6 5‚ h ˆ n (h) ; so ‡ n is a co-vector.
vector 
The spike of each nth needle is able to deviate from its equilibrium position, i.e., the bending of the needle from its
axis must not be ruled out. The value of the displacement decreases from the spike to the base of the needle, which
is fixed. Therefore this kind of motion can ber related to a vector field (only the motion of a point is described by a
vector). Let us designate this vector field as A n
.
Let us write the Lagrangian density for the motion of the nth particle's needle and the nth cloud's needle taking
into account their mutual interaction:

Ln 6 C W ˆ :
1
2
2
n
1
2
& &
8
An2 : 12 „n2 : 12 1 n2 5 b 0 ˆ n n 4
n 0
&
 ‚1& : „ ‚ 5 b 2 (‚ ? A ) (‚ ? 1& )
n n X (43)

(C is a constant, its dimensionality in SI is kg/m3). Here quadratic forms correspond to the kinetic energy of the
& &
fields ˆ n and An of the nth particle's needle and the kinetic energy of the corresponding fields „ n and 1 n of the
nth effective needle of the cloud.
The Euler-Lagrange equations with the functional derivatives are
 r Ln r Ln ` Ln ` Ln r Ln r r Ln r r Ln r r Ln
5 6 0, 6 5 5 5 , (44)
r t r Q `Q `Q r Q rx SrQP r y SrQP r z SrQP
r QQ NN r QQ NN r QQ NN
RrxO Rr yO RrzO

which results in wave equations of motion of the free charge:

 5 b 2 ‚ 2 ˆ 6 0 , & &
ˆ n 0 n An 5 b 02 ‚ 2 An 6 0 . (45)

The considered motion can be depicted as shown in Figure 11.

FIGURE 11. Diagram of the motion of the positive charged particle. The particle is accompanied by the cloud of
electromagnetic polarized inertons, or inerton-photons, or simply photons (it is obvious that these particle’s polarized inertons
correspond to so-called “virtual photons” of quantum electrodynamics). (a) the moment of absorption of the ith inerton-photon
by the particle.

We can in Figure 11 that the electric state of the charged particle periodically changes to the magnetic state, i.e. the
magnetic monopole state (in the place 3 / 2 of each de Broglie’s wavelegth, which all together form the whole
particle path).
At last in standard symbols the Lagrangian density of the electromagnetic field that interacts with a charge takes
the form
‡ ‡ & & ‡ c2 & & &
Lel.5magn . 6 02 … 2 : 0 A 2 : ‡ 0 … ‚A : 0 (‚ ? A) 2 5 \ … : \ b 0 A . (46)
2c 2 2

Note that the standard Lagrangian of the electromagnetic field does not contain … , because in classical and
quantum electrodynamics they do not know in what way … can be introduced.
 Euler-Lagrange equations (44) based on the Lagrangian density (46) culminate in the Maxwell equations for the
&
scalar … and vector A potentials [24] (the so-called d’Alambert form):

1 r 2… \
‚ 2… 5 65 , (47)
c2 r t 2 ‡0
&
& 1 r 2A \ b0
‚ A5 2
2
65 . (48)
c r t2 ‡ 0 c2
&
Eqs. (47) and (48) are the consequence of the conventional Maxwell equations if the electric field E and the
& &
magnetic induction B are associated with the potentials … and A by relationships
&
& rA & &
E 6 5‚… 5 , B 6 ‚? A. (49)
rt
The behavior of a free photon has also been studied in detail [24].
An instantaneous photo of the photon (Figure 12): it is a cell of the tessel-lattice whose upper part of the surface is
covered by needles that stick out of the cell and the lower part of the surface is covered by needles that stick inside
of the cell. Each half a period 3 / 2 electrical polarization changes to the magnetic polarization (combed needles).
The inerton is a basic spatial excitation, which migrates changing periodically its state between the mass @inert and
€ inert (Figure 12). An inerton dressed with the surface polarization becomes a photon.

FIGURE 12. Two basic quasi-particles of the tessel-lattice: the inerton and the photon.

EXPERIMENTAL
In this section we focus on experimental testing of inerton fields in different physical, chemical physical and
biochemical systems.
1. Owing to the overlapping of inerton clouds of vibrating atoms in a metal, those inertons should contribute to the
effective potential of interaction of atoms in the crystal lattice. The possibility of separating this inerton contribution
from the value of the atom vibration amplitude was studied in paper [25]. The experiment, which assumesd the
presence of the hypothetical inerton field, was performed [25]. We anticipated that the rotating Earth should
generate the motion of inertons from the west to the east and also along the diameter of the globe. We made a simple
resonator of inerton waves of the Earth whose geometry had to satisfy the following conditions:
2j REarth /( 4 REarth ) 6 j / 2 , where R Earth is the radius of the Earth.
FIGURE 13. Inerton flows of the Earth (or an ether wind in the language of physicists of the 19th century) and the resonator of
the Earth’s inertons.

To test the hypothesis, we put in such a resonator a razor blade and in 30 days later studied its morphological
structure in an electron microscope. It was observed that the fine morphological structure indeed changed; a crude
morphological structure remained the same [24]. Thus the expected changes in the structure of the test specimens
caused by the inerton field were in fact convincingly fixed in micrographs.
2. The two opposite concepts – multiphoton and effective photon – readily describing the photoelectric effect
under strong irradiation when the energy of an incident light is essentially smaller than the ionization potential of
gas atoms and the work function of a metal were reconsidered from the viewpoint of the sub microscopic concept
[26]. Taking into account that the electron is an extended object that is not point-like (owing to its inerton cloud
whose size is known), the study of the interaction between the electron and a Laser pulses with an intensity 1012 to
1018 W/cm2 of low energy photons is able to ionize gas atoms, which was studied in many experiments. To describe
the phenomenon, researchers concentrated on the multi photon concept by L. Keldysh (1964), which modified the
simple photoelectric to a nonlinear consideration in which the atom is ionized by absorption of several photons. The
Nth-order time dependent perturbation theory changes the usual Fermi golden rule to N-photon absorption that
produces a complicated expression for the probability w N . However, in the 1970s E. Panarella stressed that many
experiments could not be explained in the framework of the multi photon theory. The multiphoton concept just
failed to interpret fine details revealed in the experiments. E. Panarella suggested an effective photon concept in
which N photons would gather together in a clump that bombard as a whole an atom ejecting photons. So, in
Panarella’s model the photoelectric effect became linear again. This concept could explain many experiments
carried out both in gases and metals.
The submicroscopic concept started from the idea that electrons in atoms or in a metal should be treated as
extended objects, but not point-like: an electron together with its inerton cloud has the length equal to their de
Broglie’s wavelength 3 and the electron’s inerton ‘wings’ spread up to the distance u 6 3 c / b 0 in transversal
directions around the particle. Hence, the cross-section of the electron’s inerton cloud: u 3 a 100 nm2 (because the
velocity of electrons is around 3T106 m/s). Thus, such an object is able to absorb N photons simultaneously, which
can be considered an anomalous photoelectric effect. The corresponding probability was calculated and was applied
to describe tens of different experiments on generation of photoelectrons in gases and a metal. The results are
completely satisfactory. Indeed, if the intensity of a laser pulse 1016 to 1018 W/cm2, we can estimate a mean distance
between photons in the flux of laser pulse as d a 3 to 4 nm.
FIGURE 14. The picture above shows the electron surrounded by its cloud of inertons. Then the number of photons (yellow
points and arrows), which bombard the electron’s inerton cloud is: u 3 / d ~ 10 . In other words, the size of the electron (jointly
2

with its inerton cloud) is large enough and can absorb up to 10 photons from a laser flux simultaneously. The total energy of
these 10 photons exceeds the ionized potential of atoms in a gas (or the work function in a metal).

3. The phenomenon of the diffraction of photons is explained [27] naturally without involving a vague “wave-
particle”. It is well known that photons coming through a transparent media generate non-equilibrium phonons
whose lifetime varies from ‰ a 10 511 to 1059 s. After that non-equilibrium phonons disappear and the corresponding
inerton clouds that accompanied those phonons fly away in transversal directions. During a short time, the phonons
&
gradually release generated inertons in transverse directions to the phonon’s wave vector K , which is practically
parallel to the photon beam’s path. So, these inertons move almost perpendicular to the beam of photons and hence
can tangibly affect the photon trajectories.
Let t be a time interval between subsequent fronts of incident photons. If the inequality t x ‰ holds, the second
photon will arrive to the interferometer at the moment when inertons generated by the first photon are still available
in the interferometer. These inertons deviate the second photon, such that it forms the second ring of the diffraction
pattern. Similarly for the third photon, etc. However, in the case of the inequality t Š ‰ , the lowest intensity of
photons N a 10 4 photons/sec reached by E. Panarella in his experiments, the second photon does not experience a
transverse action and continues to follow its path to the central peak on the target. Hence the mechanism described
is capable to account for Panarella’s experiments in which the diffraction fringe was absent.
4. The behavior of the subsystem of hydrogen atoms of the KIO3THIO3 crystal, whose IR absorption spectra
exhibit equidistant submaxima in the vicinity of the maxima in the frequency range of stretching and bending
vibrations of OH bonds was studied in paper [28]. It was shown that hydrogen atoms co-operate in peculiar clusters
in which, however, the hydrogen atoms did not move from their equilibrium positions but vibrated synchronously.
The interaction between the hydrogen atoms is associated with the overlapping of their matter waves, i.e. inertons.
The exchange by inertons results in the oscillation of hydrogen atoms in clusters, which emerges in the mentioned
spectra. The number of atoms, which compose the cluster, was calculated and the spectrum of such cluster was
computed. Theoretical curves show that the cluster state of hydrogen atoms features sub maxima that are very close
to the appropriate experimental maxima.
5. Electron clusters, X-rays and nanosecond radio-frequency pulses were produced by 100 mW continuous-wave
laser at the illumination of ferroelectric crystal of LiNbO3 [29]. A long-living stable electron droplet with the size of
about 100 Ëm and velocity ~ 0.5 cm/s moved freely in the air near the surface of the crystal, experiencing the Earth
gravitational field. The microscopic model of cluster stability, which is based on submicroscopic mechanics, was
suggested. It was assumed that the laser beam knocked not only photoelectrons, but also inertons from the crystal.
Inertons were knocked out from overlapping inerton clouds of atoms that form the crystal lattice. Therefore,
knocked photoelectrons surrounded by knocked inertons become unstable to the formation of a cluster. In the
cluster, the role of a restraining force played the inerton field, a substructure of the electrons’ matter waves, which
could elastically withstand the electrons’ Coulomb repulsion. It was shown that electrons in the droplet are in fact
heavy electrons whose mass at least 1 million times exceeds their rest mass. Their mass has increased owing to the
absorption of inertons ejected from the crystal by laser.
FIGURE 15. Specular reflected beam with a ‘droplet’ (separated by 1 sec) from the video.

6. In paper [30] it was studied the behavior of the permittivity of such liquid systems, as pure distilled water,
alcohol and 50%-aqueous solutions of alcohol, as affected by the inerton field generated by a special signal
generator contained within a wrist-watch or bracelet made by so-called Teslar technology. It was found that the
changes were significant. The method employed allowed us to fix the value of frequency of the field generated by
the Teslar chip. The frequency was determined to be approximately 8 Hz. The phenomenological consideration and
submicroscopic foundations of a significant increase of the permittivity were studied taking into account the inerton
field produced by the Teslar chip. Inertons significantly changed the interaction between polar water molecules.
Namely, absorbed inertons showed the phenomena of “freezing” of water molecules, as the mobility of water
molecules was strongly suppressed. The samples studied represented a mixture of water and alcohol: 50% of water
and 50% of alcohol. With time alcohol evaporated and the capacity of samples dropped. This can be seen on the left
graph of Figure 16. However, when a Teslar chip was approaching the cuvette, the inerton field of the chip strongly
damped the movement of water and alcohol molecules, which also decreased the capacity of the sample; this is seen
in the right graph of Figure 16.

FIGURE 16. Capacity of the water solution with alcohol (50% : 50%). The left graph shows measurements without application
of the inerton field. The right graph depicts measurements of the solution affected by the inerton field.

An influence of inerton fields on aqueous solutions of L-tyrosine, b-alanine and plasma extracted from the blood
of a patient with heart vascular disease changes was studied by using holographic interferometry [31]. We showed
that the refraction index of degassed pure distilled water and aqueous solutions of L-tyrosine and b-alanine affected
by the inerton field of a Teslar chip does not change during the first 10 minutes of influence. In contrast, a 1%
aqueous solution of the plasma changes the refractive index when affected by inerton fields. The characteristic time
of reaction is about 100 seconds. In the photograph below the dynamics of the fringe pattern of the aqueous solution
of plasma of human blood affected by 2 Teslar chips is presented. The strong disturbance of the optical density of
the solution emerges already after 72 s (Figure 17).
FIGURE 17. Dynamics of the fringe pattern of the aqueous solution of plasma of human blood after the insertion of two Teslar
chips. The strong disturbance of the optical density of the solution is emerged already in 72 s.

7. The coherent emission and absorption of inerton clouds by nearest atoms supply deeper information on Bose-
Einstein condensation of cool atoms [20]. The point is that a Bose-Einstein condensate cluster can be treated not
only as a whole continuous object, which is described by a unified wavefunction J , but also as a dynamic system of
many coherently oscillating entities, like a nucleus that consists of many nucleons. Such approach would bring some
new results in the description of Bose-Einstein condensates, the more so that it is completely deterministic owing to
carriers, i.e. inertons, which establish a short-range interaction between entities.
Emission and re-absorption of inertons by entities means that the mass of atoms in any substance is not a
stationary parameter, but dynamic. The value of mass varies with an amplitude Ím that is small in comparison with
the rest mass of the atom. However, the inerton field can be excited in some substances and is able to affect other
substances inducing novel effects: change in mass rearranges entities, which tends to a peculiar secondary phase
transition in the substance in question, namely, clusters. The phenomenon can be understood from the following
consideration. In a molecular liquid the intermolecular interaction can be modeled by a Lennard-Jones potential
U 0 6 5‡ 1 / r 6 : ‡ 2 / r 12 . However, as was shown [20], vibrations of entities at their equilibrium positions should add
one more term to this potential, namely, associated with the vibration energy (owing to of the overlapping of inerton
clouds of entities). Hence, the corrected intermolecular potential becomes

U 6 5‡ 1 / r 6 : ‡ 2 / r 12 : 12 9 r 2 . (50)

A solution of the equation r U / r r 6 0 gives a stable equilibrium distance r0 between molecules. A correction on
the side of the third term from expression (50) to r0 is rather small and can be neglected. However, in the presence
of outside inerton fields the third term in (50) can increase significantly, such that its contribution to the solution of
the equation r U / r r 6 0 will be substantial. This means that the substance affected by inertons will have a
secondary phase transition: its molecules will rearrange, as the equilibrium distance between molecules changes
from r0 to r0 5 ` r . As a result, we obtain very new properties in the substance studied and even at special
conditions we obtain new chemicals [20]: we observed a fast production of biodiesel (methyl trasnesterification) in
the study of mixture of oil and methanol. For example, Figure 18 shows changes in the viscosity of the bentonit (a
sort of a clay that can be used as a sorbent); these experiments have been recently conducted in our laboratory.
FIGURE 18. Behavior of the viscosity of the bentonit affected by inerton field at different expositions (viscosity vs. hours). The
irradiation during 15 minutes increases the viscosity of the bentonit up to 250 times!

CONCLUSION

The theory of real space, as a tessellation lattice of primary topological balls, allows the derivation and the
determination of all the fundamental physical parameters, such as mass, particle, motion, time, charge, monopole,
lepton, quark, de-Broglie wavelength, Compton wavelength, spin, etc. The introduction of the notion of motion is
equivalent to the appearance of time, which is in line with de Beroglie remark that physics means motion. The
notion of a massive particle is associated with a fractal volumetric deformation of a cell of the tessel-lattice. The
motion of such a particulate cell is accompanied by the motion of spatial excitations called inertons that migrate by
a relay mechanism, i.e. hopping from cell to cell. Inertons carry fragments of the particle’s velocity and mass and
are responsible for the uncommonness of quantum mechanics and the phenomenon of the gravitational attraction.
Grand authorities, whose work formed the basis of the sub microscopic concept presented there were three great
French scientists: Henri Poincaré (topology of space and the aether, which was separated from the notion of space
yet, but in which particles moved surrounded by the aether’s excitations), Louis de Broglie (a moving particle is
guided by a real wave whose origin is in a sub-quantum medium and such motion generates relationships E 6 hK
and p / h 6 3 ) and Michel Bounias (the constitution of mathematical space as such, and the construction of the
physical space as a consequence of mathematical space). In the submicroscopic concept the de Broglie wavelength
3 is interpreted in relation to the spatial period of a moving particle. Within the section 3 , due to the emission and
re-absorption of the particle’s inerton cloud, parameters of the particle undergo periodical changes:

velocity b 0 y 0 y b 0 ; mass m y 0 y m and the tension 0 y € y 0 ; electric charge e y 0 y e and the

magnetic charge, i.e. monopole state 0 y g y 0 ; particle shape: beanlike y spherical y beanlike (such
internal motion manifests itself in conventional quantum mechanics as a half-integer spin).

The submicroscopic concept of the physical world presented in this work supposes a complete deterministic
description of the quantum system studied, which enables us to cast a glance at the science behind the pattern
constructed by conventional quantum physics. The dynamic inerton field induces the phenomenon of gravity rather
than the static geometry of empty space-time of general relativity orders. In such a manner, the inerton field should
be considered as a source of gravitation phenomena.
 As the inerton field is dynamics, it realizes the interplay between objects by means of inerton waves. This
signifies that everyone emits his/her inerton waves and hence the waves overlap with those of other individuals.
Consequently, we may conclude that the inerton field influences our live, activity, consciousness, and mind since
our own inerton fields emitted at the brain neuromediator interactions overlap and form the entire mental network of
the Earth; we are able to communicate each other by this field via the perceptive channel. Thoughts and feelings are
full components of universe, but while emotional feelings do not deserve to be justified, they may have a physical
impact in terms of inerton waves, which are a particular kind of space fractal deformation accompanying any motion
of particle-like structures. Because any feeling is at least supported by a cascade of molecular interactions between
brain cortex and limbic system, thoughts may have physical effects independently from the actions they elicit.
Thus effects induced by inerton fields in condensed media are quite important and, therefore, further studies of
these fields and their interaction with substances promise the discovery of new physical phenomena and open a
gateway to new advanced technologies.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
I am thankful to Dr. Richard Amoroso for the invitation to participate in the 7th Vigier Symposium (Imperial
College, London, July, 2010) at which this talk was presented.

REFERENCES

1. H. Poincaré, Sur la dynamique de l’électron, Comptes Rendus 140, pp. 1504-1560 (1905), Rendiconti del Circolo matematico
di Palermo 21, 129-176 (2006); also: Oeuvres, t. IX, pp. 494-550 (and also in Russian translation: Selected Transactions, ed.
N. N. Bogolubov (Nauka, Moscow, 1974), 3, 429-486).
2. L. de Broglie. Recherches sur la théorie des quanta, Ann. De Phys., 10e série, t. III (Janvie-Février 1925); translation by A.F.
Kracklauer: On the theory of quanta, Lulu.com; Morrisville, NC; 2007 (ISBN: 978-1-84753-358-6).
3. D. Bohm, Phys. Rev. 85: 166–179 (1952). doi:10.1103/PhysRev.85.166; ibid. 85: 180–193 (1952).
doi:10.1103/PhysRev.85.180.
4. L. de Broglie, Ann. Fond. L. de Broglie 12, no. 4, 399- 421 (1987).
5. M. Bounias and V. Krasnoholovets, Kybernetes: The Int. J. Systems & Cybernetics 32, No. 7/8, pp. 945-75 (2003) (also
arXiv.org: physics/0211096).
6. M. Bounias and V. Krasnoholovets, ibid. 32, no. 7/8, 976-1004 (2003) (also arXiv.org: physics/0212004).
7. M. Bounias and V. Krasnoholovets, ibid. 32, no. 7/8, 1005-1020 (2003) (also also arXiv.org: physics/0301049).
8. M. Bounias and V. Krasnoholovets, Int. J. Anticipatory Computing Systems 16, 3-24 (2004), Ed.: D. Dubois (also arXiv.org:
physics/0309102).
9. M. Bounias and V. Krasnoholovets, Int. J. Computing Anticipatory Systems 16, 3-24 (2004) (also arXiv.org:
physics/0309102).
10. V. Krasnoholovets and D. Ivanovsky, Phys. Essays 6, no. 4, 554-563 (1993) (also arXiv.org: quant-ph/9910023).
11. V. Krasnoholovets, Phys. Essays 10, no. 3, 407-416 (1997) (also arXiv.org: quant-ph/9903077).
12. V. Krasnoholovets, Int. J. Comput. Anticipat. Syst. 11, 164 (2002) (also arXiv.org: quant-ph/0109012).
13. B. A. Dubrovin, S. P. Novikov and A. T. Fomenko. Modern Geometry. Methods and Applications (Nauka, Moscow, 1986),
p. 291 (in Russian).
14. L.de Broglie, Les incertitudes d’Heisenberg et l’interprétation probabiliste de la méchanique Ondulatoire (Gauthier-Villars,
Bordas, Paris, 1982); Chapter 2, sect. 4. (Russian translation: Mir, Moscow, 1986; pp. 50-52).
15. L. de Broglie, Comptes Rendus 264 B (16), 1173-1175 (1967).
16. V. Krasnoholovets, Ind. J. Theor. Phys. 48, no. 2, 97-132 (2000) (also arXiv.org: /quant-ph/0103110).
17. V. Krasnoholovets, Scientific Inquiry 7, no. 1 (June 30), 25-50 (2006).
18. V. Krasnoholovets, arXiv.org: hep-th/0205196.
19. V. Krasnoholovets, in Ether, Space-Time and Cosmology, Vol. 1, Eds.: M. Duffy, J. Levy and V. Krasnoholovets (PD
Publications, Liverpool, 2008), pp. 419-450; ISBN 1 873 694 10 5.
20. V. Krasnoholovets, App. Phys. Research 2, no. 1, 46-59 (2010), ISSN: 1916-9639; E-ISSN: 1916-9647 (direct access
http://ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/apr/article/view/4287).
21. E. P. J. de Haas, Ann. Fond. L. de Broglie 29, no. 4., 707-726 (2004).
22. V. Krasnoholovets, in: Ether Space-Time and Cosmology, Vol. 2: New Insights into a Key Physical Medium. Eds.: M. C.
Duffy, J. Lévy (Apeiron, 2009), pp. 417-431 (Publisher: C. Roy Keys Inc.; Apeiron. ISBN: 0973291184; 978-0973291186);
also Apeiron 16, no. 3, 418-438 (2009) (direct access: http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V16NO3PDF/V16N3KRA.pdf ).
23. P. G. Bergmann, Introduction to the theory of relativity (Gosudarstvennoe izdatelstvo inostrannoy literatury, Moscow, 1947),
 pp. 281-294 (Russian translation).
24. V. Krasnoholovets, Hadronic J. Suppl. 18, no. 4, 425-456 (2003) (also arXiv.org: physics/0501132).
25. V. Krasnoholovets and V. Byckov, Ind. J. Theor. Phys. 48, no. 1, 1-23 (2000) (also arXiv.org: quant-ph/0007027).
26. V. Krasnoholovets, Ind. J. Theor. Phys. 49, no. 1, 1-32 (2001) (also arXiv.org: quant-ph/9906091).
27. V. Krasnoholovets, Nonlin. Opt. Quant. Opt. 41, no. 4 (2010), in press.
28. V. Krasnoholovets, arXiv.org: cond-mat/0108417.
29. V. Krasnoholovets, N. Kukhtarev and T. Kukhtareva, Int. J. Mod. Phys. B 20, no. 16, 2323-2337 (2006) (also arXiv:
0911.2361 [quant-ph]).
30. V. Krasnoholovets, S. Skliarenko and O. Strokach, Int. J. Mod. Phys. B 20, no. 1, 111-124 (2006) (also arXiv:0810.2005
[physics.gen-ph].
31. E. Andreev, G. Dovbeshko, V. Krasnoholovets, Research Lett. Phys. Chem., Volume 2007, Article ID 94286, 5 pages
doi:10.1155/2007/94286 (http://www.hindawi.com/GetArticle.aspx?doi=10.1155/2007/94286).

*< 8,
"  

J =

40 3+& 0 
(  *9

         J  *          4 /&
  ' )      '     N  + '(   +N 5,6  
       N   '  &            
            &     


!"#$%&'#!%"

           (  0 3   
          4          
         " ?N #    +    
(                 " ,- −.. #
=                 (  F&   > " 5A6  
 #
   (        .2,&   " #  
 .2,2&   " N# +            
      N =   (    '   .2,&    
0 3     =  (  N      N(   
      4         7'&7      
                  
=                    
5 (,-6(        ,AAC      =N&D( 9     9 "=99# 5,,6
    4       N        "     
N     #      ) & 
D     /9                     
       ( + '(   +N 5,6          
    )     7   " 51( B(  C6      #
4 (     D &   5 6(    7       
  7 → − 7  4 /9 )        

" /#1μν = −Λ /μν + Cπ1Aτ μν + κ @/π μν − 'μν ",#

"@#
' μν           @9    - α βρσ  'μν = - α βρσ α  ρ  β μ σ ν  
           @9 N 4        Λ /    
, ,
    N         Λ / = κ @ "Λ + κ @ λ #  4      
1
      4 /9 J >              1 A = κ @/ λ : /Cπ 
4     π μν                
          4 @9     

 = χ +  μν  μ  ν " #

      χ = -  4 @9      

μν = − Λ) μν +  μν δ " χ # ".#



 μν = −λ μν + τ μν "/#

4 δ " χ #            λ      "  # 
τ μν    &    4            
>
     5.6         8 μν     "  
   #            

"%$()%%$&!"# 

4            N      J    4    
                       
   5/6

 N   ¦    &                    4  
      γ                  
P ξ    '        γ (  σ           4
  
       " ( # (       

 = σ ξ  "@#

4         " (   # = "∂  ( ∂  #  4   

5ξ ( σ   6 = ξ  ξ "1#

5ξ (  6 = - "B#

B
 ξ  = η B ξ  η B        
4           ξ = σ −, 
    ∂ σ = σ −,   E     ∇ ξ  
(    ∇ ξ   = -    4            

  ∇ ξ  = ∇  ξ = ξ  ∇    ( 

∇ ξ  = ξ 8   B + ξ  
 B  B
B "C#

B B
)    8                  



 ,
8 B = 3  σ / "A#

, ,
 B = 3η B + .B ",-#

(

 
.B = 5   (  B 6 ",,#

&$!7#!%"%#(#$!

4           4   (

, ,
) * = ¦ σ  ∇ ξ "  * # ", #
 = - ]

   ≥  (

 − , −
∇ ξ   = ∇ ξ  "ξ (   #ξ ",.#
 +,

∇ ξ  = ∇ ξ −  "ξ (  #ξ ",/#

           (  N   G


  = ) ‘‘ ‘ − ) ‘   ‘ + ) /    /
",@#

+ (    ) /   (  

,
) / = "   / # + σ∇ ξ "   / # + σ ∇ ξ "   / #

σ
= "     / # + σ  ∇ ξ  / + σ  / ∇ ξ   + "∇ ξ  #  / ",1#

σ
+  "∇ ξ  / # + σ "∇ ξ  ∇ ξ  / #


 "   / # = σ /     σ ∇ ξ "   / # = 8 / 
  "C#    "B#      ( 
 5 ",/#6

σ σ , ,
∇ ξ  = "ξ (  #ξ = "σξ (  #σξ =  " (  # ",B#

       3   "+ 5@6#(  

/
"  (  # B =  B   / +  B $  $ ",C#
4

σ , $ 
"∇ ξ  # / = "  B
B   $ +  B
B   # /
",A#
, ,
=  B
 B σ / =
  B
 B/

+(

σ ,
 "∇ ξ  / # =  B
 B/ " -#

=

σ "∇ ξ  ∇ ξ  / # = "ξ  8  /  / + ξ    B   B #"ξ  8  )  ) + ξ    1  1 #
" ,#
= " 8 ‘ / 8 ‘/ + ‘ ‘  ‘‘ #  

+

) / = σ / + 8 / ‘ + " 8  $ 8 /$ + ‘ ‘  ‘‘ + ‘/‘ #‘ +  " #

+(    ) B  ) B     
,
)  = − B B
+ ! B
 B! " .#
.
,
) B = η B −  8B! 8 !
" /#
.

+    N   &  = , (   = B = 8 = ! (   B8! = -   B! = -  4    

 = η ‘‘ ‘ − ‘‘‘  ‘ + 5σ / + 8 / ‘ + " 8  $ 8 /$ + ‘ ‘  ‘‘ + ‘/‘ #‘ 6    /
" @#

4           ",-#  .B = - " 3   B = 3  B = -     # P
‘     * ( 

‘ = σ ξ ‘ "  # " 1#

       ‘ = -(, 
4               σ = . "  # ( ",#
+ ‘ = ,  σ = . 4 , = .ξ ‘  E ξ   '(  

) "ξ ( ξ # = , = . − η ‘‘ Ÿ η ‘‘ = . " B#

4N " B#       ",-#(      
 

0H3) , #1<
 "  #      / "-# 
"
  / ",#  4,
    ?    4/    , ‘  "’    /,

 #4 /,

 σ = . " /
#

 = . "  #‘ + ‘ "∂  . #  ‘ + 5σ / + 8 / ‘ + " 8  $ 8 /$ + .( .( / + ‘/‘ #‘ 6    / " C#


O

 = . "  #‘ + ‘ "∂  . #  ‘ + / "‘ ( 
#   /
" A#



/ = σ / + 8 / ‘ + " 8  8 /$ + .( .( / + ‘/‘ #‘ ".-#
$

##!78$7!##!%")“'#!%" %$#6%*$"(%&)

4              (      "     
      5,6#

 = η ‘‘ ‘ − ‘‘‘  ‘ + 5σ / + 8 / ‘ + " 8  $ 8 /$ + ‘ ‘  ‘‘ + ‘/‘ #‘ 6    /
".,#

            @9   '/ "          
 N#

X −
'/ = . " # ‘/‘ ". #


 .   N    "     #
4       ‘/‘    4         8 / "‘ #      -
 ,  4    (                  
  G
 ,
8 / "‘ # = "∂ ‘ / − A  ( / − A/ (  # "..#
   (          

 A = . ", + ‘ "∂  . # # ( A  = ‘. "∂  . # "./#

+  (

8 / "‘ # = 8 / + §¨ 8  $ 8 /$ + ‘/‘ − . " .( / .(/ # ·¸ ‘ ".@#
,
© ¹

+ (      

8 / "‘ # = 8 / "-# + §¨ 8  $ 8 /$ + ‘/‘ − . " .( / .(/ # ·¸ ‘ ".1#
,
© ¹

=     (

,
8 / "‘ # = 8 / "-# + 8  $ 8 /$ + ‘/‘ − . " .( / .(/ # ".B#
‘ =,

+ (

,
‘/‘ = 8 / ‘ =, − 8 / "-# − 8  $ 8 /$ + . " .( / .(/ # ".C#

J        U  *  (

+κ
8 / "-# = @ . §¨ λ- / "-# + τ /"-# − / "-#τ "-# ·¸  ".A#
, ,
© . . ¹

− κ@ §, , ·
8 / ",# = . ¨ λ,/ ",# + τ /",# − / ",#τ ",# ¸  "/-#
©. . ¹

= +   U  *         ‘/‘       ". #(
X
          '/    /&  G

X − κ @ −, § " -# , · ,1
'/ = . ¨ "τ / + τ /",# # − / "-#"τ /" -# + τ /",# # ¸ − . −, .(/ − λ /
© . ¹ A
"/,#
κ @/ § , , ·
¨τ  τ /$ − τ τ / + τ " -# / − τ ",#τ /" -# + τ " -#τ ",# / ¸
" -# $ " -#
+ "-# " -#
/ © . A . A ¹

 λ- + λ, = - "     3+, 5, 6( 5,.6# N   = 9&+    "   
 N#            "/#  5,6  G 

 ª , " @ # º ρ σ " @#
" /#
1 μν = « "@#  ρσ − ) ρσ  »  μ ν +  ρσ  ρ  σ  μν + 88 μν − 8 μσ 8νσ
 ¬ ¼ "/ #
, αβ X
−  μν " 8 − 8 8 αβ # − ' μν

,
H           88 μν ( 8 μσ 8νσ (  μν " 8 − 8 αβ 8 αβ #(      
       

X κ Λ
" /# 1 μν = −Λ /  μν + Cπ1 A τ μν + κ @/π μν − ' μν + μν "/.#
1

κ Λ
      ",#       μν  4  
1

X κ Λ
' μν = ' μν + μν "//#
1

     ' μν           . G

κ@ κ@ κ@
. −, 3 . + "τ " -# + τ ",# # − "λ, + λ- # + "− λ- λ, − λ- + λ-τ ",# #
1. .. A
"/@#
κ @/ § ,/ ·
¨ τ "λ, + λ- # − τ τ /$ − τ + τ " -#τ ",# ¸ = -
" - # /$ " - # " -#
+ " -#
/ ©A A A ¹

=   3+,    λ- = −λ, ( "/@#   


κ@ κ@
. −, 3 . + "τ " -# + τ ",# # + "λ- + λ-τ ",# #
1. A
"/1#
κ @/ § ,/ ·
¨−τ τ /$ − τ "-# + τ "-#τ ",# ¸ = -
" - # /$ " - #
+
/ © A A ¹

#8"$)!”&"<&!(" !%")“'#!%"

4  −   )   G

, "#
"  # * − ) *  = −Λ  ) * + κ  *"  # "/B#

 *" #         N   Λ            N 
J    1  E     (

 Λ  κ 
"  #  = −  "/C#
− −

+  3   (

Λ κ  κ 
"  # * = ) * +  * − ) * "/A#
− − −

4  −   3         3      

"#
* = "  # - * +
, "#
−
[
 ) * − "  #  ) * + "  # * )  − "  # * )  ]
"@-#
[)  ) * − )  ) * ]
,
− "#
" − ,#"  − #

7             ( 4 3   /     

[ ]
" #
, 
"  # / = "  # -/ + " #
/ − "  #  ) / − ) / "@,#
− " − ,#" − #

= N   "/C#  "/A#(   

κ  / κ   κ  / Λ/
"  # / = "  # -/ + + / − + "@ #
− − " − ,#"  − # " − ,#" − #


E 

−.§ , ·
"  # '/ = "  # -/ + ¨ κ  / + κ   / − κ   / ¸ "@.#
− ©  −, ¹

+ ( 

X Λ/ ,
'/ = '/ − − κ  / − κ   / + κ   / "@/#
" − ,#"  − # −

     )     ( 


−. ,
 "  −,# 1 * = −Λ  * − ' * + 88 * − 8  8 * − * " 8 − 8  8  # "@@#
 −,

 ( 

"  −,# −/ X ,
1/ = −Λ  / − '/ + 88 / − 8  8 / − / " 8 − 8  8  #
−
  "@1#
,
+ κ  / + κ   − κ  /
−

4  −             

−κ § ·
 [8 * ] =
,
¨  * − *  ¸ "@B#
© − ¹

+    −    ( 

−κ § λ , ·
"#
 8 * " -# = . ¨ - * "-# + τ *
" -#
− * "-#τ " -# ¸ "@C#
©− − ¹

κ § λ , ·
"#
 8 * ",# = . ¨ , * "-# + τ *
",#
− * ",#τ ",# ¸ "@A#
©  −  − ¹

=    

,
" −,# 1/ = − Λ −,/ + Cπ1−,τ / + κ π / − ' /  "1-#
/



, −.
Cπ1  −, = κ λ-
/ −
−. , −.
Λ  −, = Λ + κ λ- "1,#
 −, C −
, , ,
π / = −τ  $ τ /$ − ττ / + τ $τ $ − /
− " − #

J ( N         ‘/‘ 

‘/‘ ≈ 8 / − 8 / ",# + 8  $ 8 /$ − ../ "1 #



 / ",# = / "-# + 8 / "-# + 5" 8 # "1.#

4
−κ §  −, ·
. ¨τ /+ −  "-#τ /+ +  "-#λ+ ¸ − ..(/
,
‘/‘ =
©  − /  − / ¹
κ /. §¨ " − ,#λ − τ ",# ·¸§¨τ "-# − ,  "-#τ "-# −  − , λ  ·¸
+
" − # © , ¹© /  − / − - /
¹ "1/#
κ /
§ , " -#  − , ·§ "-# , " -#  − , ·
+ . ¨τ  " - # $ −  $ "-#τ + λ  $ ¸¨τ −  τ + λ  ¸
/ © −   − -  ¹© $/  − $/  − - $/ ¹

X
 λ+ = λ, + λ-  τ /+ = τ /"-# + τ /",#  4N λ+ = - "3+,   #        '/ 
X −κ § , · ."  − ,# "1@#
' / = . −, ¨ τ /+ − / " -#τ /+ ¸ − . −, .(/ − λ /
© − ¹ /"  − #
κ / §¨ , ·
+ τ "-#$
τ "/$- # − τ " - #τ /" - # + τ " - # / − τ ",#τ /" - # + τ " - #τ ",# / ¸¸
/ ¨© − " − # − " − # ¹

'/
 (

,
'  =  = Λ + κ  − κ 
−  −,
"11#
κ . −, + −, .λ- " − ,# κ §¨ .− ·
¸
= τ − . .( − 
+ τ τ /$ + τ
/$ " -#
+τ τ ",# " - #
" − # /" − # / ¨© " − # " − # ¸¹

    

'  = - Ÿ 3 . ≠ - "1B#

=               "1B#(

X −κ $ .λ-
'/ = . −,τ + + . −, " .($ / − .(/ # + / +  /
/" − #
"1C#
$ / § " -# $ " -# , ·
+ ¨τ  τ /$ + τ " -#
− τ " -#$ τ $" -# − τ /"-#τ + ¸
/ © − − ¹

E 

X ,
'/ = '/ − Λ/ − κ / − κ / / + κ  / "1A#
" − ,#" − #  −,

4(

−κ $ .λ Λ
'/ = . −,τ + + . −, " .($ / − .(/ # + / + /
/"  − #  −,
"B-#
κ / § " -# $ "-# , ·
+ ¨τ  τ /$ + τ "-# − τ "-#$ τ $"-# − τ /"-#τ + ¸ − κ /
/ © − − ¹

E    "1-#  ( 

$ , ,
" −,# 1/ = − Λ −,/ + Cπ1τ /"-# + Cπ1,τ /",# + . −, " .($ / − .(/ # + κ /π /- + κ /π /, + κ / "B,#
/ /

 

 .λ
Λ = Λ  −, − Λ&
 −, /"  − #
,
Cπ1 = Cπ1  −, + . −,κ

,
Cπ1 , = . −,κ "B #

. . @
π /- = − τ  "-# $τ $/"-# − τ "-#τ /"-# + τ $ "-#τ "-# $ / − τ "-# /
− − " − #
.
π /, = τ ",#τ /"-#
−

&$!7#!%"%#% (%)%8!)“'#!%"

X
4   *              '/  "/.# "   ( 
       κ @    # 7 λ- = −λ,   

κ@ κ@ ,
" /# 1 μν = "τ μν
" -#
+ τ μν
",#
#− μν "-#"τ " -# + τ ",# # − . −, " .νμ + .( μν # − μν "-# Λ / "B.#
. 1.

/ ,
 Λ / = κ @ " Λ + κ @ λ- # "B/#
. 1

J (   "/1#     ( 

κ@
. −, 3 . + "τ " -# + τ ",# # = - "B@#
1.
+ (      " /# 1 μν G 

κ@ ,
" /# 1 μν = "τ μν
" -#
+ τ μν
",#
# − μν "-# . −, 3 . − . −, " .(νμ + .(μν # − μν "-# Λ / "B1#
.

4           ( 

τ ν"-# μ = ) "− ρ  ( 4 ( 4 ( 4 #
 "BB#
τ ν",# μ = ) "− ρ, ( 4, ( 4, ( 4, #

=          8 = -  

 κ , ,
( = = @ " ρ, + ρ  # − . −, 3 . − Λ /
 1. 1 .
"BC#
 κ@ , , −,
= 5." 4, + 4 # + " ρ, + ρ  #6 + Λ / + . 3 .
 , . . 1

    *            . = , "J   # *
               (       
    4                     
N               N(        
 

"6%)&8("#

  N       ? 

       (  (    
     N

$$" 

5,6 4 + '( 7& (  +N( 4 ) )    .&E  ( ?3
91 " ---# - /-, 
5 6 ? D   ) ( D   4
      ( J ? E /1-
",AA1# @-1$@ / 5&:A@,- -A6
5.6 
( +       ( J  * E//( , ",A11#
5/6 P    ? 
  ( ) 
 *( J ?  J  N +
G:: N:: 
5@6 *  ( 7 + 4 (  U =  0  ( +  ",AB.#
516 4 + '( 7' 7 ( 7 4N( )          (
?3 91B " --.# ,-/-,,
5B6 4 + '( 7' 7 ( P          ( ?3 91B " --.#
-C/- 
5C6 + N DN( 9N
( 4 + '( 4N 4N( 0    *   4
E  ( ?  4 ? + ,/C" -- #
5A6 3 ( E   0( P( 3 3 B " --/# 5&:-., -@A6
5,-6 L= 3N    ) + N ( 9       8( ? P E, @ ",AC.# ,.1
5,,6 J =N&D( + 9     0 9( 4 D ?   J 9    (
? P E / A ",AAC# 1. 5&:AC-..,@6
5, 6 P 3( 3 +( = =  *  ( ?3P C. ",AAA# /1A-&/1A.
5,.6 P 3( 3 +( = P  D    + ) 9 ( ?3P C.
",AAA# ..B-&..B.

 Does inhomogeneous dust distribution in higher dimension
drive late acceleration?
S. Chatterjee∗ and Ajanta Das†
∗
Relativity and Cosmology Research Centre, Jadavpur University, Kolkata - 700032, India and also at IGNOU,
New Alipore College, Kolkata 700053, e-mail : chat_ sujit1@yahoo.com
†
Heritage Institute of Technology, Anandapur, Kolkata -700107, India
Correspondence to : S. Chatterjee

Abstract.
In view of the recent controversies whether inhomogeneities in cosmological models can account for the currently observed
accelerating phase of the universe we have studied a higher dimensional Lemaitre - Tolman - Bondi model. We find that
inclusion of extra spatial dimensions has no qualitative impact on the signature of the deceleration parameter. The conclusion
is also corroborated by the well known Raychaudhuri equation generalised to higher dimensions. On the contrary, instead of
triggering the late acceleration it actually aids the decelerating phase, which is a bad news from the point of view of recent
observational results. The work primarily extends an earlier work of Alnes et al in the similar field in four dimensions.
Keywords: inhomogeneity; higher dimensions; accelerating universe
PACS: 04.20, 04.50 +h

1. INTRODUCTION
The recently observed late time acceleration in the expansion of the Universe by Riess et al [1] gives a sort of jolt to the
highly favoured homogeneous and isotropic model. Measurements of average matter density from the different cosmic
probes on supernovae (ΩM ∼ 0), galaxy distributions(ΩM ∼ 0.3) and CMBR (ΩM ∼ 1) point to a highly confusing
picture of the universe such that at least one of the two assumptions of homogeneity and isotropy must be wrong. As is
well known theorists attempt to evade the problem by introducing a cosmological constant (vacuum energy) such that
the above values now become for best fits for supernovae (ΩM ∼ 0.3 and ΩΛ ∼ 0.7), galaxy distributions (ΩM ∼ 0.3)
and CMBR (ΩM + ΩΛ ∼ 1). Although the cosmological concordance ΛCDM model fits all the observations well it
is plagued by theoretical problems as values predicted from field theory and that required for explaining our problem
differ by vast order of magnitude [2]. As for the alternative quintessential field we do not in fact have a theory that
would explain, not to mention predict, the existence of a scalar field fitting the bill without violating the realistic
energy conditions. Moreover we can not generate this type of a scalar field from any basic principles of physics. So
there has been a resurgence of interests among relativists, field theorists, astrophysicists and people doing astroparticle
physics both at theoretical and experimental levels to address the problems coming out of the recent extra galactic
observations without involving any mysterious form of scalar field by hand but looking for alternative approaches [3]
based on sound physical principles. Alternatives include, among others, higher curvature theory, Brans- Dicke field
and higher dimensional spacetime [4].
As rejection of either matter domination or Einstein gravity leads to trouble it is well motivated to study the validity
of the third main assumption - the perfect homogeneity. Most recently inhomogeneities has been invoked as the driving
force for the apparent acceleration of the universe [5], in particular by virtue of their socalled back reaction on the
metric [6].
Possibility of explaining this late time acceleration simply by using inhomogeneities in the matter distribution was
examined first by Pascuel- Sanchez [7] and recently by Kolb and co-workers [8]. Actually the studies follow two
approaches- either examining the role of inhomogeneities on the expansion of the universe or their impact on the
observations directly. One thing quite often evades our notice. We can only directly measure the redshift and energy
flux coming from the supernovae but never the expansion rate or matter density itself. So the late acceleration is
also an indirect conclusion coming from the fact that if we put faith in the perfectly homogeneous and isotropic
cosmological model the dark energy is needed for a good fit. Consequently there is no a priori reason to believe that
acceleration is absolutely necessary to explain the current observations in the more general inhomogeneous models

Does inhomogeneous dust distribution in higher dimension drive late acceleration? September 25, 2010 1
of the universe. So there is nothing generic about the accelerating models. Things are very much model dependent.
Following a perturbative approach Kolb etal attempted to show that growing perturbations on a scale larger than the
Hubble length may lead to accelerated expansion as observed from the centre of the observation. Later Wiltshire [9]
and Carter et al [10] extended it for the case of a dust dominated underdense bubble to show that the luminosity-
redshift relation in their mofel does not differ much from a ΛCDM model. Thus they were able to obtain a good fit
to the Hubble diagram of the Ia supernovae. But there are counter examples also [11] and [12] which conclude that
inhomogeneity contributions cannot induce an accelerated expansion. Perhaps the strongest criticism of Kolb’s result
has come from the work of Hirata and Seljak [13] who argued that the Raychoudhury equation dictates that in a dust
dominated universe there must be a non-vanishing vorticity to obtain a negative deceleration parameter. Later they
went on to show that for the super Hubble perturbation considered by Kolb et al the vorticity actually vanishes. This
conclusion negates Kolb’s idea of presenting inhomogeneity as the possible agent for late time acceleration. In this
context the possibility that the full non-perturbative solutions of the Einstein’s equation for inhomogeneous model can
exhibit accelerated expansion was recently examined by Alnes et al [14] who tried to examine whether spherically
symmetric inhomogeneous universe with dust accepts negative deceleration parameter and showed that no physically
realistic solution will allow that.
Following Alnes et al we are motivated to see whether introduction of extra spatial dimensions in the inhomoge-
neous dust distribution can give any extra advantage in the direction of explaining acceleration in the recent past.
Multidimensional space-time is believed to be particularly relevant in the context of cosmology. The exact solution for
a spherically symmetric inhomogeneous distribution of a matter dominated universe for an (n+2)-dimensional space-
time with n ≥ 2 is earlier given by Banerjee et al [15]. The solution here carries two free, spatially dependent functions
f and F. We show here that any physically acceptable choice for these functions do not allow negative deceleration
parameter.

2. MATHEMATICAL FORMALISM
The (n + 2) dimensional metric for spherically symmetric space-time is given by,

ds2 = eν dt 2 − eλ dR2 − r2 dXn2 (1)

where, dXn2 represents an n-sphere with,

dXn2 = d θ12 + sin2 θ1 d θ22 + ... + sin2 θ1 sin2 θ2 ... sin2 θn−1 d θn2 (2)

and ν , λ and r depend on both radial and time coordinates R and t. The field equations for the above metric are

n(n − 1) 1  −λ 2 ˙2  n1
−λ  

−λ r

G00 = e r − r − 1 − ṙ λ̇ + e r λ + ne = −ρ (3)
2 r2 2r r

n(n − 1) 1 −λ 2 ˙2  r̈
G11 = e r −r −1 −n = p (4)
2 r2 r
(n − −    
G22 = G33 =
1)(n 2) 1
e−λ 2
r − r ˙2 − 1 − (n − 1) 1 ṙλ̇ + e−λ r λ 
2 r2
2 r
1   1 λ̇ 2
−(n − 1) r̈ − e−λ r − λ̈ + =p (5)
r 2 2
n  ˙ 
G01 = 2r − λ̇ r = 0 (6)
2r
where 8π G is assumed to be unity. A prime overhead denotes ∂ /∂ R and a dot denotes ∂ /∂ t A comoving coordinate
system is taken such that,
Ui = δi0 (7)
where Ui is the (n+2)-dimensional velocity. A relation between eλ and r can be found by solving the t-r component of
the field equations. Equation(6)implies
r2
eλ = (8)
1 + f (R)

Does inhomogeneous dust distribution in higher dimension drive late acceleration? September 25, 2010 2
 Deceleration Parameter
0

Acceleration
30 -0.002
n3
25 n2
-0.004
20
15 -0.006 aR1
10
-0.008
5
0 0 20 40 60 80 100
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
n t

FIGURE 1. q vs n and r̈ vs t

where f (R) is an arbitrary function of R associated with the curvature of t-constant hyper surface subject to the
restriction 1 + f (R) > 0. Here we will consider a dust distribution and all the dimensions including the extra ones
are treated on same footing. The 4D metric was first studied by Lemaitre, Tolman and Bondi and later has been used
in various astronomical and cosmological context. relevant to point out that the (n + 2) dimension generalised FRW
metric [16] results in the limit r(R,t) = a(t)R and f (R) = kR2 where a is the FRW scale factor and k is the curvature
constant. With the help of equations(3)and (5) we get for a matter dominated model
F(R)
ṙ2 = f (R) + (9)
r(n−1)
where F(R) is another arbitrary function of R alone. Thus

dr
t =±  1 (10)
2
f + r(n−1) F

and energy density is given by

nF 
ρ= (11)
2rn r
Thus F(r) behaves as the mass density parameter. A physically realistic model must have positive density everywhere
such that F  > 0. All the expressions reduce to the familiar Tolman-Bondi case when n = 2.
Case I
It is very difficult to find a general solution of the equation (9) but since the WMAP data [17] shows that the universe
is spatially flat to within a few percent we can take f = 0 to get the globally flat solution as
  2
n + 1 (n+1) (n+1) 1 2
r= F (t − a) (n+1) (12)
2
where a is some arbitrary function of R. Hence
  (1−n)  
n+1 (n+1) 1 1−n − 2n
r̈ = F (n+1) (t − a) (n+1) (13)
2 1+n
So   n
r̈ 1 n + 1 n+1
q=− = (n − 1) (14)
r ( ṙr )2 2
Since n ≥ 2 the model is definitely decelerating.
Case II
As is well known that in the 4D spacetime we do not get the solution of the equation(13) in a closed form for
f (R) = 0. At best one gets a parametric form of solutions. But a positive thing in higher dimensional cosmology lies
in the fact that at least in 5D case (n = 3) we get an analytical solution [17]
1
F 2
r = f (t − a)2 − (15)
f

Does inhomogeneous dust distribution in higher dimension drive late acceleration? September 25, 2010 3
In a different context the above equation has been utilised to extensively study the wellknown shell crossing and shell
focussing singularities generally associated with any inhomogeneous collapse (see ref.15 for a through discussion).
However in the realm of accelerating universe we see
 3
F −2
r̈ = −F f (t − a)2 − (16)
f

Thus for deceleration parameter to be negative, F, which is identified as the mass density parameter must be negative.
But equation (11) demands that F  (r) must be positive which in turn demands F(r) ≥ 0. Hence dust dominated
spherically symmetric model even in higher dimension dose not allow acceleration.

3. GENERALISED RAYCHAUDHURI EQUATION

It may not be out of place to address the situation with the help of the well known Raychaudhuri equation[18]. In an
earlier work [19] one of us extended the Ray Chaudhuryi equation, the null congruence condition and also the focussing
theorem to (n +2) dimensions to study how inclusion of extra spatial dimensions alters the possibility of occurrence of
singularities in physically realistic situations. We later applied the generalised equation to specific higher dimensional
cosmological problems. Before writing the generalised equation proper the following definitions in (n+2) dimensions
may be in order
1 α
σμν = v(μ ;ν ) − v̇(μ vν ) − v h (17)
n + 1 ;α μν
ωμν = v[μ ;ν ] − v̇[μ vν ] (18)
and
θ = v;μμ (19)
where σμν , ωμν and θ give the shear tensor, rotation tensor and expansion scalar respectively. It may be noted that
here (μ , ν ) run from zero to (n + 1). With the help of the above definitions we get after a long but straight calculation
the well known Raychaudhuri equation generalised to (n + 2) dimensions as

1
θ,μ vμ = v̇;μμ − 2(σ 2 − ω 2 ) − θ 2 + Rνα vν vα (20)
n+1

In view of Einstein’s equations the last term in the equation (22) may be replaced by, −8π G[Tνα vν vα − 1n T ], where
G is now the (n + 2) dim. gravitation constant. With matter field expressed in terms of mass density, 3D and higher
dimensional pressures the (n + 2) dimensional Raychaudhury equation is finally given by,

1 8π G
θ̇ = −2(σ 2 − ω 2 ) − θ2 − [(n − 1)ρ + 3p + (n − 2)p1 ] (21)
(1 + n) n

in a co moving reference frame. It is conceptually difficult to define a single Hubble parameter for an anisotropic
spacetime. We assume an operational definition such that an effective local Hubble parameter may be given via an
averaged expansion scalar, a
λ
an+1 = e 2 rn (22)
such that the averaged Hubble parameter comes out to be
 
ȧ 1 λ̇ ṙ
H= = +n (23)
a 1+n 2 r

We thus come to an expression of an effective deceleration parameter as

Ḣ + H 2 θ̇
q=− 2
= −1 − (n + 1) 2 (24)
H θ

Does inhomogeneous dust distribution in higher dimension drive late acceleration? September 25, 2010 4
 10

deceleration parameter
10
8 aR1
FRr1 8
6
6 aR1

Σ2
4 FRr1
4
2 n3 n2 2

1 2 3 4 5 2 4 6 8 10
t n

FIGURE 2. Shear scalar vs. t and q vs n

which allows us to write

8π G  
θ 2 q = 2(n + 1)σ 2 + (n + 1) (n − 1)ρ + 3p + (n − 2)pd (25)
n
As we are dealing with a LTB cosmology the fluid is vorticity free and pressure less in 4 as well as higher dimension.
So we finally get for the particular case of generalised LTB model(p = pd = 0)

8π G
θ 2 q = 2(n + 1)σ 2 + (n + 1)(n − 1)ρ (26)
n
As we can see ρ , θ 2 , σ 2 all are positive we can conclude q is positive. So the addition of extra dimensions has no
qualitative impact in determining the signature of the deceleration parameter. Let us analyse the last equation a little
more thoroughly. Here 
1 ∂ √ μ
θ=√ ( −gv ) (27)
−g ∂ xμ
For our metric we get
λ̇ ṙ
θ= +n (28)
2 r
using
r2
eλ = (29)
1 + f (R)
where f (R) is an arbitrary function of R subjected to the restriction 1 + f (R) > 0.

ṙ ṙ
θ= 
+n (30)
r r
considering f = 0, with zero curvature


2 ( FF )(t − a) − a
θ= (31)
(t − a) ( FF )(t − a) − 2a

and 
2
2 2(n + 5) −2 ( FF )(t − a) − a
σ = (t − a)  (32)
(n + 1)2 ( FF )(t − a) − 2a

Thus with zero curvature, the expansion scalar dose not depend on the dimension but falls off as 1/t with time.
But the shear scalar depends on the dimension. It falls off faster as dimension increases. This result seems a little
intriguing but this, in our opinion, is not a general result but a consequence of the particular solution chosen. However
the deceleration parameter increases with the increase in dimension. When we plug in the expressions of all the scalars
we can not get any flip in its signature of the deceleration parameter. Thus we essentially arrive at the same conclusion
of section 2 that dimensionality has no significant contribution in the context of accelerating universe.

Does inhomogeneous dust distribution in higher dimension drive late acceleration? September 25, 2010 5
 4. DISCUSSION
We here primarily work on the quest if presence of higher dimensions in Einstein’s field equations has any role to play
in the context of currently observed late acceleration. After the recent controversy whether inhomogeneity may be a
possible agent for triggering the acceleration and when it was settled that, at least, the simple TB model can not account
for it we have taken a higher dimensional TB model to work out the problem. We also get the same 4D result except
that the magnitude of deceleration parameter increases with the number of dimensions. This finding is not encouraging
in the context of current observational results in this regard. Moreover the findings in the section 2 is also corroborated
via Raychoudhuri equation also. To conclude the section a final remark may be in order. We would like to point out
that the expansion rate of the universe is not a quantity to be directly measurable. One should rather concentrate on the
Luminosity - redshift realtionship probed by the supernova observations. While within the framework of homogeneous
and isotropic model this relation can only be explained if the expansion rate is accelerating, this is not the case for the
inhomogeneous model. The added freedom of a position dependent expansion in LTB models allows one to explain
the data without the need for the expansion to accelerate locally.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
One of us (SC) acknowledges the financial support of UGC, New Delhi in the form of a MRP award as also a
Twas Associateship award, Trieste. SC also thanks Patricio Letelier, IMPEEC, Campinas University, Brasil for local
hospitality and helpful suggestions, where part of the work is done.

REFERENCES
1. A. G. Riess et al, Astron. J. 116, 1009(1998).
2. E. J. Copeland, M. Sami, and S. Tsujikawa, IJMPD 15, 1753(2006).
3. Zong-Kuan Guo, and Y. Z. Zhang, astro-ph / 0506091.
4. D. Panigrahi, and S. Chatterjee, ‘Quintessential phenomena in higher dimensionbal spacetime’, gr-qc / 006.0476v1.
5. A. G. Riess et al, Astrophys. J 607, 665(2004).
6. S. Rasanen , JCAP 11, 0039 (2006).
7. J. F. Pascuel-Sanchez, Mod.Phys. Lett. A14, 1539 (1999).
8. E. W. Kolb, S. Matarrese, A. Notari, and A. Riotto, Preprint hep-th/0503117 (2005).
9. D. L. Wiltshire, Preprint gr.qc/0503009.
10. B. M. N. Carter, B. M. Leith, S. C. C. Ng, A. B. Nielsen, and D. L. Wiltshire, ‘Type IA supernovae Tests of fractal buble
universe with no cosmic acceleration’, astro-ph / 0504192.
11. G. Geshnizjani, D. J. H.Chung, and N. Afshordi, Phys. Rev. D72, 023517(2005).
12. E. R. Siegel, and J. N. Fry, Astrophysics.J. 628, L1(2005).
13. C. M. Hirata, and U. Seljak, Phys. Rev. D72, 083501(2005).
14. H. Alnes, A. Morad, and O. Gron, JCAP 01, 007(2005)
15. A. Banerjee, A. Sil, and S. Chatterjee, Astrophysical J. 422, 681(1994).
16. S. Chatterjee, and B. Bhui, MNRAS 247, 57(1990).
17. J. W. Moffat, Preprint astro- ph./0504004.
18. A. K. Raychaudhuri, Phys. Rev. 98, 1123(2005).
19. A. Banerjee, D. Panigrahi, and S. Chatterjee, J. Math. Phys. 36, 331(1995).

Does inhomogeneous dust distribution in higher dimension drive late acceleration? September 25, 2010 6
A Theoretical Mechanism of Szilard Engine Function in
Nucleic Acids and the Implications for Quantum
Coherence in Biological Systems

F. Matthew Mihelic, MD*

*Lynchburg, Virginia, USA

Abstract. Nucleic acids theoretically possess a Szilard engine function that can convert the energy
associated with the Shannon entropy of molecules for which they have coded recognition, into the useful
work of geometric reconfiguration of the nucleic acid molecule. This function is logically reversible because
its mechanism is literally and physically constructed out of the information necessary to reduce the Shannon
entropy of such molecules, which means that this information exists on both sides of the theoretical engine,
and because information is retained in the geometric degrees of freedom of the nucleic acid molecule, a
quantum gate is formed through which multi-state nucleic acid qubits can interact. Entangled biophotons
emitted as a consequence of symmetry breaking nucleic acid Szilard engine (NASE) function can be used to
coordinate relative positioning of different nucleic acid locations, both within and between cells, thus
providing the potential for quantum coherence of an entire biological system. Theoretical implications of
understanding biological systems as such “quantum adaptive systems” include the potential for multi-agent
based quantum computing, and a better understanding of systemic pathologies such as cancer, as being
related to a loss of systemic quantum coherence.

INTRODUCTION

It has been theorized that quantum decision functions are performed by biological systems, but the
mechanisms of such functions have not been heretofore characterized. Three requirements of quantum
logic functions are superposition of information, a quantum gate, and quantum entanglement, and these
three elements theoretically exist in the nucleic acids of biological systems to effect logical decision
functions that decrease entropy and provide for system coherence.

ENTROPY

Claude Shannon’s theory of information views data to be high in entropy, while the conduit that
carries the data is considered to be low in entropy [1]. A molecule that is traveling through the conduit of
intracellular or extracellular fluid could thus be considered to be data that is high in entropy. That entropic
data molecule might be “recognized” by a congruently matched cellular recognition instrument (e.g.
binding protein), and with that recognition and consequent binding, the entropy of the data molecule could
then be transferred to the recognition instrument, and that recognition instrument (or binding protein) could
then be considered to be an entropic data molecule in its own right. That recognition instrument (which is
now an entropic data molecule in its own right) could then encounter and bind with an appropriate portion
of nucleic acid source code and transfer that entropy to the nucleic acid.
 If that data molecule/recognition instrument were to encounter a congruently matched section of a
nucleic acid molecule, it could then bind to that section in a manner analogous to atoms or molecules fitting
into a crystalline lattice. The entropy of the data molecule would then become shared within the entire
complex consisting of the nucleic acid and the data molecule. In Leo Szilard’s interpretation of the
“Maxwell’s demon” thought experiment, entropy can be transformed into useful work by a homunculus
inside the mechanism of a theoretical machine that uses information about a particle in motion to convert
the particle’s “microscopic” entropic particular motion into the mechanical movement of a piston [2]. The
essence of such a “Szilard engine” is that information can be used to convert the energy associated with
entropy into useful work at a “microscopic” level, and according to Rolf Landauer all information is
physical [3], and so a nucleic acid might be seen as being such a “Szilard engine” that is literally and
physically built out of information. In effect this puts the homunculus of the “Szilard engine” both inside
and outside the machine at the same time, and this puts the information on both sides of the theoretical
machine as well. It would also follow from this that the function of such a “nucleic acid Szilard engine”
would be logically reversible if the information from the data molecule could be retained in the mechanical
degrees of freedom of the geometric configuration of the nucleic acid molecule.
Leo Szilard had theorized a mechanism by which information can be used to harness entropy to do
useful work at a “microscopic” level, and a nucleic acid could theoretically operate as such a “Szilard
engine” to transform the entropy of the molecular data that it recognizes (i.e. is coded for) into the useful
work of geometric reconfiguration (within the mechanical degrees of freedom) of the nucleic acid
molecule, because it is physically constructed out of the information necessary to reduce the entropy of the
data that it encounters. Environmental interactions could thus bring about a geometric reconfiguration of a
nucleic acid if that nucleic acid recognizes what it is interacting with, through encoding of such recognition
in the nucleic acid sequence. Such a “nucleic acid Szilard engine” (NASE) thus functions to reconfigure a
nucleic acid in response to environmental interaction, as per coded recognition of the environmental
stimulus (e.g. entropic data molecule).

QUANTUM ENTANGLEMENT

Photons are known to be both emitted and absorbed by nucleic acids, and there is a mandatory
emission of photons during a quantum search [4]. Because the function of the NASE essentially effects a
quantum measurement or search, there would necessarily be such a mandatory photon emission in such a
symmetry breaking event. Entangled photons thus generated could coordinate relative geometric
reconfiguration between nucleic acid segment locations through coherent signaling from between
segments, as a response to “recognition” of a piece of molecular data by a particular congruent nucleic acid
segment. Quantum information could thus be retained in the geometric configuration of the nucleic acid
source code. Signaling and relative geometric reconfiguration between nucleic acid positions could occur
within (or between) a cell’s nucleic acid(s), or between the nucleic acids of two different cells within the
same system. This quantum information is the dynamic information through which the NASE mechanism
ensures that the relative nucleic acid geometric reconfiguration only takes place via energy transfer
between states entangled with the system.

QUANTUM GATE

The “nucleic acid Szilard engine” (NASE) function of a nucleic acid allows for geometric
reconfiguration of a nucleic acid molecule in response to the transfer of information entropy from a data
molecule (potentially through a recognition instrument, e.g. binding protein) to the nucleic acid. The
entropy from the data molecule is converted into useful work and is thus lowered (with respect to the
source code of the system) in a manner analogous to a catalyst lowering entropy in a chemical reaction.
Parrando said that any Szilard engine function is a symmetry break, so NASE function could be considered
to be the “symmetry breaking” result of a “measurement” constituting a quantum decision in a quantum
search [5].
 The mechanism of the NASE is logically reversible because the information from the data
molecule is retained in the mechanical degrees of freedom of nucleic acid geometric configuration, and as
such can constitute a quantum gate through which two qubits can connect, and which can then be used to
perform quantum logic. A qubit can be considered to be anything that is “multi-state” or has superimposed
information (e.g. a multi-dimensional source code), and so two agents (e.g. cells) containing multi-state
geometrically reconfigurable source codes (e.g. DNA) can interact at the level of their source codes via a
quantum gate (e.g. NASE) to lower entropy and thus perform quantum logic. The nucleic acid molecule
can thus be seen as providing superimposed information as qubits consisting of the geometric configuration
of the molecule, and also as providing the quantum gate consisting of the NASE mechanism.

QUANTUM COHERENCE

The coherent energy transfer for relative geometric reconfiguration of nucleic acid source code
takes place through a theoretical quantum gate provided by the NASE mechanism, and it is through such a
quantum gate that quantum logic, and consequently a quantum search, can be performed. There is
significant indication that biophotons can affect cells other than the one from which they originate [6] [7],
and so this would imply the potential for quantum coherence of a biological system that is based upon each
cell having a different geometric configuration of an identical linear DNA source code, and in which the
entirety of such a system would consequently be available for quantum search via entangled biophotons.

THEORETICAL IMPLICATIONS

Schrödinger had theorized that quantum mechanical processes are an essential component of a
definition of “life”, and that the adaptive processes necessary for “life” involve “quantum leaps” of
electrons between energy states within the covalent chemical bonds of the “aperiodic crystal” that carries
the genetic information of a biological system [8]. The coherent stability of such an “aperiodic crystal”
was found in DNA, and the NASE provides a mechanism by which a nucleic acid can act as an
information-carrying catalyst to lower the entropy of a system in such a manner that in effect allows data to
“crystallize” around it. This provides insight into how the conscious observer can cause the “collapse of
the wave function” through the nucleic acid Szilard engine’s symmetry breaking measurement or quantum
decision. A measurement is a comparison to a source code (e.g. DNA or RNA), and it is such a
measurement that can provide a molecular representation of the objective physical world to the subjective
mind as the nucleic acid location, and the moment, of the demarcation (or “schnitt”) between what von
Neumann referred to as “psycho-physical parallelism” [9].
With this understanding of the nucleic acid basis of the quantum coherence of biological systems,
what have previously been thought of as biological “complex adaptive systems” can now be better
understood as “quantum adaptive systems”. Such theoretical conceptualization can be envisioned to lead to
new “disruptive” technologies. For instance, multi-agent quantum computing based upon molecular
geometric conformational changes can be thought of as a more viable design for quantum computing, than
one that is based upon fleeting artificial stabilization of the coherence of subatomic particles. Also, a better
understanding of cancer as a loss of systemic quantum coherence should lead to new efficacious therapies.

CONCLUSION

Nucleic acids theoretically possess a Szilard engine function that can convert the energy
associated with the Shannon entropy of molecules for which they have coded recognition, into the useful
work of geometric reconfiguration. Such a mechanism is logically reversible because it is physically
constructed out of the information necessary to reduce such entropy, and because information is retained in
the geometric degrees of freedom of the nucleic acid molecule a quantum gate is formed through which
multi-state nucleic acid qubits can interact. Entangled biophotons emitted as a consequence of symmetry
breaking Szilard engine function can be used to coordinate relative positioning of different nucleic acid
locations, both within and between cells, thus providing the potential for quantum coherence of a biological
system.
The nucleic acid Szilard engine (NASE) model of quantum coherence in biological systems is
consistent with Schrödinger’s predictions of biological quantum coherence carried through the genetic
material of the cell nucleus, and it provides explanation of the observer effect in the double slit experiment
that is consistent with von Neumann’s “psycho-physical parallelism”. This model reveals the basic
mechanism of the quantum complexity of biological systems, and can form the basis of new directions in
quantum computing and evaluation of complex systemic pathologies.

REFERENCES

1. Shannon, C.E. “A mathematical theory of communication”, The Bell System Technical Journal, 27, (1948) pp. 379-
423, 623-656.
2. Szilard, L. “Über die Entropieverminderung in einem thermodynamischen System bei Eingriffen intelligenter
Wesen“, Journal Zeitschrift für Physik, 53, (1929) pp. 840-856; English translation “On the decrease of entropy in a
thermodynamic system by the intervention of intelligent beings” in Behavioral Science, 9:4, (1964) pp. 301-3103.
R. T. Wang, “Title of Chapter,” in Classic Physiques, edited by R. B. Hamil, Publisher, New York, 2002, pp. 212-
213.
3. Landauer, R. “Irreversibility and heat generation in the computing process“, IBM Journal of Research and
Development, 5:3, (1961) pp. 183-191.
4. Bajpai, R.P. “Biophoton and the Quantum Vision of Life” in What Is Life? Scientific Approaches and Philosophical
Positions edited by H.P. Durr, F.A. Popp, and W. Schommers, (World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd.,
Singapore, 2002) p. 325.
5. Parrando, J.M.R. “The Szilard engine revisited: Entropy, macroscopic randomness, and symmetry breaking phase
transitions”, Chaos, 11:3, (2001) pp. 725-733.
6. Popp, F.A. “About the Coherence of Biophotons”, Macroscopic Quantum Coherence, Proceedings of an
International Conference on the Boston University, edited by Boston University and MIT, World Scientific 1999.
7. VanWijk, R. “Bio-photons and Bio-communication”, Journal of Scientific Exploration, 15:2, (2001) pp. 183–197.
8. Schrödinger, E.R. What Is Life? The Physical Aspect of the Living Cell. Cambridge University Press, 1944.
9. Von Neumann, J. Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics. Princeton University Press, 1955.
 The Space-Time Continuum as a Transversely Isotropic
Material and the Meaning of the Temporal Coordinate
C. I. Christov
Dept. of Mathematics, University of Louisiana at Lafayette, LA 70504-1010, USA

Abstract. A transversely isotropic elastic continuum is considered in four dimensions, three of which are isotropic, and the
properties of the material change only related to the fourth dimension. The model employs two dilational and three shear
Lamé coefficients. The isotropic dilational coefficient is assumed to be much larger than the second dilational coefficient,
and the three shear coefficients. This amounts to a material that is virtually incompressible in the three isotropic dimensions.
The first and third shear coefficients are positive, while the second shear coefficient is assumed to be negative. As a result,
in the equations of elastic equilibrium, the second derivatives of the displacement with respect to the fourth coordinate enter
with negative sign. This makes the equations hyperbolic, with a fourth dimension opposing to the other three. The hyperbolic
nature of the fourth dimension allows to be interpreted as time.
Keywords: Theory of time, Transversely isotropic elasticity, Negative shear Lamé coefficient.
PACS: 01.55.+b,03.50.-z,04.40.Nr, 46.25.Cc

INTRODUCTION
An important trait of the equations of electrodynamics and elasticity in the absence of dissipation is that when
linearized they lead to hyperbolic (wave) equations. The most important trait of the wave equation is that it is
hyperbolic, namely the second time derivative is “in opposition" to the second spatial derivatives, in the sense that
they are on different sides of the equality sign in the equation. The similarity between time and space (both of them
entering via second derivatives) is too conspicuous to be overlooked, but there remains an important difference: if
all of the derivatives are lined together at the same side of the equality sign, the second time derivative has the sign
opposite to the others. The idea to assume that time is just an imaginary pseudo-spatial variable is very intriguing.
This is the idea behind the Einstein–Minkowski space-time and it has proven to lead to many quantitively adequate
predictions, mostly stemming from the Lorentz Transformation (LT). The LT etched in stone the idea that time and
space are interdependent, and this spawned what is known now as the Relativity Theory, the latter being considered to
be the crown jewel of the Modern Physics of the 20th and 21st Centuries. Letting the product it denote the fourth spatial
variable, allows one to have a plethora of invariant formulations in the linear case. However, since its very introduction
the concept of space-time with one imaginary coordinate has struggled to attribute a clear physical meaning to the
imaginary.
The relativity theory is riddled by internal logical paradoxes (see, e.g. [1, 2]), and most of the quantitative predictions
show agreement with the experiments because of the fact that the LT emulates some of the convective terms in the
convective time derivative that are not present in the linear governing equations of electrodynamics (see [3]). The
present author suggested that space itself is a material manifold called the metacontinuum, and that what is perceived
as particles and charges are localized deformations of the manifold. Assuming that the metacontinuum is an elastic
liquid, allowed the author to derive Maxwell’s equations as rigorous corollaries from the governing equations of the
elastic liquid under consideration [3]. The important new element of the unification of electrodynamics provided by the
metacontinuum conjecture is that the laws of motional electrodynamics: Biot–Savart, Ampere–Oerstead, and Lorentz-
force laws are integral parts of the model: they are related to the inertial effects in the metacontinuum. Assuming
that the metacontinuum is a thin layer in the 4D space (a hypershell) brings into play the equation for the amplitude
of the flexural deformations of the shell. This ‘master’ equation of the wave mechanics is nonlinear dispersive wave
equation whose linear part is equivalent to the Shrödinger equation if written for the real (or imaginary) part of the
wave function [4]. Considering the neutral particles as the solitons of the master wave equation explains the gravitation
as the membrane tension, and the particle-wave dualism, as a natural property of the nonlinear localized flexural waves.
The success in unifying the electromagnetism, gravitation, and wave mechanics render a strong support for the
notion that space is a material manifold, i.e., the laws of continuum mechanics govern all the processes in it. It seems
important to investigate if the peculiar nature of the time variable may also be the result of the rheological properties
of the metacontinuum. In the present short note we examine the possibility that the opposing nature of the time stems
from the fact that we are faced with a transversely isotropic elastic continuum (see, e.g.[5], [6, §5.4], for definition),
for which the three spatial direction are the isotropic ones, and along the fourth direction, the shear elastic modulus is
different (actually with the opposite sign to the isotropic directions). In order to outline the main idea, we begin with an
elastic body, not an elastic liquid. As shown in the cited authors works, the only difference is that in the case of a body,
it is impossible to have stationary magnetic fields. If the new concept shows some promise, it will be straightforward
afterwards to reformulate it for elastic liquids.

THE EQUATIONS OF ELASTIC EQUILIBRIUM

Consider a four-dimensional elastic continuum. We limit our scope to the case of a linear elasticity, when the referential
description and the current configuration coincide. In order not to overload the presentation, we consider Cartesian
coordinates. The first three coordinates x1 , x2 , x3 are in the three dimensional subspace where the material is isotropic,
while x4 refers to the selected direction in which the material loses its isotropy. Let ∇ := (∇, ∂x4 ) ≡ (∇, ∂4 ) stand the
four dimensional gradient vector, while the notation ∇ := (∂x1 , ∂x2 , ∂x3 ) ≡ (∂1 , ∂2 , ∂3 ) is kept for the three dimensional
gradient.
Regardless of the fact that we restricted ourselves to Cartesian coordinates, we will retain in the notations the
contravariant and covariant nature of the different variables, which allows us to use the ubiquitous convention: if an
index appears both as contravariant and covariant in a specific formula, summation is presumed.
Now, the different contravariant components of the four dimensional stress tensor S as given by
 
σ i j Si4
S= , i, j = 1, 2, 3, (1)
S4 j S44
where σ is the three-dimensional Cauchy tensor.
The Cauchy balance for the four dimensional material ∇ · S = 0 can be expressed in the adopted notation as follows
∂xi σ i j + ∂x4 S4 j = 0, j = 1, 2, 3,
4j 44
(2)
∂x j S + ∂ x 4 S = 0.

TRANSVERSELY ISOTROPIC MATERIAL IN FOUR DIMENSIONS

In this work, we consider a material whose response to shear stresses is transversely isotropic. Since the material
manifold has four dimensions, three of which are isotropic (indistinguishable in the rheological sense), we introduce
the pertinent notations which distinguish between the two groups of coordinates. Let u := (u1 , u2 , u3 ) denote the
three dimensional part of the displacement vector. Respectively, u := (uu, u4 ) ≡ (u1 , u2 , u3 , u4 ) stands for the full four
dimensional displacement vector. Clearly, ∇u is a 4 × 4 matrix, while ∇uu is a 3 × 3 matrix. Then
   
∇uu ∂x4 u ∂xi u j ∂x4 u j
∇u := ≡ , (3)
∇u4 ∂x4 u4 ∂xi u4 ∂x4 u4
 
(∇uu)T ∇u4
(∇u) :=
T
, (4)
∂x4 u T ∂x4 u4
∇ ·u := ∇ · u + ∂x4 u4 ≡ ∂xi ui + ∂x4 u4 , (5)
are the gradient, transposed gradient, and the divergence of the displacement vector u.
The constitutive relationship with the proper symmetry reads
∂ u4
σ = [(λ1 ∇ · u ) + λ2 ]I + η1 · (∇uu + ∇uuT ), (6a)
∂ x4
Si4 = S4i = η2 [∇u4 + ∂x4 u ], (6b)
44 4
S = 2η3 ∂x4 u . (6c)
One sees that any change of the coordinate axes in the isotropic dimensions do not change the 3D part of the constitutive
relations. Similarly, the fourth dimension is “felt” through the derivative ∂x4 and the scalar u4 (the fourth component
of the displacement vector), hence the respective terms are also invariant due to the scalar nature of this variable.
The above formulation shows that, similarly to the 3D case, one has merely five distinct coefficients in the
constitutive relation if the material is presumed to be transversely isotropic. In this instance, the formulation presented
here is much more concise than the engineering formulation (see, e.g. [6]). Apart from its actual relevance to the notion
of time, our derivation is novel, and clarifies the way the transversally isotropic materials can be modeled.
Consequently, introducing Eqs. (6) in the Eqs. (2) we get

∂ 2u ∂ u4
η1 ∇2 u + η2 + (λ1 + 2η1 )∇(∇ · u ) + (λ2 + η2 )∇ 4 = 0, (7a)
∂ (x )
4 2 ∂x
∂ 2 u4
η2 (∇2 u4 + ∂x4 ∇ · u ) + 2η3 = 0. (7b)
∂ (x4 )2

In our previous works (see the literature cited in [3]), we have shown that the metacontinuum behaves as virtually
incompressible medium, i.e., the dilational Lamé coefficient (connected to dilational elasticity modulus) is much larger
than the shear Lamé coefficient (the latter being related to the speed of light). In the above notation this is expressed as
λ1  η1 . We make the natural assumption that λ1  max{η1 , η2 , η3 }. In such a case, a perturbation approach can be
developed in the same vein as in the 3D case, and the Eqs (7) can be reduced in the first order of the small parameter
ε = max{η1 , η2 , η3 }/λ to the following

∂ 2u
−η2 = η1 ∇2 u + ∇φ , (8a)
∂ (x4 )2
∂ 2 u4
−2η3 = η2 (∇2 u4 + ∂x4 ∇ · u ), (8b)
∂ (x4 )2
∂ u4
∇(∇ · u ) = −α∇ ,
∂ x4
where α = (λ2 + η2 )/(λ1 + 2η1 ). The above equations contain the potential φ which has the meaning of pres-
sure/tension that varies in the continuum to make the displacement field satisfy the last equation which is the continuity
equation for the continuum. The latter cane be integrated once with respect to the spatial variables to obtain:

∂ u4
∇ · u = −α + f (x4 ), (8c)
∂ x4
where the integration “constant” f is an arbitrary function of the fourth variable. In the absence of boundary condition
it can be taken to be a true constant, which actually represents the density of the four dimensional continuum..

RELEVANCE TO THE NOTION OF TIME

Now, concerning the shear Lam’e coefficients, it has been established that η1 is related to the electric permittivity (see
[3] and the literature cited therein).
 Let us consider a transversely isotropic continuum with η2 < 0 and introduce a
new independent variable t = |η2 |x4 . The Eq. (8a) can be rewritten as

∂ 2u
= η1 ∇2 u + ∇φ , (9a)
∂t 2
which is nothing else, but the momentum equations for an incompressible elastic continuum. Here, we can already
obtain a self-contained model, if we assume that α  1. Then Eq. (8b) splits from the rest of the equations, while
Eq. (8c) reduces to
∇ · u = f (t), (9b)
which is nothing else, but the continuity equation for incompressible linear elastic continuum for f (t) = const. The
case f = const describes an incompressible but not isochoric motion, i.e., the divergence of the displacement field is
not influenced by the pressure, but can still vary with time (fourth dimension). In a sense, this can be interpreted as
continuum that expands or shrinks due to external reasons, not included in the 3D governing equations. The rationale
for taking α  1 is that the Maxwell equations can be derived in their well established form only if the 3D part of
the metacontinuum is incompressible (see [3] for details) regardless to the presence of the fourth dimension. This can
only happen if λ2  λ1 , otherwise, the derivative of the fourth component of the displacement will act in Eq. (8c) as
a source term couple to the main equation. Thus, if a transversely isotropic elastic medium is considered as the model
of the material manifold, then one can recover the linear elasticity in the three isotropic (spatial) dimension with the
forth dimension (for which the shear Lamé coefficient is negative) playing the role of opposing (hyperbolic) dimension
whose effect is perceived as temporal dimension.

THE CASE OF 4D INCOMPRESSIBILITY

When α  O(1), Eq. (8c) gives a four dimensional incompressibility, which means that the three dimensional part
of the motion is not necessarily isochoric. The interpretation is that the deformation ∂4 u4 in the fourth dimension
can influence the motion in the three isotropic (spatial) dimensions acting as a “source” for the 3D motions. Now,
introducing Eq. (8c) into Eq. (8b) gives

∂ 2 u4
(−2η3 + αη2 ) = η2 ∇2 u4 (10)
∂ (x4 )2

We observe that the third shear coefficient η3 is present in the left-hand side, while η2 appears in the right-hand
side. This requires choosing its sign: positive or negative. This issue calls for a judicious weighing of the different
arguments: the different choices can yield qualitatively different models. In this first attempt, we begin with the model
in which η3 has the same sign as η1 , i.e., it is positive. Then, recalling the definition of the variable t, we get

∂ 2 u4 η22
= β ∇2 u4 , β := > 0, (11)
∂t 2 2η3 − αη2
which is a wave equation, i.e. it describes evolution with the fourth variable. Note that the speed
 of propagation of
√
linear wave in the 3D momentum equations (9a) is η1 , while the speed for the last equation is β .
Now, if β < 0 the last equation is elliptic, which is a kind of non-causal model. The effect of the ellipticity of
the model will result in some kind of “entanglement” or synchronicity of events separated by large intervals of time
or large distances in space. At this stage there is not enough information in order to embark on a the quantitative
development of such kind of a model.

CONCLUSIONS
The derivations presented here suffice to claim that the model of a transversely isotropic elastic continuum with one
negative shear Lamé coefficient can explain the presence of a hyperbolic coordinate (the second derivatives with
respect to which enter the equations with the opposite sign). This is a viable alternative to the Minkowski-space
concept, in which the fourth coordinate is assumed to be imaginary in order to explain its “opposing” nature.

REFERENCES
1. L. Brillouin, Relativity Reexamined, Academic Press, New York, 1970.
2. P. Hayes, Social Epistemology 25, 75–78 (2009).
3. C. I. Christov, Nonlinear Analysis 71, e2028–e2044 (2009).
4. C. I. Christov, Math. Comp. Simul. 80, 91–101 (2009).
5. J. E. Adkins, Arch. Rational Mech. Anal 4, 193–213 (1959).
6. A. E. Green, and W. Zerna, Theoretical Elasticity, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1968.
 Causal Analysis of the Quantum States
Sergey M. Korotaev and Evgeniy O. Kiktenko

Geoelectromagnetic Research Centre of Schmidt Institute of Physics of the Earth, Russian Academy of Sci-
ences, P.O. 30 Troitsk, Moscow Region 142190, Russia

Abstract. We suggest quantum generalization of the method of causal analysis used before only for the classical
variables. The causality parameters for the series of examples of two-qubit entangled states are computed. The
results are compared with the concurrence and degree of mixedness of the states. The role of state asymmetry in
quantum information transfer is shown. For the qubits under nonuniformity external magnetic field the nontrivial
role of this nonuniformity for subsystem causal connection has been studied. At last quantum causal analysis
helps to understand Cramer principle of week causality which admits extraction of information from the future
without the classical paradoxes.
Keywords: causality, entanglement, information, time
PACS: 03.65.Ud, 03.67.Mn

INTRODUCTION

In spite of the fact, that principle of causality is widely used in physics, it does not mean more than retar-
dation of the effect relative to the cause. However the retardation is necessary but not sufficient condition of
the causal connection (“Post hoc non est propter hoc”). But what is a cause and what is an effect remains
formally indefinite. Meanwhile in the simple situations we usually well realize what is a cause and what is
an effect, not measuring a retardation, but only implicating it (e.g. without any measurement of the retarda-
tion, it is obvious causal-effect relation of the current in the lamp and photocell circuits). In the complicated
situations, in the systems with feedbacks, usual intuitive understanding of causality may lead to the confu-
sions, and hence the desirability of its formalization is obvious. The fact that in the simple situation location
of the causes and effects is clear without retardation measuring indicates that these conceptions are asym-
metrical in themselves. The problem is to define this asymmetry formally and not invoking the time relation,
which has to be introduced after the definition as an axiom. From the solution of this problem originally
directed to formalization of Kozyrev’s causal mechanics [1], the method of causal analysis was born [2],
turned out to be useful in various classical applications (e.g. [3-17]). It was found fruitful in the construction
of the models of complicated systems with feedbacks by experimental data, as well as in the estimation of
the influence of noise-forming impacts in the real open systems.
This work is devoted to development of analogous approach to quantum mechanics, where solving of the
similar problems seems no less burning. This is especially true in regard to quantum nonlocality, which
since its discovery has been attracting attention above of all by unusualness of quantum correlations from
the viewpoint of principle of causality. It is assumed that quantum correlations realize instantaneously, but
since for the communication purposes one has to use an ancillary classical channel, the violation of causality
becomes experimentally unverifiable. The implementation of causal analysis has to give the possibility to
investigate this situation by the strict and universal way. At last the implementation of causal analysis is
burning for solving of the concrete questions of quantum information (the most neatly formulated in [18])
concerning peculiarities of behavior of the asymmetrical entangled states.
 In Sec. II the short review of the kernel of classical causal analysis formalism is presented. In Sec. III the
extension of causal analysis to the quantum variables is considered. In Sec. IV application of causal analysis
is demo nstrated to the symmetrical states, where causality is absent, but nevertheless the quantitative charac-
teristics of the mixed states can be obtained. Sec. V is dedicated to the analysis of asymmetrical mixed states
examples of increasing complexity, beginning with the illustrative obtaining of causality measure and end-
ing with the nontrivial conclusions about causal connection nature depending on the external magnetic field
and temperature. The general results are summarized in Sec. VI.

CLASSICAL CAUSAL ANALYSIS

Consider the classical variables A and B describing the respective subsystems of the bipartite system AB,
their Shannon marginal and conditional entropies:

J
S ( A) = − ∑ P ( Aj )log2 P( Aj ),
j =1
(1)
K
S( B ) = − ∑ P( Bk )log 2 P( Bk ),
k =1

K J
S( A | B) = −∑ P( Bk ) ∑ P ( Aj | Bk )log2 P( Aj | Bk ),
k =1 j =1
J K
2)
S( B | A) = −∑ P( A j ) ∑ P( Bk | A j )log2 P( Bk | A j ),
j =1 k =1

where P( A j ), P( Bk ) are the probabilities of j -th ( k -th) levels of A and B respectively;

P( A j | Bk ), P ( Bk | Aj ) are the respective conditional probabilities. Define the following parameters: the
marginal α and conditional β asymmetries:

S (B ) S ( B | A)
α= , 0 ≤ α ≤ ∞; β = , 0 ≤ β ≤ ∞; (3)
S ( A) S(A | B)

and the independence functions:

S( B | A) S(A | B)
iB| A = , iA| B = , 0 ≤ i ≤ 1. (4)
S( B) S ( A)

Meaning of the independence functions is enough transparent: at iB| A = 1 , B is independent of A , at

iB| A = 0 , B is one-valued function of A . In other words, the values 1– i determine the unilateral depend-
ences of the variables. The direct and inversed independences must coincide only in the limiting case:
iB| A = 1 ⇔ iA|B = 1 .
Next introduce the causality function γ :
 iB| A
γ= ,0 ≤ γ ≤ ∞ (5)
iA|B

The name is derived from the particular values of γ . γ = 0 : B is the one-valued function of A , but not the
reverse. It is possible to interpret that as the utmost irreversible process A ⇒ B . γ = 1 : A and B to the
same extent depend on one another, that is naturally to identify with absence of causality. γ = ∞ : A is one –
valued function of B , but not the reverse. It is possible to interpret that is the utmost irreversible proc-
ess B ⇒ A .
Consider the space of parameters α , β , iB| A ( γ = β / α is equivalent to (5)) displayed in Fig.1. In this
space it is possible to obtain the classification of any type of dependence of B on A . Every type is imaged
by a point. Analyzing the limiting cases and using the reversibility of information:

I = S ( B ) − S ( B | A) = S ( A) − S( A | B), (6)

FIGURE 1. Classical entropic diagram (IC is normal causality, IIC is inversed causality, dotted line is the B -constant
line, thick solid line is the one-valued function line, fine dashed line is the independence line, thick dashed line is the
adiabat, circle is the mutually one-valued function point).

it is easily to prove, that the forbidden regions are: (i) the subspace α < 1, γ ≥ 1 ; (ii) the subspace
α > 1, γ ≤ 1 ; (iii) the plane β = 1 except the line of intersection with the plane α = 1 ; (iv) the plane α = 1
except the line of intersection with the plane β = 1 and except the line of intersection with the plane iB| A = 0 ;
(v) the plane β = 0 except the axis segment α [ 0,1] and axis iB| A ; (vi) the plane α = 0 except the axis iB| A ;
(vii) the plane iB| A = 0 except the line α = 1 and axis segment α [ 0,1] ; (viii) the plane iB| A = 1 ; except the
line γ = 1 ; (ix) the plane γ = 1 , except the axis iB| A , line iB| A = 1 and line α = β = 1 .
In the allowed space it is possible to separate out, on parameter meaning grounds, the following regions:
- Subspace of normal causality: γ < 1, β < 1, α < 1 .
- Subspace of inversed causality: γ > 1, β > 1, α > 1 .
- B -constant line: B = const independently of A .
- One-valued function line: iB| A = 0, β = 0,0 < α < 1 . Here S( B | A) = 0 , i.e. B is fully determined by A ,
but not reverse.
- Independence line: iB| A = 1, γ = 1 .
- Mutually one-valued function point: ( iB| A = 0, α = β = 1 ). Here S( B| A) = S ( A | B ) = 0 .
- Adiabat: α = β = 1 , that corresponds to the isentropic process.
It is sufficiently for the formal definition of classical causality.
Definition 1. The cause A and the effect B are variables for which γ < 1 .
Analyzing meaning of γ it is not difficult to see that our definition includes usual intuitive understand-
ing of causality (at least with an eye physicist’s intuition). Indeed, if we say that A is the cause and B is the
effect, we keep in mind fully or partly determined dependence of B on A , such that inversed dependence is
absent. Our definition allows refining: the inversed dependence is less than direct one and how much. The
causeless functional and statistical dependences are also known. We neatly fix this class: γ = 1 . If, having
studied statistics of the arbitrary denoted variables A and B , we find γ > 1 , it simply means that B is the
cause and A is the effect. Besides full formality, our definition has an obvious advantage of the quantitative
measure over common used the qualitative one. On theoretical and multiplicity of experimental examples of
the classical problems (e.g. [3-12]) it had been shown that such formal definition of causality did not contra-
dict its intuitive understanding in the simple situations and could be used in the complicated ones.
Our definition allows formulation of the axiom of classical causality as follows:

γ < 1 ⇒ τ > 0, γ > 1 ⇒τ < 0, γ → 1 ⇒τ → 0, (7)

where t is time shift of B relative to A .

Note, that γ < 1 ⇒ α < 1, γ > 1 ⇒ α > 1 , (the reversed is wrong, that is why α can not be used for the
definition of causality). This necessary condition is a manifestation of 7-th Shannon theorem [19] on de-
crease of the entropies from a channel input A( B) to its output B( A) .
Consider an elementary cause-effect link from information exchange standpoint. According to the theo-
rem about noisy channel capacity, the upper limit of information reception rate in B from A is:

1 S ( B ) − S ( B | A)
supυA→ B = , (8)
δt S ( B)

where δ t is duration of an elementary signal, the numerator is maximized by variation of the A distribu-
tions. Replacing the rate (8) by the lower limit of time and using (4), we have:

δt
inf t A→B = (9)
1 − iB| A

In a like manner for the reversed transfer:

δt
inf tB →A = (10)
1 − iA|B

By the condition γ < 1 ⇔ 1 − iB| A > 1 − iA| B ⇔ tA→ B < tB→ A . The finite difference of times (10) and (9) means
that in any time lapse the effect obtains from the cause more information than the cause does from the effect.
Information excess in the effect means the irreversibility of information flow. Than time of information ex-
cess reception Δt is:
 1 1
Δt = δ t ( − ) (11)
1 − iA| B 1 − iB| A

Supposing that the subsystem A and B are separaed by some finite effective distance Δr, one can deter-
mine the linear velocity of irreversible information flow c2 = Δr / Δt (the notation follows the tradition of
Ref.[2], where originally, although in less rigorous terms, the course of time pseudoscalar c2 of the same
meaning was introduced):

(1 − iA| B )(1 − iB| A) (1 − iB| A / γ )(1 − iB| A )

c2 = k =k (12)
iA| B − iB| A iB| A (1/ γ − 1)

where k = Δr / δ t . It is easy to see that the sign of c2 is mutually one-valued related with the value of γ
relative to 1:

γ < 1 ⇔ c2 > 0, γ > 1 ⇔ c2 < 0, γ → 1 ⇔ c2 →±∞ , (13)

therefore it is possible to replace γ by c2 in the causality definition and axiom.

The causal analysis apparatus has been generalized to the causal network in the multipartite system [7].
The influence of the different kinds of noise-forming impacts from the non-controlled environment on all the
parameters ( α , β , iB| A , iA|B ,γ ), the possibilities of other classical entropy definitions different from Shannon
one as well as the foliated spaces of the probability definition have been analyzed [12]. The method has been
tested on the problems of classical electrodynamics [3-6] and on data of various classical experiments (e.g.
[4-12]).

QUANTUM QAUSAL ANALYSIS

For the quantum variables von Neumann entropy is used. We have instead of Eqs. (1) and (2):

S( A) = − Tr ρ A log2 ρ A , S ( B) = − Tr ρ B log2 ρ B , (14)

S( B| A) = S ( AB ) − S ( A), S( A | B ) = S( AB) − S ( B ), (15)

where ρ A = TrB ρ AB , ρ B = TrA ρ AB , S( AB ) = − Tr ρ AB log 2 ρ AB . Note, that although the conditional entropies
can be in principle directly calculated through the conditional entropies by analogy with Eqs. (2) [20], prac-
tically it is simple to calculate them indirectly according to Eqs. (15).
For the entangled states the conditional entropies can be negative [20, 21]. Therefore
−∞≤ β ≤ ∞, − 1 ≤ i ≤ 1, − ∞ ≤ γ ≤ ∞ . In particular, for the bipartite states from Schmidt decomposition it is
follows α = 1, β =1, γ = 1, iB| A = iA| B = −1. The entropic diagram is extended (Fig. 2). Besides the two classi-
cal subspaces C the four quantum ones Q are allowed:
I C 0 ≤ α ≤ 1, 0 ≤ β ≤ 1, 0 ≤ iB| A ≤ 1, 0 ≤ γ ≤ 1, c2 > 0;
II C 1 ≤ α ≤ ∞ , 1 ≤ β ≤ ∞, 0 ≤ iB| A ≤ 1, 1 ≤ γ ≤ ∞, , c2 < 0;
IQ 0 ≤ α ≤ 1, 1 ≤ β ≤ ∞ , −1 ≤ iB| A ≤ 0, 1 ≤ γ ≤ ∞, c2 > 0;
IIQ 1 ≤ α ≤ ∞ , 0 ≤ β ≤ 1, −1 ≤ iB| A ≤ 0, 0 ≤ γ ≤ 1, c2 < 0;
IIIQ 0 ≤ α ≤ 1, −∞≤ β ≤ 0, −1 ≤ iB| A ≤ 0, −∞≤ γ ≤ 0, c2 > 0;
IVQ 1 ≤ α ≤ ∞ , −∞≤ β ≤ 0, 0 ≤ iB| A ≤ 1, −∞≤ γ ≤ 0, c2 < 0.

FIGURE 2. Quantum entropic diagram.

FIGURE 3. The allowed subspaces in the sections iB | A = const : (a) the subspaces IC, IIC and IVQ; (b) the subspaces
IQ, IIQ and IIIQ.

However in the 3D diagram of Fig.2 it is difficult to show the demarcation of the allowed subspaces. For
their indication invoke the fact that the independence function iB| A can be represented as follows:

β (α − 1)
iB| A = (16)
α ( β − 1)

In the subspaces IC, IIC and IVQ 0 ≤ iB| A ≤ 1 , that according to Eq. (16), brings to the system of two ine-
qualities with respect to α , β . Their solutions in the form of sections iB| A = const are presented in Fig.3a.
The allowed subspaces are adjacent to the border planes. In the subspaces IQ, IIQ and IVQ − 1 ≤ iB| A ≤ 0 .
The solutions of corresponding couple of the inequalities are presented in Fig. 3b. The allowed subspaces
are separated from the part of border planes by the hyperbolic surfaces.
At the quantum level the value of γ is insufficient for distinguishing the cause and effect. But by refer-
ence to correspondence between c2 and γ in both the classical subspaces and necessary condition of the 7-
th Shannon theorem obeying in all the six subspaces: c2 > 0 ⇒ α < 1 , c2 < 0 ⇒ α > 1 it is possible to give
the definition of causality appropriate for the quantum variables.
Definition 2: The cause A and the effect B are the states for which c2 > 0 .
Then, introducing the demand of the effect retardation τ , we can formulate the axiom of strong causal-
ity, embracing local and nonlocal correlations, as follows:

c2 > 0 ⇒ τ > 0, c2 < 0 ⇒ τ < 0,| c2 |→ ∞ ⇒ τ → 0. (17)

Notice, that nonlocal correlations are often treated as instantaneous and causeless ones. Our approach in-
cludes such treatment, but only as a particular case.
The axiom (17) is the principle namely of strong causality. Cramer was the first to distinguish the princi-
ples of strong and weak causality [22]. The strong causality corresponds to the usual condition of retardation
of the effect relative to the cause. Without this axiom we have the weak causality. The weak causality corre-
sponds only to nonlocal correlations and implies a possibility of information transmission in reverse time,
but only related with unknown states (hence “the telegraph to the past” is impossible).
Eqs. (8) – (12) remain true by virtue of the parallelism of classical and quantum information theory [21].
A justified in Ref. [23] interpretation of entanglement of a quantum system as the resource serving for in-
formation transfer through it, gives them the additional physical mean ing. Specifically in Ref. [23] it has
been proven that negative conditional entropy is “an amount of information which can be transmitted
through < the subsystems>1 and 2 from a system interacting with 1 to another system interacting with 2. The
transmission medium is quantum entanglement between 1 and 2.” Causality characterized by c2 value re-
flects the asymmetry of this process (the greater causality is expressed the less | c2 | ).
But though defined by Eq. (12) c2 with accuracy to the coefficient k is of great interest by itself, it is de-
sirable to show the way of its full determination for the natural processes. For this there is no remain δ t to
be duration of “an elementary signal”, that is pertinent only for a technical channel. Since δ t in any case
plays a role of some elementary time it is natural to suppose it, according to Ref. [24] to be time of brachis-
tochrone evolution. In the case of time independent Hamiltonian this time is easily expressed explicitly:

θ
δt = (18)
2ω

where 2ω is the difference between the largest and smallest eigenvalues of the Hamiltonian and θ is the
length of geodesic (according to Fabini-Study metric) connecting the initial and final states. If they are or-
thogonal, θ = π . In realistic Hamiltonian ω depends on distance Δr and k becomes definite. It is readily
shown [1] that for the simplest Coulomb interaction k = e2 /  , that corresponds to Kozyrev order estimation
of ?2 obtained from the semiclassical reasoning.
To keep the examples described bellow from becoming too involved; we shall restrict ourselves by cal-
culations of c2 with accuracy to k = 1 . Only in the last example we shall demonstrate the more precise es-
timation with regard to δ t , which variable dependent on eigenvalues of Hamiltonian (remaining Δ r = 1 ).
 SYMMETRIC STATES

By the symmetric two-partite states are meant the states with equal subsystem entropies: S ( A) = A( B) ,
α = β = γ = 1, | c2 |→ ∞ . The causality is absent (adiabatic state connection). However the value iB| A = iA| B
is finite and can be related to the mixedness measures Trρ AB
2
or S ( AB) and to the standard entanglement
measure-concurrence C [25]:

C = max( λ1 − λ2 − λ3 − λ 4 ,0) (19)

where λi are eigenvalues of the matrix ρρ . Spin-flip matrix ρ is defined as:

ρ = ( σ y ⊗ σ y )ρ ∗ (σ y ⊗ σ y ) (20)

We snow below that employment of causal analysis make sense, naturally, only for the mixed states. At
the beginning we consider the elementary systems, when mixedness emerges as a result of extraction of the
two subsystems from a three-partite pure state, thereupon – more containable situations, when the mixedness
is a result of interaction with a non-controlled environ ment. Since such interaction leads to decoherence,
analysis of these situation we shall begin with the basic mechanisms of decoherence – depolarization and
dephasing (dissipation, which may lead to the asymmetry is considered in Sec. V.A). Next we consider typi-
cal mixed states in their initial and asymptotic species (after long-run dissipation).

A. Pure States

The entropic symmetry is evident from Schmidt decomposition. Consider the arbitrary pure states:

| Φ >= α |00 > + β |11 >, (21)

or
| Ψ >= α |01 > + β |10 > , (22)

where | α |2 + | β |2 = 1 . Since the state is pure Trρ AB

2
= 1 , S ( AB) = 0 , concurrence C varies according to
ratio of α and β . But at any nonzero α and β the independence function is constant: iB| A = −1 . Therefore
for the pure states the causal analysis is of interest.

B. GHZ State

It is known, that GHZ state

1
| Ψ >= (|000 > + |111 >) (23)
2

is marked by that in spite of the maximal entanglement of three particles ( ABC ), the pairwise entangle-
1
ment is absent: C = 0 . The two-partite state is mixed: Trρ AB
2
= , S ( AB) = 1 . Therewith iB| A = 0 . The en-
2
tanglement is absent but the particles A and B are maximally classically correlated.
 C. W-State

1
| W >= (|001 > + |010 > + |100 >) (24)
3

2
Similar to GHZ state, W-state is entangled three-partite state, but the pairwise concurrence C = (more -
3
over, (24) and in general N -partite W-state represents the case of arranged in pairs and equal entanglement
of the all N particles [26]). The mixedness of the two-partite subsystem is somewhat weaker than for GHZ:
5 1 1 2 2
Tr ρ 2AB = , S ( AB) = − log 2 − log 2 ≈ 0.918 . However, likewith GHZ state: iB| A = 0 .
9 3 3 3 3

D. Depolarization

Depolarization reduces to the following transformation [27, 28]:

I
| 0 >< 0 |→ (1 − p) | 0 >< 0 | + p ,
2
I
|1 >< 1|→ (1− p) | 1 >< 1| + p , (25)
2
|1 >< 0 |→ (1 − p) | 1 >< 0|,
| 0 >< 1| → (1 − p) | 0 >< 1|,

where 0 ≤ p ≤ 1 is decoherence degree. Take the singlet for the initial state:
1
| Ψ − >= (|01 > − |10 >), (26)
2
and let us assume that only the second particle ( B ) is depolarized. The depolarized density is:

1 p p p
ρ AB = ( |00 >< 00| + (1 − ) | 0 1 >< 01| + |11 >< 11| +
2 2 2 2
(27)
p
(1− ) | 1 0 >< 10| − (1 − p) | 0 1 >< 10| − (1 − p )|10 >< 01|)
2

In spite of the fact that only one particle is depolarized, both the reduced densities are equal to each other,
i.e. the system is symmetric:

1
ρA = ρB = (|0 >< 0 | + |1 >< 1 | . (28)
2

On finding the eigenvalues, we obtain:

3p p 3p 3p
S ( AB) = − log 2 − (1− )log2 (1 − ), (29)
4 4 4 4

S ( A) = S (B ) = 1. (30)
The independence function is:

iB| A = S ( AB) − 1. (31)

The concurrence is:

3p
C = max(1 − ,0). (32)
2

The dependence of iB| A , C , Tr ρ 2AB on p is shown in Fig.4. It is seen that iB| A varies with decoherence de-
gree in the full range from −1 at p = 0 to +1 at p = 1 (full depolarization), when correlation of the subsys-
tems fully disappears. The independence increases according to the increase of mixedness in both its meas-
ures (exactly proportional for S ( AB) ) and to the decrease of concurrence. It is the most interesting that there
1 2
is an interval < p < , where iB| A > 0 and C > 0 . On this interval the system is in an entropic sense is
4 3
classical but nevertheless entangled.

FIGURE 4. Dependence of iB | A (thick solid line), C (fine solid line), and Trρ AB
2
(dashed line) on degree of depolari-
zation p of the state (26).

E. Dephasing

The transformation is [27,28]:

|1 >< 0 |→ (1 − p) | 1 >< 0|,

(33)
| 0 >< 1| → (1 − p) | 0 >< 1 | .

The state (26) after dephasing of the particle B is:

 1
ρ AB = (|01 >< 01| −(1 − p) | 0 1 >< 10| −(1 − p)|10 >< 01| + |10 >< 10|). (34)
2

Eqs. (28), (30) and (31) are true again, but

p p p p
S ( AB ) = −(1 − )log2 (1 − ) − log2 , (35)
2 2 2 2

C = 1 − p. (36)

Therefore by full dephasing iB| A = 0 , i.e. the subsystems remain classically maximally correlated. By partial
dephasing C and negative iB| A are the characteristics of entanglement on equal terms (Fig.5).

FIGURE 5. Dependence of iB | A (thick solid line), C (fine solid line) and Trρ AB
2
(dashed line) on degree of dephasing
p of the state (26).

F. Bell-Diagonal States

Initial Bell-diagonal states are:

ρ AB = p1 | Φ + > < Φ + | + p2 | Φ − > < Φ − | + p 3 | Ψ + > < Ψ + | + p 4 | Ψ − > < Ψ− | (37)

where

1 1
| Φ ± >= (|00 > ± |11 > ), | Ψ ± >= (|10 > ± |01 >) (38)
2 2

Eqs. (28), (30) and (31) are true again, but

 4
S( AB) = −∑ pi log2 pi (39)
i =1

C = max(2max{ pi} − 1,0) (40)

Behavior of iB| A , C and Tr ρ 2AB in deciding on p4 = p , p1 = p2 = p3 = (1 − p ) / 3 is shown in Fig. 6. It is

seen that iB| A reflects the mixedness achieving 1 at equality of the all pi . But more important, that there is
an interval 0.5 < p < 0.81 , where iB| A > 0 and C > 0 . On this interval the system is entangled in spite of the
entropic classicness.

FIGURE 6. Dependence of iB | A (thick solid line), C (fine solid line) and Trρ AB
2
(dashed line) on p = p4 of initial
Bell-diagonal states (37).

Now consider dissipation of the states (37) at the presence of a common bath. It is known that against be-
fore accepted views, dissipation may not reduce to decoherence, but on the contrary, may play a constructive
role in entanglement generation [29-36]. Following Ref. [34], suppose that the qubits represent the two-level
atoms separated by a distance small compared to the radiation wavelength. Dissipation occurs at the expense
of spontaneous emission of the photons, which have a substantial probability to be absorbed by the other
atom. In Ref. [34] the system dynamic equation is solved and the asymptotic solutions t → ∞ are analyzed in
detail. In particular the asymptotic density matrix at the initial one (37) is:

⎛0 0 0 0 ⎞
⎜ p4 p4 ⎟
⎜0 − 0 ⎟
⎜ 2 2 ⎟
ρ AB
as
=⎜ ⎟ (41)
p p4
⎜0 − 4 0 ⎟
⎜ 2 2 ⎟
⎜0 0 0 1 − p4 ⎟⎠
⎝

Hence
 S( AB) = − p4 log2 p4 − (1 − p4 )log 2 (1 − p4 ) (42)

p4 p p p
S( A) = S( B ) = − log 2 4 − (1 − 4 )log2 (1− 4 ) (43)
2 2 2 2

S ( AB )
iB| A = −1 (44)
S ( A)

C = p4 (45)

The constructive role of dissipation is that even the initial state was separable ( C = 0 ) the asymptotic one is
entangled in the all range of finite p4 . Figure 7 demonstrates that in this case the independence function
does not reflect

FIGURE 7. Dependence of iB | A (thick solid line), C (fine solid line) and Trρ AB
2
(dashed line) on p = p4 of asymp-
totic Bell-diagonal states (41).

the mixedness, but does reflect the concurrence. Therewith iB| A ≤ 1 , i.e. the system is correlated at almost
any p4 ( max iB| A = 1 is achieved at p4 = 0 ). On the interval 0 ≤ p4 < 0.67 iBA > 0 (classical) at rather
strong entanglement.

G. Werner States

The initial Werner states

I
ρ AB = p + ( p − 1)| Φ + > < Φ+ | (46)
4

represent a depolarized triplet, for which as well as for the singlet, the expressions (28) – (32) and Fig. 4 are
true.
 Consider the result of described in above subsection dissipation process of the states (46). According to
Ref. [34] in the asymptotic limit t → ∞ :
⎛0 0 0 0 ⎞
⎜ p p ⎟
⎜0 − 0 ⎟
⎜ 8 8 ⎟
ρ as
AB =⎜
0 −
p
−
p
0 ⎟ (47)
⎜ 8 8 ⎟
⎜ p⎟
⎜0 0 0 1− ⎟
⎝ 4⎠

Hence:

p p p p
S( AB) = − log2 − (1 − )log2 (1 − ) (48)
4 4 4 4

p p p p
S( A) = S( B ) = − log 2 − (1 − )log 2 (49)
8 8 8 8

FIGURE 8. Dependence of iB | A (thick solid line), C (fine solid line) and Trρ AB
2
(dashed line) on p = p4 of asymp-
totic Werner states (47).

p
C= (50)
4

Figure 8 shows that asymptotic Werner states are radically differ from the initial ones: They are not only
entangled at any p > 0 , but the concurrence increases with the increase of p – the smaller entangled initial
state the greater entangled dissipated one. Therewith iB| A is positive (classical) at any p ( max iB| A = 1 at
p = 0 , min iB| A ≈ 0.493 at p = 1 ). It is remarkable that the decrease of iB| A and the increase of C are practi-
cally proportional to the increase of mixedness.

H. Maximally Entangled Mixed States

In Ref. [37] it is conjectured that at fixed Trρ 2AB the maximally entangled are the states:

⎛ δ ⎞
⎜ h(δ ) 0 0
2 ⎟ ⎧1 ⎡ 2⎤
⎜
− δ
⎟ ⎪ 3 , δ ∈ ⎢0, 3 ⎥
⎜ 0 1 2 h ( ) 0 0 ⎟ ⎪ ⎣ ⎦
ρ AB =⎜ ; h (δ ) = ⎨ . (51)
0 0 0 0 ⎟ ⎪ δ ⎡ 2 ⎤
⎜ ⎟ , δ ∈ ⎢ ,1⎥
⎜ δ ⎟ ⎪⎩ 2 ⎣3 ⎦
⎜ 0 0 h (δ ) ⎟
⎝ 2 ⎠

Hence:
δ δ δ δ
S( AB ) = − (1 −2 h)log 2 (1 − 2 h ) − ( h − )log2 ( h − ) − ( h + )log2 ( h + ) (52)
2 2 2 2

S( A) = S( B ) = −h log2 h − (1 − h)log2 (1 − h ) (53)

iB| A is determined by Eq. (44), the concurrence is

C =δ (54)

FIGURE 9. Dependence of iB | A (thick solid line), C (fine solid line) and Trρ AB
2
(dashed line) on δ of initial maxi-
mally entangled mixed states (51).
The dependence of iB| A , C , Trρ 2AB on δ is shown in Fig. 9. iB| A changes from +0.725 at δ = 0 to −1 , at
2
δ = 1 and its decrease as whole reflects the decrease of mixedness. Therewith on the interval 0 < δ <
3
iBA > 0 at C > 0 – the states are entangled in spite of the entropic classicness.

According to solution of Ref. [34], the asymptotic result of dissipation of the state (51) is:
⎛0 0 0 0 ⎞
⎜ ⎟
⎜ 0 1 (1 − 2 h) − 1 (1 −2 h) 0 ⎟
⎜ 4 4 ⎟
ρ AB
as
=⎜ 1 1 ⎟ (55)
⎜ 0 − (1 −2 h) (1 − 2 h) 0 ⎟
⎜ 4 4 ⎟
⎜ 1 ⎟
⎜0 0 0 +h⎟
⎝ 2 ⎠

Hence:
1 1 1 1
S( AB ) = −( + h)log2 ( + h ) − ( − h)log2 ( − h) (56)
2 2 2 2

1 h 1 h 3 h 3 h
S( A) = S( B ) = −( − )log2 ( − ) − ( + )log2 ( + ) (57)
4 2 4 2 4 2 4 2

iB| A is determined by Eq. (44), the concurrence is:

1
C= (1 −2 h) (58)
2

Figure 10 shows that dissipated maximally entangled mixed states are characterized by radically different
dependence of C on δ , hence at small δ they are mere entangled than the initial ones. As this take place,
as a result of dissipations the system has become in entropic terms classical (0.571 ≤ iB| A ≤ 1 at all δ ). In
contrast to the initial
FIGURE 10. Dependence of iB | A (thick solid line), C (fine solid line) and Trρ AB
2
(dashed line) on δ of asymptotic
maximally entangled mixed states (55).

states the independence function varies inversely to the degree of mixedness. In the pure state limit δ → 0 :
S( AB ) → 0 , Tr ρ 2AB → 1 , but also S( A) = S( B) → 0 , therefore iB| A = iA|B → 1 .
Qualitatively asymptotic maximally entangled mixed states are close to asymptotic Werner states by the
relation of independence, concurrence and mixedness.

ASYMMETRIC STATES

In this section we consider the examples of asymmetric states, for which application of causal analysis is
the most substanceble. The examples are considered in ascending order of nontriviality. In the computations
of c2 we shall suppose k = 1 until the last example, where we shall consider the variable k . Note, that in
those examples we shall nowhere use the axiom of strong causality (17). Reverse time is allowed.

A. Asymmetric Dissipation

Consider the third possible way of decoherence that is dissipation by the same manner as in. Sec. IV. D
and E: only one particle B is dissipated. Therein lies dissimilarity from the symmetric dissipation consid-
ered in Sec. IV. E – H.
The dissipation reduces to the following transformation [27, 28]:

|0 >< 0 |→| 0 >< 0|,

|1 >< 1|→ (1 − p ) | 1 >< 1 | + p | 0 >< 0|,
(59)
|1 >< 0 |→ 1 − p |1 >< 0|,
|0 >< 1 |→ 1 − p | 0 >< 1 | .
The singlet (26) is taken as the initial state as well as in Sec. IV. D and E. The dissipated density is:

1
ρ AB = [ p |00 >< 00| + (1 − p) | 0 1 >< 01| − 1− p |01 >< 1 0 | −
2 (60)
1 − p |10 >< 01| + |10 >< 10|].
The reduced densities are:

1
ρ A = (|0 >< 0 | + |1 >< 1|), (61)
2

1
ρB = [(1 + p) | 0 >< 0 |+ (1 − p) | 1 >< 1 ]| . (62)
2

The entropies are:

p p p p
S( AB) = − log2 − (1− )log2 (1 − ), (63)
2 2 2 2

S( A ) = 1. (64)

1+ p 1+ p 1− p 1− p
S( B ) = − log2 − log2 . (65)
2 2 2 2

The independence functions are:

S( AB ) − 1
iB| A = ; iA| B = S ( AB ) − S (B ). (66)
S (B )

The concurrence is:

C = 1− p. (67)

From Fig. 11 it is clear that dissipation differs from depolarization and dephasing by more values of C in
the all p range, while iB| A is negative everywhere similar to the dephasing case. But the main interest repre-
sents Fig. 12, where the measures of causality c2 and γ are presented. c2 > 0 , therefore the particle A is
the cause and B is the effect. It is in full agreement with the intuitive expectation – the irreversible flow of
information is directed to the dissipating particle B . The decrease of c2 with the increase of p also re-
sponds to intuitive expectation of amplification of causal connection with the increase of dissipation. But
1
employment of the classical measure γ would lead at 0 < p < to the opposite conclusion about direction-
2
1
ality of the causal connection, while at < p < 1 γ becomes classically meaningless.
2
1
In the entropic diagram (Fig. 2) the states (60) correspond to subspaces IQ (at 0 ≤ p ≤ ) and IIIQ (at
2
1
≤ p ≤ 1 ). The transition between the subspaces does not break smoothness of c2 ( p ) .
2
FIGURE 11. Dependence of iB | A (thick solid line), C (fine solid line), and Trρ AB
2
(dashed line) on degree of dissipa-
tion p of the state (26).

FIGURE 12. Dependence of c2 (solid line) and γ (dashed line) on degree of dissipation p of the state (26).

B. One Particle is Entangled with Two Others.

Consider the case when one particle A is entangled equally and maximally with two others B and C .
It is the three-partite state [26]:

1 1
| Ψ>= |100 > + (|001 > + |010 > ). (68)
2 2
Take the pair AB . The reduced densities are:

1 1 1 1 1
ρ AB = 00 00 + |10 >< 1 0 | + |10 >< 01| + |01 >< 1 0 | + |01 >< 01|, (69)
4 2 2 2 2 2 4

1
ρ A = (|0 >< 0+ |1 >< 1|), (70)
2

3 1
ρB = | 0 >< 0 | + |1 >< 1 | . (71)
4 4

The entropies are:

3 3 1 1
S( AB ) = S( B ) = − log 2 − log2 ≈ 0.811, (72)
4 4 4 4

S( A ) = 1. (73)

The independences are:

iB| A ≈ − 0.233;iA| B = 0. (74)

The measures of causality are:

γ = − ∞; c2 ≈ 5.299. (75)

The concurrence is:

1
C= . (76)
2

According to the quantum measure c2 A is the cause and B is the effect, while the classical measure γ
is meaningless (the subspace IIIQ in the entropic diagram). In the pair AC the result is the same and thus
A is the common cause for B and C . Classical intuition in this case would be powerless to distinguish the
common cause from the common effect.
Intuition gives only true, by virtue of the symmetry, answer about the absence of causal connection of B
1
and C . The similar mathematics for this couple give: iB|C = iC| B ≈ 0.233 , γ = 1 , | c2 |= ∞ , ? = . The parti-
2
cles B and C are entangled and classically correlated due to availability of the common cause. Note that
the mixedness, according to both the measures in the pairs AB ( AC ) is less than in the pair BC :
1
S( AB) ≈ 0.811 , Tr ρ 2AB ≈ 0.625 , S( BC ) = 1 , Trρ 2AB = .
2

C. WRr-State

In Refs. [38,39] the different three-partite states related by the symmetry transformations, the particular
cases of which are GHZ and W-states, have been investigated.
In particular the duplet has been obtained:

1
|WRr >= (|001 > + |010 > − 2|100 > ). (77)
6

This state differs by the entanglement distribution from W-state considered in Sec. IV.C, for which
1 1 1
C AB = CAC = C BC = , and the state considered in Sec. V.B, for which C AB = CAC = , CBC = . For the
3 2 2
2 1
state (77) C AB = CAC = , CBC = [38,39], that is the pair BC has entanglement twice smaller than two
3 3
another pairs have.
For the state (77):

1
ρ AB = (4|10 >< 10| −2|10 >< 01| −2 | 0 1 >< 10| + |01 >< 01| + |00 >< 00|, (78)
6

1 1 5 5
S( AB ) = S( B) = − log2 − log2 ≈ 0.651, (79)
6 6 6 6

1 1 2 2
S( A) = − log2 − log 2 ≈ 0.918, (80)
3 3 3 3

iB| A ≈ − 0.412; iA|B = 0, (81)

γ = − ∞; c2 ≈ 3.43. (82)

The same is true for the pair AC . Therewith Tr ρ 2AB = Tr ρ AC

2
≈ 0.722 .
As in Sec. V.B A is the cause for B and C and only the quantum measure of causality has a meaning
(the subspace IIIQ in Fig. 2). The quantitative difference implies that according to both the measures of
mixedness in the causal links of the state (77) it is less than in (68), the concurrence is higher, the independ-
ence functions iB| A = iC | A < 0 are lower, i.e. quantum correlations are stronger, and c2 is lower, i.e. causal
connection is expressed stronger.
For the particles B and C in the state (77) we have: S ( BC ) ≈ 0.918 , Trρ BC
2
≈ 0.556 ,
1
iB|C = iC | B ≈ 0,412 , γ = 1 , | c2 |= ∞ , C =
. As with the state (68), causality in the pair BC is absent, and
3
although the mixedness is lower, but the entanglement and classical ( iB|C = iC | B > 0 ) correlations are weaker.

D. Asymmetric “Quantum-Classical” States

The question on the peculiarities of behavior of the asymmetric states was the first to set in Ref. [18],
where the case of “quantum-classical” two-partite states was considered. The subsystem A is called quan-
tum if S( A) > S( AB) , and classical – B if S( B) ≤ S( AB) . The strange fact has been discovered: the deco-
herence may go faster by interaction of the environment with the classical subsystem. This has been called
in Ref. [18] anomalous entanglement decay. As a result a number of open questions about nontrivial behav-
ior of the open systems have been set, among them on asymmetry in the transfer of quantum information
with respect to its direction.
In Rev. [18] asymmetric states were considered:
 ρ AB = q | Ψ1 ><Ψ1 | + (1 − q) | Ψ 2 > < Ψ2 |;0 < q < 1. (83)

With normalized | Ψ 1 >= a |00 > + 1 − a 2 |11 > and | Ψ 2 >= a |10 > + 1 − a 2 |01 > with 0 < a < 1 . From
Eq. (83) it is seen that mixedness depends on q only, while the concurrence – on q and a . The expanded
Eq. (83) is:
⎛ qa 2 0 0 qa 1 − a 2 ⎞
⎜ ⎟
⎜ 0 (1 − q)(1 − a2 ) (1 − q) a 1 − a 2 0 ⎟
ρ AB =⎜ ⎟. (83a)
⎜ 0 (1 − q) a 1 − a 2 (1 − q)a 2 0 ⎟
⎜ ⎟
⎜ qa 1−a2 q(1 − a2 ) ⎟⎠
⎝ 0 0

Hence:

S ( AB) = − q log 2 q − (1 − q)log2 (1 − q), (84)

S ( A) = − (a 2 − 2qa2 + q)log2 ( a2 − 2qa 2 + q ) −

(85)
(1− a 2 + 2qa2 − q)log2 (1 − a2 + 2qa 2 − q),

S ( B) = −a 2 log 2 a 2 − (1 − a 2 )log 2 (1 − a 2 ), (86)

S ( AB ) − S( A) S ( AB ) − S (B )
iB| A = ; iA| B = (87)
S (B ) S ( A)

C = 2 a 2 (1 − a 2 ) | 1 − 2 q | . (88)

Always S ( A) ≥ S ( AB) , S (B) may be more as well as less than S ( AB) . According to definition of Ref. [18]
the subsystem A is almost always quantum, while the subsystem B may be either quantum or classical. In
Fig. 13 the dependences of iB| A , C and Trρ AB
2
on q and a 2 which have the expected appearance. Only the
1
dependence of iB| A on a 2 is nontrivial. That the iB| A is almost always negative (except of the case q =)
2
just reflects the fact that the subsystem A is almost always quantum. At the maximal mixedness, achieved at
1
q = , the subsystem are not entangled but classically maximally correlated ( iB| A = 0 ) at any a 2 .
2
The dependences of c2 and γ on q and a 2 are presented in Fig.14. The positive value of c2 shows that
at almost all q and a 2 A is the cause and B is the effect. Causality disappears ( c2 = ∞ ) only at q = 0 or
1
1 (the pure states) and a 2 = (the symmetric states). The direction of causal connection A → B clears up a
2
conclusion of Ref. [18] about bigger fragility to decoherence of the classical subsystem B . Certainly the
runoff quantum information occurs mainly in the effect B .
The states correspond to the subspaces IQ and IIIQ (Fig. 2), accordingly, the classical measure of causal-
ity γ in Fig. 14 shows either mistakenly opposite direction of causal connection or loses its meaning where
γ is negative. Classical causality is absent (γ = 1 ) at a2 = q and a2 = 1 − q . The negative values of γ
(subspace IIIQ) correspond to the positive values of the independence function iA| B or in other words, to the
classicness of subsystem B by the definition of Ref. [18]. But since c2 > 0 is always positive we conclude
that anomalous entanglement decay by Ref. [18] is not anomalous, because it is only a particular case of
general and natural phenomenon of more quantum information runoff on the more dissipative subsystem.
A nontrivial quantitative conclusion (which is impossible to make simply from appearance of the states
1
(83) or (83a)) is that maximal mixed states q = correspond to the one-valued function line (Fig. 1). At any
2
a here γ = 0 (Fig. 13), that corresponds to the utmost irreversible transition A ⇒ B . This one-valued de-
2

pendence of B on A is achieved at zero concurrence (Fig. 12). Therewith c2 has any positive value de-
pending on a 2 . In other words, the
FIGURE 13. Dependence of iB | A (thick solid lines), C (fine solid lines), and Trρ AB
2
(dashed lines) (a) on q and (b)

on a 2 of the asymmetric “quantum-classical” states (83).

FIGURE 14. Dependence of c2 (solid lines) and γ (dashed lines) (a) on q and (b) on a 2 of the asymmetric “quan-
tum-classical” states (83).

case of the utmost strong classical causality can correspond to different degree of uniformly directed quan-
tum causality – from the strongest one for the utmost asymmetry of the state ( a 2 → 0 or a 2 → 1 ) to its ab-
1
sence at the symmetry ( a 2 = ).
2
 E. Thermal Entanglement under a Nonuniform External Magnetic Field

It is generally believed that increase of the temperature, as well as the magnetic field, destroy entangle-
ment. But recently [40] it has been discovered that nonuniform magnetic field, on the contrary, play a con-
structive role and entanglement is maintained at the high temperature as well as under the strong magnetic
field. It has been found that just nonuniform magnetic field of opposite direction at the subsystem A and B
has such decoherence suppression property.
1
Consider, according to Ref. [40], thermal entanglement of the two qubits with spin related by XY -
2
Heisenberg interaction with the following Hamiltonian:

H = J ( S Ax S Bx + S Ay S By ) + B AS Az + BB SBz , (89)

where the spin operator S j = σ j / 2 ( j = x, y, z ), J is the strength of Heisenberg interaction, BA and BB

are the external magnetic fields at the particles A and B . The eigenvalues and eigenvectors of Hamiltonian
(89) are:

H |00 > = − ( B A + BB ) | 0 0 > , (90)

H |11 >= ( BA + BB )|11 >,

H | Ψ ± > = ± D | Ψ ± >,

where

1 ⎡ ( BA − BB ) ± D ⎤
| Ψ± >= ⎢ |01 > + |10 > ⎥ ,
N± ⎣ J ⎦

D = ( B A − BB ) 2 + J 2 .

The density matrix of the thermal states is:

⎛ e ( BA + BB ) /k BT 0 0 0 ⎞
⎜ ⎟
1 0 m+n −s 0
ρ AB = ⎜ ⎟, (91)
Z ⎜ 0 −s m − n 0 ⎟
⎜⎜ − ( B A + BB )/ k B T ⎟
⎟
⎝ 0 0 0 e ⎠

where

Z = Tr e− H k/ T B ,

D
m = ch( ),
k BT
 B A − BB D
n= sh( ),
D k BT

D
J sh( )
k BT
s= .
D

In the next calculations we accept k B = J = 1 . The state asymmetry is determined by n .

From Eq. (91) follows:

m + n2 + s 2 m + n 2 + s2 m − m 2 + s 2 m − m 2 + s2
S( AB) = − log 2 − log2
Z Z Z Z
BA + B B BA + BB B A + BB B A + BB (92)
exp( ) exp( ) exp( − ) exp(− )
− T log2 T − T log2 T ,
Z Z Z Z

B A + BB B + BB
exp( )+ m + n exp( A )+ m + n
S ( A) = − T log2 T −
Z Z
(93)
( B + BB ) B + BB
exp( − A +m−n exp( − A )+ m − n
T log2 T ,
Z Z

B A + BB B + BB
exp( ) +m − n exp( A ) +m + n
S ( B) = − T log2 T −
Z Z
(94)
B + BB B + BB
exp( − A )+ m + n exp( − A ) + m +n
T log2 T .
Z Z

The independence functions are determined by the general formulae (87). The concurrence is:

s −1
C =2 . (95)
Z

For investigation of the nonuniform field impact, accept at the beginning T = 1 , BA = 5 , BB = 5 p .

FIGURE 15. Dependence of (a) iB | A (thick solid line) and iA |B (fine solid line), (b) C (solid line) and Trρ 2AB (dashed
line) on p = BB / BA of the states (91) ( T = 1 ).
FIGURE 16. Dependence of (a, b) c2 (thick solid line) and c′2 (fine solid line), and (c) γ (dashed line) on
p = BB / BA of the states (91) ( T = 1 ).

The maximal mixedness both by max S( AB) derived from Eq. (92), and by minTr ρ AB 2
(Fig. 15) is
achieved at p ≈ 0.010 . The concurrence in Fig. 15 demonstrates noted in Ref. [40] the most entanglement at
oppositely directed fields at A and B , but the maximum is achieved not at the exact antisymmetry
( p = −1 ) as presumed in Ref. [40], but at p ≈ −0.253 . Note, that according to Eqs. (93) and (94) max S ( A)
( p ≈ −0.149 ) is close to maxC , while max S( B) is close to minTr ρ AB 2
( p ≈ 0.08 ), therewith
max α ≈ 26.5 is observed at p ≈ 0.176 . The independence function iB| A in Fig. 15 demonstrates similarity
neither with the mixedness nor with the concurrence. iB| A → − 1 that is quantum correlation increases at
deeply negative p , where C decreases. At −0.54 < p < 0.5 iB| A is classically positive in spite of C > 0 .
max iB| A that is the least correlation of the subsystem is observed at p ≈ 0.379 , where C is still finite. At
big p iB| A goes down at the expense of classical correlations under the parallel fields. The independence
function iA|B is also shown in Fig. 15. Although iA|B = 0 at p = 0 there are no antisymmetry by p , min iA|B
is observed at p ≈ −1.115 , while iA|B → 1 at big positive p . In the interval 0 < p < 0.5 the states are entan-
gled though classically correlated (the both i are positive). Thus, the independence functions demonstrate
nontrivial relation between quantum and classical correlations, which is impossible to reveal from considera-
tion of the concurrence only.
Consider the causal connection of the subsystems. In this case determine c2 not only at k = Δr / δ t = 1 in
Eq. (12), but drawing on the eigenvalues of Hamiltonian (90), compute δ t according to Eq. (18). Supposing
now Δr = 1 , determine c2′ = c2 / δ t . In Fig. 16 c2 , c′2 and γ are presented. The former two as convenience
(to show their maxima) are presented at two different scales for the parallel and antiparallel fields. Accord-
ing to all the three measures causality is absent at p = ±1 , that is under equal parallel and antiparallel fields
at A and B . The interval p( − ∞, −1) corresponds to the subspace IQ, p( −1,0.54] - IIQ, p[− 0.54,0] –
IVQ, p(0,1) – IIC, p(1, ∞) – IC. According to both the quantum measures at | p |> 1 A is the cause, B is
the effect, and inversely at | p |< 1 . In other words, the effect is always in the region of stronger field. It can
be understood as stabilizing polarization of the qubit in the strong field, as a result of which the qubit be-
comes in more degree the runoff of in formation than the source. At directionality of causal connection
A → B and | p |→ ∞ causality is amplified: c2 → + 0 , c′2 → + 0 . But at directionality B → A min| c2 | and
min| c′2 | are not at p = 0 as could be supposed intuitively, but at finite p ≈ 0.364 for c2 and p ≈ 0.266 for
c′2 . These values of p are determined by the chosen temperature T = 1 . Calculation shows that specific
field ratio p at which causality is strongest decreases as the temperature increases. The causality function γ
gives the right answer about directionality of causal connection only at p > 0 . At last from Fig. 16 it is seen
that there is no a qualitative difference between c2 and c′2 .
Consider the temperature influence more closely. It can be expected that any correlations decrease as the
temperature increases. On the other hand, namely finite temperature leads to the mixing, which is a neces-
sary condition of quantum causality. Indeed, as the temperature increases S( AB) increases, however the
subsystem entropies increases too, but by different manner, and one can expect nontrivial behavior of the
entropic functions.
From Fig. 17 it is seen that mixedness increases with the temperature, but the magnetic field at the sub-
system B suppresses this temperature influence. The concurrence (Fig. 18) under antiparallel fields, in ac-
cordance with the main conclusion of Ref. [40] is maintained at the high temperature. However the most
suppression of decoherence is achieved not in the antisymmetric case ( p = −1 ), but under stronger field at
B ( p = −1.5 ). At T → 0 , on the contrary, the highest concurrence is achieved under zero field at B . At
positive p the concurrence steeply disappears in accordance with common view about suppression of en-
tanglement by the magnetic field.

FIGURE 17. 17. Dependence of Trρ 2AB on T of the states (91).

 FIGURE 18. Dependence of C on T of the states (91).

The independence function iB| A (Fig. 19) points out monotonous amplification of quantum and classical
correlations with amplification of negative field ratio p . At positive p correlations are classical and the
temperature dependence is not monotonous – there is a minimum of positive iB| A (maximum of classical
correlation) at the finite temperature. The inversed independence function iB| A (Fig. 20) has much smaller
sensitivity of the temperature variation to the negative p , but much greater sensitivity to the positive p . At
p = 0 the curve iA|B (T ) has the inflection point (at T ≈ 0.8 ), which is absent in the curve iB| A .

FIGURE 19. Dependence of iB | A on T of the states (91).

 FIGURE 20. Dependence of iA |B on T of the states (91).

The classical measure of causality γ (Fig. 21) demonstrates that in the domain of its correct implementa-
tion ( p > 0 ) directionality of causal connection is expectly independent of the temperature. There is only a
weak amplification of the causal connection at T ≈ 0.9 . In the domain of its incorrect implementation
( p < 0 ) γ demo nstrates the breaks and causality reversals. In Fig 22 behavior of c2 and c′2 against the tem-
perature is shown. At any p directionality of the causal connection is independent of the temperature, but its
value depends on it. At p > 0 , that is under the parallel fields, causality utmostly amplifies at the tempera-
ture tending to zero and remains almost steady at T > 1.3 (at p = 0.5 there is a very weak amplification of
causality at the high temperature). Under the antiparallel fields ( p ≤ 0 ) causality, on the contrary considera-
bly amplifies at the high temperature. The stronger field nonuniformity, the sharper this amplification. As it
was accepted J = 1 , BA = 5 in the computations, hence it follows that Heisenberg interaction is essential for
the causal connection only under the parallel fields.
FIGURE 21. Dependence of γ on T of the states (91).
 FIGURE 22. Dependence of (a) c2 and (b) c′2 on T of the states (91).

CONCLUSION

The classical causal analysis had formalized the intuitive understanding of causality that, first, gave the
possibility of its application to the complicated system analysis and, second, gave a quantitative measure of
causality. The quantum extension of causal analysis has shown a richer picture of the subsystem causal con-
nections, where the usual intuitive approach is hampered more commonly. The direction of causal connec-
tion is determined by the direction of irreversible information flow, and the quantitative measure of this con-
nection c2 is determined as the velocity of such flow. The absence of causality corresponds to | c2 |→ ∞ ,
accordingly the degree of causal connection is inversely related to c2 .
 The independence functions used in the causal analysis allow classification of quantum and classical cor-
relations of the subsystems, and their employment is of interest in any quantum systems, including those
where causality is absent.
The possibilities of causal analysis have been demonstrated by the two series of examples of the two-
partite two-state systems (qubits). The examples in both the series have been arranged in order from the
simplest to the most nontrivial ones.
In the first series of the examples (Sec. IV) causality is absent; only the relationship between the inde-
pendence function and the usual measures of entanglement and mixedness is revealed. It has been demo n-
strated that the independence function often but not always is determined by the state mixedness. Most im-
portant of all, in a number of cases the state can appear classical in entropic sense, but nevertheless be en-
tangled.
In the second series of the examples (Sec. V) the systems with finite causality have been considered, be-
ginning with the simplest example with asymmetric dissipation and ending with the enough complicated
case of the qubits under a nonuniform external magnetic field at the different temperature. In every case the
quantum measure of causality has been related with the classical one and it has been demonstrated that the
latter often leads to apparent inversion of causal connection or meaninglessness. It has been shown the man-
ner in which the distribution of entanglement in a three-partite system leads to the pairwise causal connec-
tion. For the case of asymmetric “quantum-classical” states the positive answer to the question, stated in Ref.
[18] about availability of an asymmetry in the transfer of quantum information with respect to its direction,
has been obtained. For the case of qubits under an external magnetic field the conclusions about nonuni-
formity field control of directionality of the causal connection have been obtained, which can be physically
explained by the causal analysis results, but which could not be drawn without them. It has been demo n-
strated that directionality of causal connection is unaffected by temperature, but its value is affected by tem-
perature oppositely under the parallel and antiparallel fields.
Application of the causal analysis to the systems with the number of states more than two should present
no problems in itself, except the usual build-up of calculation cumbersomeness of the density matrix eigen-
values. A generalization to multipartite system involves some complication of the mathematics, but since in
the classical case it had successfully done before, one would hope that in the quantum case it should present
no problems too.

REFERENCES
1. N. A. Kozyrev, “On the possibility of experimental investigation of the properties of time”, in Time in Science and
Philosophy, edited by J. Zeman, Prague: Academia, 1971, pp. 111-132.
2. S. M . Korotaev, Galilean Electrodynamics 4, 86-90 (1993).
3. S. M. Korotaev, Geomagnetism and Aeronomy 32(1), 27-33 (1992).
4. S. M. Korotaev, O. A. Hachay, and S. V. Shabelyansky, Geomagnetism and Aeronomy 32(1), 48-53 (1992).
5. S. M. Korotaev, and O. A. Hachay, Izvestia Phys. of the Solid Earth 4, 52-61 (1992).
6. S. M . Korotaev, O. A. Hachay, and L. K. Low, Izvestia Phys. of the Solid Earth 5, 35-44 (1992).
7. S. M. Korotaev, S. V. Shabelyansky, and V. O. Serdyuk, Izvestia Phys. of the Solid Earth. 6, 77 (1992).
8. O. A. Hachay, S. M. Korotaev, and A. K. Troyanov, Volcalonogy and Seismology 3, 92-100 (1992).
9. S. M. Korotaev, and O. A. Hachay, Geomagnetism and Aeronomy 32(4), 119-121 (1992).
10. S. M. Korotaev, O. A. Hachay and S. V. Shabelyansky, Geomagnetism and Aeronomy 33(2), 128-133 (1993).
11. M. L. Arushanov, and S. M. Korotaev, Meteorology and Hydrology 6, 15-22 (1994).
12. S. M. Korotaev, Geomagnetism and Aeronomy 35(3), 387-393 (1995).
13. S. M.Korotaev, V. O. Serdyuk, V. I. Nalivaiko, A. V. Novysh, S. P. Gaidash, Yu. V. Gorokhov, S. A. Pulinets and
Kh. D. Kanonidi, Phys. of Wave Phenomena 11, 46-55 (2003).
14. S. M. Korotaev, A. N. Morozov, V. O. Serdyuk, J. V. Gorohov and V. A. Machinin, NeuroQuantology 3, 275-294
(2005).
15. S. M.Korotaev, Int. J. of Computing Anticipatory Systems 17, 61-76 (2006).
16. S. M.Korotaev, V. O. Serdyuk and J. V. Gorohov, Hadronic Journal 30, 39-56 (2007).
17. S. M.Korotaev and V. O. Serdyuk, Int. J. of Computing Anticipatory Systems 20, 31-46 (2008).
18. K. Zyczkowski, P. Horodecki, M. Horodecki and R. Horodecki, Phys. Rev. A 65, 012101 (2001).
19. C. E. Shannon and W. Weaver, The Mathematical Theory of Communication, Urbana: University of Illinois Press,
 1949.
20. N. J. Cerf and C. Adami, Phys. Rev. A 60, 893-897 (1999).
21. N. J. Cerf, Phys. Rev. A 57, 3330-3347 (1998).
22. J. G. Cramer, Phys. Rev. D 22, 362 (1980).
23. S. Mukohyama, Phys. Rev. D 58, 104023 (1998).
24. A. Borras, A. R. Plastino, M. Casas and A. Plastino, Phys. Rev. A 78, 052104 (2008).
25. W. K. Wootters, Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 2245-2248 (1998).
26. W. Dür, Phys. Rev. A 63, 020303 (2001).
27. S. S. Jang, Y. W. Cheong, J. Kim and H. W. Lee, Phys. Rev. A 74, 062112 (2006).
28. W. Song and Z.-B. Chen, Phys. Rev. A 76, 014307 (2007).
29. M. B. Plenio, S. F. Huelga, A. Beige and P. L. Knight, Phys. Rev. A 59, 2468-2475 (1999).
30. A. M. Basharov, J. Exp. Theor. Phys. 94, 1070-1081 (2002).
31. M. B. Plenio and S. F. Huelga, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 197901 (2002).
32. M. S.Kim, J. Lee, D. Ahn and P. L. Knight, Phys. Rev. A 65, 040101 (2002).
33. D. Braun, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 277901 (2002).
34. L. Jakobczyk, J. Phys. A 35, 6383-6392 (2002).
35. F. Benatti, R. Floreanini and M. Piani, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 070402 (2003).
36. T. Choi and H.J. Lee, Phys. Rev. A 76, 012308 (2007).
37. W. J. Munro, D. F. V. James, A. G. White, and P. G. Kwiat, Phys. Rev. A 64, 030302 (2001).
38. A. K. Rajagopal and R. W. Rendell, Phys.Rev. A 65, 032328 (2002).
39. A. K. Rajagopal and R. W. Rendell, Phys.Rev. A 66, 022104 (2002).
40. Y. Sun, Y. Chen and H. Chen, Phys.Rev. A 68, 044301 (2003).
 Scheme for measuring experimentally the velocity of pilot
waves and the discreteness of time
Guang Ping He1
School of Physics and Engineering, and Advanced Research Center,
Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou 510275, China

Abstract. We consider the following two questions. Suppose that a quantum system suffers a change of the boundary
condition or the potential at a given space location. Then (1) when will the wavefunction shows a response to this change
at another location? And (2) how does the wavefunction changes?
The answer to question (1) could reveal how a quantum system gets information on the boundary condition or the
potential. Here we show that if the response takes place immediately, then it can allow superluminal signal transfer. Else
if the response propagates in space with a finite velocity, then it could give a simple explanation why our world shows
classicality on the macroscopic scale. Furthermore, determining the exact value of this velocity can either clarify the doubts
on static experiments for testing Bell’s inequality, or support the pilot-wave interpretation of quantum mechanics. We propose
a feasible experimental scheme for measuring this velocity, which can be implemented with state-of-art technology, e.g.,
single-electron biprism interferometry.
Question (2) is studied with a square-well potential model, and we find a paradox between the impossibility of superluminal
signal transfer and the normalization condition of wavefunctions. To solve the paradox, we predict that when a change of the
potential occurs at a given space location, the system will show no response to this change at all, until after a certain time
interval. Otherwise either special relativity or quantum mechanics will be violated. As a consequence, no physical process can
actually happen within Planck time. Therefore it gives a simple proof that time is discrete, with Planck time being the smallest
unit. Combining with the answer to question (1), systems with a larger size and a slower velocity could have a larger unit of
time, making it possible to test the discreteness of time experimentally. Our result also sets a limit on the speed of computers,
and gives instruction to the search of quantum gravity theories.
Keywords: quantum interpretation, pilot wave, classicality, double-slit interference, Spacetime topology, Special relativity, Quantum gravity,
computation speed
PACS: 03.65.Ta, 03.65.-w, 03.30.+p, 04.20.Gz, 03.65.Yz, 42.50.Xa, 04.60.-m, 89.20.Ff

1. INTRODUCTION
Let us consider the following problems of quantum systems responding to time-dependent potentials/boundary condi-
tions.
Case 1: Let us consider the state of a quantum particle in a one-dimensional finite square well with potential V0 as
shown in Fig. 1(a). At time t1 , the potential at point A suddenly changes to V1 , as illustrated in Fig. 1(b). Then when
will the detection probability of the particle in another space location (e.g., point C) be affected? In other
 words,
 let t
denote the time when the response at point C takes place, then what will be the value of the velocity v ≡ AC /(t −t1 )?
Case 2: Consider the single-particle double-slit interferometer illustrated in Fig. 2. If one of the slit is closed at
time t1 , when will the pattern observed on the screen start to change from the double-slit interference to the single-slit
diffraction? That is, again, let t be the time when the pattern changes and a2 be the distance between the slit and the
screen, then how much is the velocity v ≡ a2 /(t − t1 ) with which the information on the status of the slit propagates to
the screen?
An intuitive answer to case 2 is that v should be equal to the group velocity v0 of the particle. Conventional quantum
mechanical calculation under the picture of propagators [1] also seems to agree with this result. But for some settings
similar to case 1, relativistic quantum mechanics generally expects v = c [2], where c is the speed of light. In fact, Ref.
[3] studied a single-slit shutter problem which has some similarity to our case 1, and the solution of the Klein-Gordon
equation also indicates v = c instead of v = v0 , even for particles with a non-vanished mass. But both cases 1 and 2
actually relate with the problem how a quantum system gets information on the boundary condition or the potential. It

1 hegp@mail.sysu.edu.cn
 V0 V0
2 2
2 ψ1 2 ψ1 2
ψ0 V1 ψ0 V1 ψ0

A B x A B x A’ A C B B’ x
L l
L’

(a) (b) (c)

FIGURE 1. The wavefunctions in a square well. (a) The wavefunction ψ0 when the potential is V0 . (b) The wavefunction ψ1
(solid blue curve) when the potential is V1 (solid green curve). (c) The wavefunction at time t1 + l/v (solid blue curve) as a mix of
ψ0 and ψ1 .

seems inconsistent if the velocities v and v0 are equal in one case while independent in the other. Especially if v > v0 ,
it will be interesting to question what goes ahead of the particles and delivers the information on the change of the
status of the boundary condition.
In the next section, we will show that measuring the value of v could be a test for quantum interpretation theories.
Currently there are many interpretation theories to the same set of quantum mechanical equations, e.g., the Copenhagen
interpretation, statistical interpretation, pilot-wave interpretation, and many worlds interpretation, etc.. It is generally
believed that they always give the same prediction when calculating observables that can be measured physically, thus
hardly any existing experiment can prove or disprove these interpretations. But we will show that some interpretations
will have a different prediction on the value of v than the others. Therefore they become testable experimentally. Based
on case 2, we propose a very feasible scheme to measure v, and provide detailed specifications for implementing the
scheme with single-electron biprism interferometry.
Sec. 3 will use case 1 as an example, to show that there exists a new paradox between special relativity and quantum
mechanics. Namely, the solution of quantum mechanical equations (even the relativistic ones) cannot satisfy the
impossibility of superluminal signal transfer and the normalization condition of wavefunctions simultaneously, unless
time is discrete, that there exists a minimal unit of time during which no physical process can actually happen. If the
result of our proposed experimental scheme on measuring v turns out to be v = v0 , then different systems could have
their own units of time. The experimental test on this discreteness of time will then become feasible too. We also
elaborate the relationship between our result and the limit on the speed of computers, as well as the construction of
quantum gravity theories.

2. SCHEME FOR MEASURING EXPERIMENTALLY THE VELOCITY OF PILOT

WAVES

2.1 Relationship with quantum interpretation theories

In this section, we are interested in the following problem. It is well-known that once the Hamiltonian and the
boundary condition of a quantum system are provided, the state of the system and its time evolution are completely
determined by the Schrödinger equation (or the Klein-Gordon/Dirac equations in the relativistic case). But how fast
is the state determined by these elements? More specifically, after the boundary conditions change, when will the
wavefunction in another location of space be affected?
It is important to note that what we consider here is different from most existing results obtained from systems
with time-dependent Hamiltonian and/or fast changing boundary conditions (e.g., Refs. [4, 5]), where it was assumed
that at any given time t, the wavefunction ψ (t) in the whole space satisfies the Schrödinger equation and boundary
  

 


  
 

FIGURE 2. Diagram of the double-slit experiment. Quantum particles with velocity v0 are generated by the source, then pass the
pinholes A and B and are detected on the screen. Pinhole A can be either opened or closed by the barrier behind it.

conditions of the same t. In literature, this assumption was widely adopted in quantum mechanics, despite that it was
not clearly stated as an assumption most of the time. But it would conflict with the theory of relativity because it
can enable superluminal signal transfer. In this paper, instead of adopting this non-relativistic assumption, we are
interested in whether the Hamiltonian/boundary condition at a given time will affect the wavefunction at all the
locations of the space instantaneously, and if the answer is no, then how fast the effect will occur. Note that if we
replace the non-relativistic Schrödinger equation with relativistic ones (e.g., the Klein-Gordon or Dirac equation),
then in principle we can obtain a solution in which the propagation velocity of the effect will not exceed the speed
of light. Nevertheless, solving the relativistic equations directly may still encounter non-locality problems in certain
cases, i.e., the wavefunction at one location depends directly on the wavefunction at other points in space [6]. Also,
using mathematical expressions to formulate actual boundary conditions is sometimes hard to be rigorous, and may be
affected unconsciously by the interpretation we adopted to explain how the quantum system gets information of the
boundary. For instance, when calculating with the propagator method [1], the propagation velocity of the response to
the change of the boundary condition is expected to be equal to the velocity of the particle reaching the boundary, as it
will be illustrated in the Gedanken experiment discussed below. This is in consistent with intuition and the conventional
interpretation of the propagator. However, it is worth noting that some people put forward the possibility that there
may exist alternative interpretations and even alternative theories other than the conventional quantum mechanics.
For instance, in literature there were doubts on whether static experiments for testing Bell’s inequality can provide a
convincing conclusion, because “the settings of the instruments are made sufficiently in advance to allow them to reach
some mutual rapport by exchange of signals with velocity less than or equal to that of light” [7, 8]. That is, this picture
indicates that the information on the status of the boundary condition in one location may reach the instruments in other
locations before the presence of the entangled particles used for testing Bell’s inequality. Thus the propagation velocity
of the information could be independent of the velocity of these particles. In addition, some alternative interpretation
theories, e.g., the pilot-wave interpretation, do not necessarily exclude the possibility that the two velocities could be
different either, despite that they always give the same predicted values as those of the mainstream interpretation of
quantum mechanics when calculating observables that can be measured in all previous experiments. Therefore, we
see a divergence between the above theories on their prediction on the velocity how fast the response to the change of
boundary condition will take place.
We will show below that it is possible to measure this velocity experimentally. It will also be shown theoretically that
if the velocity is infinite, then how superluminal signal transfer can be made possible and thus the theory of relativity
will be violated. Else if the velocity is finite, then it may provide a clue to the long-time puzzling open problem why
our world looks classical on the macroscopic scale despite that all microscopic processes are quantum. Furthermore,
knowing the exact value of this velocity can help us to understand how a quantum system “knows” the status of the
boundary condition, which can help to judge whether the pilot-wave theory or other quantum interpretations (or even
alternative theories) seems more appropriate, and prove or disprove the doubts on static experiments for testing Bell’s
inequality. Therefore, implementing our scheme can provide results which will develop our understanding on quantum
mechanics, and bring us closer to the answer of John Wheeler’s big question “why the quantum” [9].

2.2 Importance of the velocity

Before going to the details of our experimental scheme, let us first consider the Gedanken experiment illustrated in
Fig. 2, to define more rigorously the question we described in case 2 in Introduction and see why it is important to
determine the velocity v. In this experiment, a particle source produces single mode quantum particles with velocity
v0 . The quantum particles can be either photons, electrons, or neutrons, etc., and the value of v0 can be either equal to
or smaller than the speed of light c. The output power of the source is carefully controlled so that it produces only one
particle at a time. Similar to the “which-way” experiment [10], let the particles pass a double-slit wall (in fact we use
pinholes instead of slits) and then reach the screen. There is a barrier behind pinhole A that can choose to either open
or close the pinhole. The status of pinholes A and B thus serves as the boundary condition for the quantum state in the
space. Let pinhole B be opened all the time. According to quantum mechanics, when pinhole A is opened, a double-
slit interference pattern should be observed on the screen. On the other hand, if pinhole A is closed, the interference
pattern will disappear, while only the single-slit diffraction caused by pinhole B will be observed. Now the question
we consider is: suppose that pinhole A was initially opened, and is closed at time t1 , then how fast will the pattern
observed on the screen show a response to this change of the status of pinhole A?
On one hand, if the response takes place immediately, then it seems to allow superluminal signal transfer and conflict
with the theory of relativity. This is because an observer at a certain location S of the screen can deduce whether a
distant pinhole A is closed or not by the pattern he observed. For simplicity, let S be a point corresponding to a dark
fringe of the interference pattern when both pinholes A and B are opened. Suppose that the particle source was initially
shut down but turned on right after t1 . The observer then waits for a finite time interval Δt (Δt > (b1 + b2 )/v0 ) so that
a sufficient number of particles can reach the screen from the source. Now if the observer detected a certain amount of
particle flux on point S between the time t1 + (b1 + b2 )/v0 and t1 + Δt, he can deduce that pinhole A was closed. Else,
if he found that point S is still dark after t1 + Δt, then he concludes that pinhole A was not closed at t1 . Therefore, if the
distance a2 is sufficiently larger than (b1 + b2 )c/v0 so that a2 > cΔt, a superluminal signal is transferred from pinhole
A to point S. Although in practice the interference will be too weak to detect if a1 and a2 are very large, in principle it
still makes a difference in the observed pattern. More importantly, unlike the spooky action at a distance realized with
Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen entangled pairs [11] where the observers cannot predict the outcome before performing the
measurement, in our case the difference in the pattern can indeed deliver a preassigned signal. Therefore this result
seems impossible according to the theory of relativity.
On the other hand, suppose that it takes a finite time before it becomes possible to observe the response to the
boundary condition corresponding to the change of the status of pinhole A. That is, we can define a finite velocity v
describing how fast the response propagates in space, according to the time and distance between the point at which
the change takes place and the point at which the response occurs. Then it is puzzling what is traveling through space
delivering the information of the boundary condition. At the first glance, it seems to be a natural interpretation that
these traveling objects are the particles themselves, who reach the boundary so that they “know” how many pinholes
are opened. But previous experiments showed that even if the particle source produces only one single particle at a
time, the interference pattern will still present if both pinholes are opened. Then it may seem weird to assume that
a single particle reaches both pinholes simultaneously by itself. But no matter the particle reaches a pinhole in its
entirety or by parts, as long as this interpretation is correct, it seems natural that we should find v = v0 (within the
precision allowed by the uncertainty principle). This consists with the mainstream interpretation theories of quantum
mechanics. For example, according to Eq. (3.68) of Ref. [1], when both pinholes A and B keep constantly open, the
probability amplitude of a particle emitted from the source E arriving at S after a time τ is
0 +τ
t

S,t0 + τ | E,t0 = dtA S,t0 + τ | A,tA A,tA | E,t0

t0
0 +τ
t

+ dtB S,t0 + τ | B,tB B,tB | E,t0 . (1)

t0
The propagators at the right-hand side of the equation are the 3-dimensional free-particle propagators obtained by
combining Eqs. (3.18) and (3.19) of Ref. [1] as
 3/2 
 m im(x − x
)2
x,t| x
,t0 = exp , (2)
2π ih̄(t − t0 ) 2h̄(t − t0 )

with m denoting the mass of the particle. As mentioned in Sec. 3.6 of Ref. [1], the propagator x,t| x
,t0 is generally
interpreted as the probability amplitude for a particle travels from a space-time point (x
,t0 ) to another point (x,t) in
space and time. Therefore it is clear that the physical picture of Eq. (1) is: the interference pattern observed on point
S of the screen at time t0 + τ is formed by these particles, who were emitted from the source E at time t0 and have a
non-vanished probability amplitude to reach pinhole A at time tA then reach point S at time t0 + τ , while also having a
non-vanished probability amplitude to reach pinhole B at time tB then reach point S at time t0 + τ (t0 ≤ tA ,tB ≤ t0 + τ ).
That is, when pinhole A is closed at time t1 , whether a particle can contribute to form the interference pattern will
depend on whether its velocity v0 ≡ (x − x
)/(t − t0 ) is sufficiently large for it to reach pinholes A and B before t1 .
So it is not surprising that the value of v we defined for the response will be determined by the particles which are
closest to pinhole A at time t1 . These particle will take a time interval of t − t1 = a2 /v0 to reach the screen, so that the
response to the closing of pinhole A can be observed only after this time interval. Thus it is obvious that we will find
v ≡ a2 /(t − t1 ) = v0 in this picture. Of course, some may treat the propagator merely as a mathematical tool without
caring of its physical meaning, therefore avoid the need of an interpretation. But it does not change the fact that the
value of v thus calculated is equal to the velocity v0 of the particle itself.
In Ref. [12] an operational theoretical analysis on a similar setup of the double-slit experiment was given. But
instead of opening and closing one of the slit, they considered the case where detectors are placed next to the slits and
are turned on at certain time intervals so that they extract the path information of the particles while disturbing the
interference pattern. The analysis was also based on the picture that the particles fly from the source and pass the slits
then reach the screen with a classical velocity v0 ≡ p/m. Therefore v = v0 is also the prediction in their treatment.
But besides this picture, there are also other interpretations and alternative theories on how quantum systems
“know” the boundary condition. For instance, according to the de Broglie-Bohm pilot-wave interpretation of quantum
mechanics [13, 14, 15], the traveling objects carrying the information of the boundary condition can be viewed as the
pilot waves set up in space by the Hamiltonian and boundary condition, and the particle travels by following a certain
pilot wave. Note that there are many variations of the pilot-wave theory, most of which still predict v = v0 . But the
possibility v = v0 was not excluded from the very start [13]. Recent research [16] even seems to indicate that if the de
Broglie-Bohm pilot-wave interpretation is correct, then the particles must be able to possess information in advance
about the configuration of the experiment. That is, v must be larger and inequal to v0 . If so, experimentally measuring
v could be a deterministic test on the validity of this pilot-wave interpretation.
Even if other variations of the pilot-wave theory could allow v = v0 , there still exists a distinctive counter-example.
As mentioned in Sec. 2.1, many people have doubts on static experiments for testing Bell’s inequality. They suggested
that there could be the possibility that the instruments may exchange the information on their status before the presence
of the entangled particles used for testing Bell’s inequality [7, 8]. If this is also the case in our experiment, then it is
possible that the particle source, the slits, and the screen somehow “know” the status of each other even without the
existence of the particle. Thus v will not have to be equal to v0 . We must note that such a belief is not uncommon.
Otherwise static experiments would have already been considered sufficient for testing Bell’s inequality and there
would be no need for performing so many non-static type of experiments.
There are also some exactly solvable problems of the Klein-Gordon equation under time-dependent boundary
conditions [3] or potentials [2]. These results indicate that the response to a sudden change in a certain space-time
point will spread in the space with exactly the speed of light c, independent of the velocity of the particles. Then it will
be interesting to question what travels before the particles themselves and gets the information on the boundary. Is it
possible that front waves can carry information? Or do there actually exist “virtual” photons being exchanged between
the particle (or the source) and the boundary so that they “know” the existence of each other, as described in quantum
field theory?
Besides these interpretations, there can even be other mechanism that we may currently be unaware of. Thus it is
natural to assume in general that v0 ≤ v ≤ c. Obviously, if the value of v can be measured, it can help us understand
the mechanism better. Furthermore, as long as v is finite, we can have a simple interpretation on the classicality of our
macroscopic world, as shown below.
 2.3 A simple interpretation of the macroscopic classicality
Consider the following variation of the Gedanken experiment in Sec. 2.2. Suppose that a1 + a2 > b1 + b2 , and the
source was initially turned off, then turned on and off intermittently after t1 . At each interval, it is turned on only for a
short period of time so that it produces only one particle at the most. Let ε denote the time between each interval it is
turned on. ε should be sufficiently long to guarantee that the particle produced in the previous interval already reached
the screen and completely interacted with and was absorbed by the screen, before the source is turned on in the next
interval. Now if pinhole A was initially closed, and the observer at point S does not know whether pinhole A is opened
or closed at t1 , what pattern will he find on the screen?
Since we assumed that the response to the change of the status of pinhole A propagates in space with a finite
velocity v, if pinhole A is opened at t1 , point S will not be affected immediately. Therefore, if pinhole A is sufficiently
far away from the source and the screen, the interference pattern should not be observed at point S for a period of time,
because pinhole A is initially closed. But will the interference pattern be observed later? If yes, then what makes the
forthcoming particle interfere? Note that it is assumed that the source produces only one particle at a time, and the
previous particle was already absorbed by the screen long before the next particle is produced. Thus, even if there is
anything (for conciseness in the description, we call it as pilot wave hereafter, no matter what it really is) generated
by the previous particle, it should no longer exist when the next particle comes out. So if we assume that the pilot
wave delivering the status of the boundary condition is generated by the particle itself, then there is nothing left from
the previous particle to guide the next one. The next particle has to generate its own pilot wave to sense the boundary.
Therefore, similar to the previous particles, the forthcoming particles will not form an interference pattern at point S
either, as long as pinhole A is so far away from the source and the screen, that each particle already passed pinhole B
and then reached and was absorbed by the screen from the source before its own pilot wave can reach the screen from
pinhole A. Consequently, interference can never be observed in this Gedanken experiment even though both pinholes
are opened!
If this is indeed the case, then it gives a clue on why our world looks classical on the macroscopic scale even though
every single particle is ruled by quantum mechanics and has wave-particle duality – simply because in the real world
most quantum particles are closely surrounded by and interacting with other particles on the microscopic scale, and
they act as pinhole B and the screen to each other, so that other boundary condition at a distance (which does not have
to be really far away on the macroscopic sense) is relatively too far to have these quantum particles fully display their
corresponding wave-like behaviors such as interference. Intriguingly, some classical laws of physics which were once
considered as postulations will become interpretable easily in this picture, e.g., Fermat’s principle of least time and
even Newton’s first law of motion. That is, consider the case that we try to observe the trajectory (i.e., the particle-like
behavior) of an object free from external disturbance other than these used to detected the trajectory, e.g., the phonons
scattered by the object, or the vapor in a cloud chamber, etc. The “boundary conditions” that take effect first are these
nearest to the object. If the interaction between the object and these nearest “boundaries” is completed in a short time,
then the finite velocity of the object is not sufficient to let “boundaries” far away show any relationship with the object.
Therefore the trajectory observed from the scattered phonons or bubbles will naturally appear as a straight line, with a
deviation within the quantum scale, which is determined by how fast the interaction is completed.
Of course, to establish a completed interpretation, we need to further study whether this mechanism also plays a
crucial role in every other complicated physical process. Thus it is still too early to reach a deterministic conclusion.
Nevertheless, we would like to pinpoint out that this interpretation has the advantage that it does not require any new
physical postulation. As long as v is finite, the above mechanism is valid. And v has to be finite as long as superluminal
signal transfer is impossible. That is, this interpretation is based merely on the validity of Special Relativity. Note that
other existing interpretations on the classicality of the macroscopic world generally involve new postulations which
may not have been proven. Therefore our interpretation looks promising and worth further investigation.
On the contrary, if the interference pattern can indeed be observed in this Gedanken experiment, then it seems to
suggest that the pilot wave is generated by the boundary instead of the particle itself. If so, then its velocity could be
independent of the type of the particle. This picture is also worth studying since the corresponding mechanism will be
fascinating, and it may even be related to the interpretation of space-time structure and gravity.
Either way, we can see that the corresponding physical picture is interesting. Intuitively, it seems very possible that
the result would be v = v0 . However, as mentioned above, there are also some interpretations or alternative theories
which give different predictions on this velocity. Therefore, nothing should be taken for granted in the quantum world
unless it is proven by experiments. Here we are not going to draw a conclusion theoretically. Instead, we will propose
a feasible scheme to measure the velocity v.
   
 
K


  

  




FIGURE 3. The apparatus for measuring the velocity of the response. Two wheels rotating along the same axis with the same
speed ω are placed behind pinhole A and in front of the screen respectively, so that pinhole A and certain regions of the screen are
covered from time to time.

2.4 The experimental scheme

The experimental apparatus for measuring this velocity is illustrated in Fig. 3. It is similar to the above Gedanken
experiment, but none of the pinholes needs to be far away so that it is practical to be implemented. We shall simply take
a1 = b1 and a2 = b2 in the following. Comparing with a conventional double-slit interferometer, the only modification
is to add two wheels rotating clockwise (when viewing from the particle source) along the same axis with the same
speed ω . The shape of the front wheel is a sector of angle α . It is located right behind pinhole A so that it will cover
pinhole A from time to time as it rotates. The shape of the rear wheel is a sector of angle β . It is located right in
front of the screen so that it will cover a certain area of the screen as it rotates. Now suppose that the speed ω is very
high, and the output power of the particle source is carefully controlled so that it produces no more than one single
particle at a time. In one round of the rotation of the wheels, at time t1 the left edge OE1 of the front wheel meets
pinhole A so that A is going to be covered by the front wheel (see Fig. 4a). At a later time t2 , the right edge OE2 of
the front wheel starts to leave pinhole A so that A will be opened hereafter (see Fig. 4b). Let OE0 denote the line on
the screen corresponding to the position of the left edge of the rear wheel at t1 , and OE3 denote the line on the screen
corresponding to the position of the right edge of the rear wheel at t2 . Then OE0 E3 forms a sector with angle γ = β − α
(supposing that the diameter of the pinhole is negligible).
Now consider the pattern we will observe within the sector area OE0 E3 of the screen after a sufficiently long period
of time during which the wheels completed many rounds of rotation. Note that in each round, the area OE0 E3 of
the screen is completely covered during the period from t1 to t2 . On the other hand, pinhole A is kept opened before
t1 and after t2 . That is, the part of the screen within the area OE0 E3 is exposed only when both pinholes A and B
are opened. Therefore, if the change of the boundary condition (i.e., the status of pinhole A in our case) takes effect
instantaneously (i.e., the response to the change propagates in space with an infinite velocity), only the interference
pattern will be observed within the area OE0 E3 . Meanwhile, a mix pattern will be observed on the screen outside the
area OE0 E3 , which is not only the interference pattern obtained when both pinholes A and B are opened, but also
overlaps with the single-slit diffraction pattern when pinhole A is covered by the front wheel.
On the contrary, if the response has a finite velocity v, then the mix pattern will also be observed in some parts of
the area OE0 E3 . This is because pinhole A is covered during t1 to t2 . And though it is opened at t2 , the screen will not
be affected until t2 + ΔT , where ΔT = a2 /v. Therefore, if any particle reaches the screen during ΔT , it will contribute
to form the single-slit diffraction pattern as if pinhole A was not opened yet. Since the rear wheel is rotating with the
speed ω , during ΔT its right edge sweeps through an angle

δ = ω ΔT = ω a2 /v, (3)

thus leaving a narrow sector of angle δ at the left of OE3 uncovered. Consequently, the mix pattern should be presented
in this sector area. Similarly, though pinhole A starts to close at t1 , it will not take effect on the screen until t1 + ΔT .
Therefore, the interference pattern instead of the mix pattern will be observed in a narrow sector of angle δ to the
left of OE0 . As a whole, there is still a sector area of the screen in which only the pure interference pattern will be
observed. The sector has the same angle as that of the sector OE0 E3 , but its position is like rotating the sector OE0 E3
  
K    
K  
   

¢

 

© 
£ ¤
Ă ď

FIGURE 4. The position of the wheels at (a) t = t1 , and (b) t = t2 .

clockwise along the axis of the wheels by angle δ , while the pattern observed inside the sector (the position of the
fringes) does not rotate since the relative position of the pinholes and the screen stays unvaried.
To observe the changed angle, in the experiment we can initially rotate the wheels at an extremely slow speed ωs ,
while putting a photographic plate on the screen and exposing for a long period of time (just a little longer than that in
an ordinary double-slit experiment without the wheels), so that there can be a sufficient amount of particles reaching
the screen to form a visible pattern for reference. This eliminates the need for single-particle detectors. Then we rotate
the wheels at a very fast speed ω f = ωs + Δω , while putting another photographic plate on the screen and exposing for
the same period of time. By comparing the current pattern with the initial one, the angle Δδ ≡ δ f − δs can be measured,
where δ f = ω f a2 /v and δs = ωs a2 /v. Thus the velocity of the response to the change of the boundary condition can
be obtained as
v = Δω a2 /Δδ . (4)

2.5 Feasibility and discussions

In practice, since we would like to determine whether the velocity v equals to the velocity v0 of the particles or
not in the experiment, it is recommended to use particles with a non-vanishing mass, so that v0 < c. Therefore single-
electron interference [17, 18, 19, 20] and single cold-atom interference [21, 22] can both be used. Take for example,
consider the apparatus of the single-electron interference experiment in Ref. [17], whose specification was provided
in Ref. [18]. It used a convergent electrostatic biprism to take the role of the double-slit. The distance (denoted as b
in Ref. [18]) between the biprism and the screen (before magnified by the projector lenses) is a2 = 6cm. When the
wire potential of the biprism is 24V , an interference pattern with a fringe spacing of 1000Å can be obtained (see Fig.
5(e) of Ref. [18]). To implement our experimental scheme, all we need is to add the wheels shown in Fig. 3 to their
apparatus. The wheels should be made of the same sort of non-magnetic insulating materials used in the biprism so
they will not charge up nor disturb the magnetic field of the lenses. Let the radius of both the front and rear wheels
be R = 10cm. Since it is sufficient for us to observe the angle δ at only one of the edge of the sector OE0 E3 , e.g.,
OE0 , the sector OE0 E3 can be much larger than the size of the entire visible area of the interference pattern. Therefore
the angles α and β need not to be too small nor precise so that they can be prepared easily. The hardest part of the
experiment may be that the wheels need to be placed precisely, so that the tip E0 of the rear wheel falls within the
visible area of the interference pattern on the screen when the front wheel starts to cover one half of the biprism. This
is also how the angle θ between the left edges of two wheels (as shown in Fig. 4a) is determined. Once this is done,
we rotate the wheels at a low speed, e.g., ωs ∼ 10 round per second, and turn on the whole system to get a pattern
for reference. As long as the wheels are correctly placed, half of the pattern we observe now should be identical to
the interference pattern without the wheels (i.e., Fig. 5(e) of Ref. [18]), while the other half should be blurred by the
single-slit diffraction pattern (which should look like a mix of Fig. 5(a) and Fig. 5(e) of Ref. [18]), as shown in our
Fig. 5. This can also be used as an approach to verify whether the wheels are placed correctly. After that, we rotate
 Single-slit diffraction Double-slit interference
[18] Fig.5(a) [18] Fig.5(e)
K
 

 

}2μ m
¢ Ă!"
Y
 ϭϬϬ#
X wheel speed
 

© 
ω1 → 0 rds / sec
£

{
X
$ƌŽ%%Ž&'ƌƌ'*ŝŽ- ŝ-ƚ'ƌ.'ƌ'-$'ƌ'*ŝŽ-
Ă!" R (ω2 − ω1 )a2
x=
v
ϭϬϬ#
wheel speed
X ω2 = 500 rds / sec

FIGURE 5. The expected result of the proposed single-electron biprism interference experiment. The pattern observed on the
screen under the edge of the rear wheel will be a mix which has the pure interference pattern on the right, merging into a crossover
pattern of interference and diffraction on the left. Both the pictures of interference and diffraction are excerpted from Fig. 5 of [18].
When the wheels rotated at two different speeds, the boundary between the pure interference region and the crossover region will
move for a distance x, as calculated by Eq. (5).

the wheels at a high speed ω f = 500 round per second. Then as long as the velocity we want to measure (i.e., v in
Eq. (4) ) is finite, the position of the dividing boundary between the interference region and the mixed region in the
pattern currently observed should be different from that of the pattern previously observed at low rotation speed ωs
of the wheels. And the difference is most significant on the location of the screen corresponding to the far end of
the rear wheel (the tip E0 ) when the front wheel starts to cover one half of the biprism, as denoted by x in our Fig. 5.
Rigorously, according to Eq. (4), the change of the position of the dividing boundary in the pattern around this location
is
x ≡ RΔδ = RΔω a2 /v. (5)
The velocity of the electron in the experiment in Refs. [17, 18] is v0 = 1.5 × 108 m/ sec. Therefore if the velocity
v equals to v0 , then we get x = RΔω a2 /v0 = 1232Å. Even if v equals to the speed of light c, which is the maximum
allowed by the theory of relativity, there is still x = RΔω a2 /c = 616Å. Both values are comparable to the fringe spacing
(1000Å) of the interference pattern thus are detectable.
Note that the value of v0 is always treated as a constant in the above discussion. But at the quantum point of view,
a particle should be treated as a wave-packet instead of a mass point. Since it is generally believed that information
should be related with mass or energy, v0 in this paper should be understood as the group velocity of the wave-packet.
Meanwhile, in real experiments the particles will have a spread of phase velocities. If v is determined by the phase
velocities, what could be observed in the experiment would be a superposition of the patterns corresponding to different
v. In fact, even if the particle can be viewed as classical and v0 remains a constant, in the case v = v0 we will still find
a superposition of patterns as if v varies. This is because we took ΔT = a2 /v in the paragraph before Eq. (3). But in
the experiment, whenever the front wheel starts to uncover (or cover) pinhole A, the forthcoming particle generally
may not have reached the location right in front of pinhole A yet. It will spend a little more time to travel to pinhole A
before it could take the path a2 (or “know” that A is closed). Thus the actual ΔT will vary from (a1 + a2 )/v0 to a2 /v0
for different particles. Consequently, Eq. (3) will appear as if v varies from v0 a2 /(a1 + a2 ) to v0 for different particles.
But all these effects will not spoil our experiment, because we are interested in the dividing boundary between the
interference region and the diffraction/interference mixed region. In a superposition of the patterns corresponding to
different v, the overall boundary will be determined by the mixed region corresponding to the maximum of v. Therefore
in principle, if v = v0 is indeed the case and our detection precision is sufficiently high, the value of x we measure from
the change of the overall dividing boundary in the experiment will give the maximum of v from Eq. (5). Of course
in practice we do not have unlimited detection precision. Then due to the visibility, the overall dividing boundary
will look back off a little to the diffraction/interference mixed region as the boundaries for different v do not lay over
each other. This effect is more significant when the rotation speed of the wheels get higher. The measured value of
x in the experiment will then increase correspondingly. (Note that we are studying the pattern around the edge OE0 .
Around the other edge OE3 the measured x will decrease instead.) The value of v thus obtained will appear to be a little
smaller. But considering that the difference between c and the average of v0 is very large in the above single-electron
interference experiment (which has v0 ∼ c/2), such a result will still be sufficient for judging unambiguously whether
v depends on v0 or merely equals to c.
Alternatively, if we only want to test our interpretation on the macroscopic classicality by merely determining
whether the velocity v is finite or not without caring of the relationship between v and v0 , then single-photon (rather
than electron) double-slit interference experiments will be more convenient. In this case, the distance a2 between
the double-slit and the screen in free space can be ∼ 102 times larger than that of the single-electron interference
experiment, and can be made even larger with optical fibers. Therefore we can observe a significantly larger x and
measure it with higher precision. The visible area of the interference pattern is also larger, thus the radius of the wheels
can be increased too, so that the speed ω f can be lower. While the feasibility is further improved, the disadvantage of
these experiments with photons is that v0 is exactly the speed of light c. Then if the experimental result shows that v
also equals to c, it can hardly provide any information on whether the status of the boundary condition is learned by
the photons themselves or by something else being exchanged between the experimental instruments.
No matter which type of experiments is used, as long as the result shows that v is indeed finite, then it seems
to support our above interpretation why our macroscopic world shows classicality though any physical process on
the microscopic scale is quantum. Moreover, if experiments with different types of particles all prove that v =
v0 , then we can conclude that a particle knows the status of the boundary condition by reaching it. Thus it can
economize futile research on quantum interpretation theories based on the hypothesis of faster-than-light or backward-
in-time information on environments, as well as the existence of a special frame of reference. The doubts [7, 8] on
static experiments for testing Bell’s inequality can also be clarified. Meanwhile, in double-slit interference type of
phenomena, logically this result can even be understood as an evidence supporting the weird idea that a single particle
indeed passes the two slits simultaneously. Or if we find v = v0 , then it will suggest that there are indeed pilot waves
or other intriguing mechanism which deliver the information on the status of the boundary, that travel separately from
the particles. Specially, if v = c, then such information carriers could be virtual photons being exchanged between the
particle (or the source) and the boundary.

3. THE DISCRETENESS OF TIME

3.1 The flow of time

In the above section we focused on the question when the wavefunction changes in corresponding to the boundary
condition. Now let us return to case 1 in Introduction, and study the question how does the wavefunction changes.
Intriguingly, we find that the answer will lead to a proof that time is discrete.
Let us first review briefly the evolution of the understanding on the nature of time. In the age of Newton’s classical
mechanics, time was regarded as a continuous coordinate that flows independently of any other object and event. With
the advance of modern physics, people started to aware that time cannot exist solely without involving any physical
process. That is, time can only be sensed and measured when changes occur to the status of objects. As indicated by
quantum mechanics, there should be a smallest unit of time called Planck time, which is the limit of time that can be
measured due to the uncertainty principle. Thus physics cannot reason in a meaningful way what happens within a time
interval shorter than Planck time. Here we show that it is not only the limit of measurement. Instead, we give a simple
proof that no physical process can actually happen within Planck time, otherwise either special relativity or quantum
mechanics will be violated. In this sense, the flow of time must be considered as discrete instead of continuous.
 3.2 A paradox between special relativity and quantum mechanics
According to the theory of special relativity, no signal can travel faster than the speed of light. On the other hand,
quantum mechanics claims that any physical system is completely described by a wavefunction, which has to be
normalized. Now let us show that there is a paradox between the two. Suppose that we want to induce a change on the
wavefunction of a quantum system. Then we need to make a change on the elements which determine the wavefunction
of the system, e.g., the potential, the status of the boundary, etc. How fast will the wavefunction show a change after
these elements changed? For simplicity, let us consider case 1 mentioned in Introduction. A particle is confined in a
one-dimensional finite square well with a potential V0 as shown in Fig. 1(a). Denote the normalized wavefunction of
the particle in this case as ψ0 . At time t1 , the potential at point A suddenly changes to V1 , as illustrated in Fig. 1(b).
Suppose that ψ1 is the normalized wavefunction satisfying the current value of the potential. Then what is the minimal
time for the state to change from ψ0 to ψ1 ?
As mentioned in Sec. 2.1, while such kinds of questions seem quite usual in quantum mechanics, in literature
they were generally solved under nonrelativistic approximation, despite that this was not clearly stated most of the
time (see e.g., Refs. [4, 5]). That is, it is assumed that at any given time t, the wavefunction ψ (t) satisfies the
Schrödinger equation of the same t. This actually means that the change of the wavefunction occurs in the whole
space instantaneously when the Hamiltonian changes. But this will violate special relativity as shown below. Suppose
that two people Alice (located at point A) and Charlie (located at point C, where the distance between points A and C is
l) want to communicate. They prepared N (N is sufficiently large) copies of the system shown in Fig. 1(a) beforehand.
At time t1 , if Alice wants to send the bit 1, she makes the potential V0 of the first N/2 systems at point A change to V1
simultaneously, while leaving the last N/2 systems unchanged. Else if she wants to send the bit 0, she keeps all the
N systems unchanged. At time t1 + Δt Charlie measures all the N systems at point C. If the probability of finding the
particle at point C in the first N/2 systems can be considered equal to that of the last N/2 systems within the variation
range allowed by statistical fluctuation, he assumes that the bit sent by Alice is 0. Else if the probabilities of finding the
particle at point C look much different in the two halves of the systems, he assumes that the bit is 1. With this method,
a superluminal signal can be transferred from point A to C if l > cΔt, where c denotes the speed of light. Thus special
relativity is violated if we assume that the wavefunction can change from ψ0 to ψ1 in the whole space instantaneously
at time t1 .
Therefore, it seems natural to assume that the response of the wavefunction corresponding to the change of the
potential at point A should propagate along the x axis with a finite velocity v (0 < v ≤ c). However, this will cause
trouble to the normalization of the wavefunction. Suppose that at time t1 the potential at point A changes, and at
time t1 + l/v the change of the wavefunction from ψ0 to ψ1 occurs to the region between points A and C, while
the wavefunction at the right side of C has to remain strictly unchanged due to the impossibility of superluminal
signal transfer. Such a wavefunction is plotted as the solid blue curve in Fig. 1(c). Then we can immediately see
from the figure that the resultant wavefunction at this moment is no longer normalized. Since the wavefunction relates
directly to the probability of finding the system in space according to conventional quantum interpretation theories, an
unnormalized wavefunction will lead to an unclear physical meaning.
Note that Fig. 1(c) is a simplified diagram for illustration purpose only. In fact, similar situation should also happen
to the region at the left side of A. The actual shape of ψ0 and ψ1 could be more complicated too, so that the resultant
wavefunction may not be discontinued at point C. These details are left out in Fig. 1(c). Some might wonder whether
adding these details may keep the normalization condition unbroken. For example, suppose that the wavefunction
evolves from ψ0 to ψ1 in the following way. At time t1 + δ t, the wavefunction ψδ varies from ψ0 with a wave-like
shape in a small region around point A only. At the region at one side of point A the wavefunction rises a little, while
at the other side of point A (or some other region at the same side of point A) it drops exactly the same amount, as
illustrated in Fig. 6. Then the overall wavefunction can still be normalized. The width d of the varied region at each
side of point A grows as δ t increases, but for any given δ t, it always satisfies d ≤ cδ t so that no superluminal signaling
occurs. Thus the above paradox is avoided.
Nevertheless, while such an evolution of the wavefunction can preserve the normalization condition, there is no
guarantee that ψδ is the solution to the Schrödinger (or Klein-Gordon/Dirac) equation with a Hamiltonian correspond-
ing to either V0 or V1 . Indeed, there is at least one exactly solvable case of the Klein-Gordon equation which clearly
shows that the solution encounters the problem we found. In Sec. 3 of [2], the behavior of a particle in 1-1 dimension
space-time was studied in the presence of a scalar potential
4t
Vs (x,t) = θ (t)δ (x), (6)
t2 + a
 2
V1 ψ0
d

2
ψδ
x
A B

FIGURE 6. An example of the evolution of the wavefunction at time t1 + δ t from ψ0 (dashed blue curve) to ψδ (solid blue
curve).

where θ (t) is the step function and δ (x) is the Dirac delta function. We can see that this potential is very similar
to our case 1 in the sense that the change occurs at a single point x = 0 only. The exact non-trivial solution to the
Klein-Gordon equation, in units of h̄ = c = 1, is found to be (Eq. (3.18) of [2])

ψ+ (x,t) = eikt [cos(kx) + B1 (t − |x|)e−ik|x| ], (7)

with (Eq. (3.22) of [2]) 

−2 1 − e−ikt it
B1 (t) = θ (t) − . (8)
t2 + a k2 k
The form of B1 (t) guarantees that there is no superluminal signal transfer. ψ+ (x,t) indeed has a wave-like shape
similar to that of ψδ in Fig. 6. However, from these equation it can be verified that if ψ+ (x,t) is normalized for t ≤ 0,
then it is no longer normalized for t > 0. The rise and drop of the wavefunction in different regions cannot cancel each
other completely. It is important to note that this problem cannot be solved by simply calculating a new normalization
constant and multiplying it to the entire unnormalized wavefunction. Because doing so will introduce a change on
the probability amplitude in regions t − |x| < 0, i.e., at time t the change of the potential at point x = 0 will have a
detectable effect at points |x| > ct, enabling superluminal signal transfer. Thus we found an example that the solution
of relativistic quantum mechanical equation cannot preserve the normalization condition without violating the special
relativity at the same time. So if we want to insist that any quantum system evolving under time-dependent potentials
will have a wavefunction like ψδ in Fig. 6, that it can satisfy both the normalization condition and the requirement of
no superluminal signaling, then we will have to find new formulas and even new postulations to explain why the system
should take such a wavefunction, how it will finally evolve to ψ1 , and what determines the shape of ψδ (e.g., the phase,
amplitude, and speed of the wave-like variation between ψδ from ψ0 ), as the currently existing standard quantum
mechanical formulas alone are insufficient to provide such a solution. Simply put, this is equivalent to claiming that
the current quantum mechanics is incomplete.
Thus we found a paradox between the impossibility of superluminal signal transfer and the normalization condition
of wavefunction. Though it is well-known that the theories of relativity and quantum mechanics do not go well with
each other, the current paradox reveals yet another conflict between the two theories which does not seem to have been
reported before. Also, it does not involve the transformation between reference frames, so it cannot be solved simply
by replacing the Schrödinger equation with the Klein-Gordon or Dirac equation. Therefore it differs by nature from
previously known conflicts between the two theories, and put forward a new challenge to our understanding on the
quantum world.
 3.3 The discreteness of time
Intriguingly, we find that this paradox can be solved if we adopt the bizarre idea that time is discrete. As shown
above, relativity does not allow the change of wavefunction to occur before the time t1 + l/v for any location whose
distance from point A is larger than l. Meanwhile, quantum mechanics does not allow the wavefunction to change
part by part. As a consequence, if we want to obey both theories simultaneously while still insisting that quantum
mechanics is complete, logically the wavefunction has to evolve in the following way. After the potential at point A
changed at time t1 , the wavefunction should show no response at all during a period of time τ . Then at time t1 + τ or
some points later, the wavefunction in the whole space changes simultaneously to keep the normalization condition
unbroken. Here
τ = L
/v ≥ L/v, (9)
where L is the distance between points A and B, which can be regarded as the effective size of the system. L
is the
distance between points A and B
or points A and A
in Fig. 1(c), depending on which one is larger. The location of
points A
and B
are determined by the wavefunctions, in such a way that the difference between ψ0 and ψ1 at the
left side of A
and the right side of B
is completely drowned by statistical fluctuation, so that it will not lead to any
detectable superluminal signal from point A to these regions when the wavefunction changes from ψ0 to ψ1 .
In the spirit of Newton’s first law, any physical system will persist in its state of motion unless being applied with
an inducement. Meanwhile, since quantum mechanics is recognized as the complete description of the physical world,
any physical process can be viewed as the change of the wavefunction of the system under a certain inducement
at a certain point. Note that if the inducement occurs at many points or even in a region which can be considered
continuous, we can always treat it as the sum of many inducements, each of which occurs at one single point only.
Therefore Eq. (9) sets a limit on how fast any physical process can occur. That is, when any inducement is applied on
a system with size L, no change can happen to the state of the system within the time τ . This conclusion is universal as
long as the three preconditions, i.e., the normalization condition, the impossibility of superluminal signal transfer, and
the claim that quantum mechanics is complete, are considered universal. All systems are covered, including any object
we want to measure, as well as all apparatus we use as timekeepers or detectors to measure other objects. Now consider
the lower bound of τ for any system. Due to the uncertainty principle of quantum mechanics, the minimal size of any
physical system that can be reasoned in a meaningful way is Planck length lP  1.616 × 10−35 meter. Meanwhile, the
theory of relativity requires v ≤ c. Thus we have

τmin ≥ lP /c ≡ tP  5.39 × 10−44 sec . (10)

Here tP is known as Planck time, which was already recognized as the minimum of time that can be measured. Our
result suggests that the significance of tP is more than that. Any physical change can only happen after a time which
is not less than tP . Within a time interval of tP , any physical system simply persists in its previous state. Therefore,
according to the modern understanding of time, nothing happens within tP so that there is no further division of time
possible within this range. In this sense, time is discrete, with tP being the minimal unit. Because the value of tP is
so small, it is not surprising that the discreteness of time is less noticeable in practice, and previous nonrelativistic
treatment of quantum mechanical problems [4, 5] seems fine in most cases.
Note that even if the minimal size limit lP could be somehow broken in the future, it is still natural to believe that as
long as a system exists physically, its size has to be a finite non-vanishing value. Therefore according to Eq. (9), time
still cannot be made continuous, though the exact value of the minimal unit might differs from tP .
The above analysis is based on the assumption that the change of the potential from V0 to V1 is completed instantly.
Some may wonder how this can be possible if tP is the minimal unit of time. Also, it would be interesting to ask what
will happen if the potential changes more than once within tP . We believe that these problems should be understood as
follows. Even if there exists a change of the potential (or any other inducement) which could be so fast that it occurred
and completed instantly, our above result showed that the response of any system to this change cannot occur within
tP . Therefore the response will surely take more time to occur if the change takes a finite time to complete, so that it
will not conflict with the conclusion that no physical process can occur within a time interval less than tP . Also, any
change of the potential has to be made by a certain physical apparatus, which is also limited by tP . Once the potential
has a change at time t1 , no physical process can change it again before time t1 + tP . That is, the change should also
be considered as discrete instead of continuous. Therefore there does not exist the case where the system encounters a
series of changes within tP .
 3.4 Experimental test
Now back to the system with a size L >> tP . It is interesting to notice from Eq. (9) that the system has its own
minimal unit of time τ . The larger the size L is, the slower the system can evolve. Note that for complicated systems
containing more than one particle, L should be understood as the minimal localization length of the particles in the
system, rather than the overall size. Therefore macroscopic systems, e.g., human bodies or planets, do not mean having
a tremendous τ , because they contain plenty of particles which are highly localized on the microscopic scale. But for
a system which is relatively large while having a simple structure, if we can keep all the particles on extended states
whose localization length is comparable with the size of the system, then it may become possible to observe a larger
discreteness of time. Therefore, though we cannot test directly our above interpretation of the discreteness of time
with systems having the size of Planck length because we cannot find detectors smaller then they do, we can perform
indirect experimental test with larger systems.
For example, we can stimulate the device in Fig. 1 with cold atoms or quantum dots. We also use a detector to
measure whether the particle inside the well can be found within a fixed region inside the potential well. This region
serves as point C in Fig. 1(c). To test whether time is discrete, first we repeat this experiment many times to get an
estimation of the probability p0 of finding the particle around point C when the potential is set to V0 . Secondly, we
re-initialize the system, i.e., prepare such a system again with the potential V0 and keep it unmeasured. Then change
the potential at point A from V0 to V1 . After the change we wait for a time interval tx < l/c where l is the distance
between points C and A. Now we measure whether the particle can be found at point C. Repeat this for many times
too, so we can get an estimation of the probability px of finding the particle around point C at time tx after the potential
changed. Third, we re-initial the system again. Change the potential from V0 to V1 , and wait for a time interval ty
(l/c < ty < L/c). Here L is the width of the well. Then we measure whether the particle can be found at point C.
Repeat this also for many times and we can get an estimation of the probability py of finding the particle around point
C at time ty after the potential changed. Finally we compare whether p0 , px and py are equal within the variation of
statistical fluctuation. Then we can have the following conclusion.
(1) If p0 = px , then it seems to enable superluminal signal transfer and thus violates the theory of relativity.
(2) Else if p0 = px = py , then the theory of relativity is obeyed but quantum mechanics seems to be violated.
(3) Else if p0 = px = py , then it proves that our above interpretation of the discreteness of time is correct.
For a more rigorous test on the validity of the normalization condition, we can keep changing the location of the
detector (i.e., point C), and measure the probabilities of finding the particle at different positions at a given time after
the potential changed from V0 to V1 . If for a period of time after the potential changes, the measured value of the
probability at every position remains unchanged, and at a later time we find that all in a sudden, the probability at
every point shows difference from its previous value, then we can conclude that the wavefunction in the whole space
indeed changes simultaneously. Else if we find that at a given time, the probabilities change at some positions while
remain unchanged at the others, then we can deduce the form of the current wavefunction and check whether the
normalization condition could be broken.
In these experiments, we’re mostly interested on whether the probabilities measured at different time or positions
are equal or not. The exact values of the probabilities are not very important as long as we do not need to check
the normalization condition in exact numbers. Therefore it does not matter how much the detection efficiency of the
detector is. As long as the efficiency remains stable during the experiments, the result will be valid.
But we have to notice that both tx and ty are very small time intervals. For instance, the size L of quantum dots are
usually hundreds of nanometers, so L/c is at the order of magnitude of femtoseconds. Thus it will be hard to measure
tx and ty precisely with current technology. Nevertheless, Eq. (9) shows that the minimal time interval τ of a system is
determined by L/v instead of L/c. Here v is exactly the velocity we discussed in Sec. 2. If v is significantly smaller than
c, then we can expect a much longer time interval tz > L/c > ty , during which the system still does not evolve as long
as tz < L/v. Therefore, the result to be found by the experimental scheme we proposed in Sec. 2 will determine how
feasible the experiment in the current section can be. Since the exact value of v is unknown to us so far, in experiments
we can measure the probability ps of finding the particle around point C at time ts after the potential changes, where ts
is the shortest time interval we can achieve with current technology. If we find ps = p0 within the variation of statistical
fluctuation, then it proves our above interpretation of the discreteness of time, while also indicates that v < L
/ts  L/ts .
By increasing ts gradually and repeating the experiment until we find ps = p0 , the velocity v can be more rigorously
determined, and serve as a complementarity for the experiment in Sec. 2.
Here we would like to discuss the velocity v a little further. As mentioned in Sec. 2, v describes how fast a system
responses to the change of the status of the potential or the boundary condition, therefore its value is related with
the understanding on how the particle in the system “knows” these status. In double-slit interference, the mainstream
interpretations tends to suggest that the particle “knows” the status of the slits by reaching them by itself, so v may
very probably equal to the classical velocity v0 of the particle in the system. Therefore, it is reasonable to believe that
the velocity v in our current case also equals to the classical effective velocity v0 of the particle if the mainstream
quantum interpretation theories are correct. If so, we can expect a very low v from systems at low energy levels. Then
it will be easier to observe a larger τ in the above experiments. Moreover, v = v0 can also explain why the system
needs to wait a time interval τ before its wavefunction starts to evolve. As we know, the wavefunction (e.g., ψ1 in Fig.
1(b)) is not determined merely by the status of the potential at one side of the well. Instead, the potential on anywhere
of the whole system has its share of contribution. Therefore, the particle needs time τ ≥ L/v0 to travel from one side
of the well to the other, so that it “knows” the status of the potential and the boundary at every point of the system
before it “decides” what the wavefunction should evolve to. It will be interesting to further question why and how the
quantum system has a “memory” to store the information of the status during τ . Of course, all quantum interpretation
theories are still in need of more experimental support at the present moment. Therefore it is still too early to reach
any conclusion theoretically, before the above experimental proposals are implemented and prove whether v = v0 or
not.

3.5 Applications
What we found here is more than merely a deepened understanding on the nature of time. Rather, it has a wide range
of application in different fields.
First, when L → ∞, Eq. (9) seems to suggest a weird result. That is, a very large system will have a very large time
interval τ , during which the system shows no change at all no matter what happened to it before. But in fact this result
consists with the macroscopic classicality of our universe. It means that if there is a quantum system with an extremely
large localization length, then we can hardly detect it at all because no matter what detection we made, the system will
not react with any physical motion for an extremely long period of time. In other words, such a system can produce no
evidence for its physical existence. Therefore all the systems we can find in this universe within a finite time have to
break their wavefunctions down to short localization length scale, making our world looks less quantum on the large
scale.
Secondly, as a corollary of the discreteness of time, there exists a limit for the speed of all kinds of computers,
either classical or quantum ones. Since the state of a register of the computer cannot evolve within τ , every step of
the instruction on the register needs at least a time interval of τ to complete. Thus the maximum operational speed
on a single register is 1/τ IPS (Instructions per second). If tP is indeed the minimal unit of time, then the maximum
speed is 1/tP  1.86 × 1043 IPS per register. Of course, a computer can contain many registers that operate in parallel.
Therefore the total speed will rise with the increase of the number of the registers.
In addition, we should note that the above analysis is based on the assumption that both special relativity and
quantum mechanics are valid on any scale, and quantum mechanics is complete. This assumption seems to be valid
on most scales, even down to a few nanometers. Therefore our above analysis and experimental proposal are valid
for systems with a larger size L, e.g., quantum dots and cold atoms. But currently there is no proof that special
relativity and quantum mechanics must remain valid in the range of Planck length and Planck time, despite that
neither counterexample was found so far. If either of the theories fails on this scale, then there may be physical
processes happening within the range of Planck time. Ironically, if the above interpretation on the discreteness of time
is true, then as we mentioned, all timekeepers and detectors are bounded by the limit of the discreteness too. Thus
we cannot perform experimental test directly on this scale despite that we can perform indirect test on larger scales.
Nevertheless, it does not mean that our above analysis is futile even on the scale where special relativity or quantum
mechanics becomes invalid. Currently there are many attempts to develop new theories (e.g., loop quantum gravity
theory) trying to describe the events within the scale of Planck time, e.g., the first few moment of our universe just after
it was born from the Big Bang. Our current result indicates that if there indeed exists a theory capable of handling the
physical processes in any small time interval, i.e., time is treated as continuous, then it should be better incompatible
with either the impossibility of superluminal signal transfer or the normalization condition of wavefunction (or even
both). Or it should find an even smaller unit as a replacement for Planck time to describe the discreteness of time.
Otherwise it may have a hard time solving the paradox between relativity and quantum mechanics we proposed above.
This is in agreement with a recent proposal [23], which prefers an indefinite causal structure of the quantum gravity
theory. But of course, if there is indeed such a new theory, it already means that quantum mechanics is incomplete.
Then everything could be possible.
 4. SUMMARY
Briefly, we proposed a very feasible experimental scheme based on single-particle double-slit interference, to measure
the velocity how fast a quantum system responses to the change of the potential or the boundary condition. The
result can help us understand how a system gets information on the environment. It will either support our simple
interpretation on macroscopic classicality, clearing the doubts on static experiments for testing Bell’s inequality, or
prove the pilot-wave theory. All of these will economize the research on quantum interpretation.
We also predict that any system will remain irresponsive for a short period of time even when there is a change
on the potential or the boundary condition. This leads to a very simple and experimentally testable proof that time is
discrete.
We thank Prof. Hua-Zhong Li, Prof. Sofia Wechsler, Prof. J. E. Carroll, and Prof. Na-Qing Xie for valuable
discussions. The work was supported in part by the NSF of China under grant Nos. 10975198 and 11011140279,
the NSF of Guangdong province under grant No. 9151027501000043, and the Foundation of Zhongshan University
Advanced Research Center.

REFERENCES
1. M. Kleber, Phys. Rep. 236, 331 (1994).
2. D. Solomon, arXiv:1004.3063v3.
3. M. Moshinsky, Phys. Rev. 88, 625 (1952).
4. M. Moshinsky, Phys. Rev. 81, 347 (1951).
5. A. del Campo, J. G. Muga, and M. Kleber, Phys. Rev. A 77, 013608 (2008).
6. P. Strange, Relativistic Quantum Mechanics (Cambridge, 1998), p. 65.
7. J. S. Bell, Physics 1, 195 (1964).
8. A. Aspect, J. Dalibard, and G. Roger, Phys. Rev. Lett. 49, 1804 (1982).
9. R. Clifton, J. Bub, and H. Halvorson, Found. Phys. 33, 1561 (2003).
10. S. S. Afshar, Proc. SPIE 5866, 229 (2005).
11. D. Salart, A. Baas, C. Branciard, N. Gisin, and H. Zbinden, Nature 454, 861 (2008).
12. H. Pierre Noyes, An operational analysis of the double slit experiment. Report no. SLAC-PUB-2312, April 1979 (T/E).
Available at http://www.slac.stanford.edu/pubs/slacpubs/2000/slac-pub-2312.html.
13. D. Bohm, Phys. Rev. 85, 166 (1952).
14. D. Bohm, Phys. Rev. 85, 180 (1952).
15. J. S. Bell, Found. Phys. 12, 989 (1982).
16. L. Hardy, Phys. Rev. Lett. 68, 2981 (1992).
17. P. G. Merli, G. F. Missiroli, and G. Pozzi, Am. J. Phys. 44, 306 (1976).
18. O. Donati, G. P. Missiroli, and G. Pozzi, Am. J. Phys. 41, 639 (1973).
19. A. Tonomura, J. Endo, T. Matsuda, T. Kawasaki, and H. Ezawa, Am. J. Phys. 57, 117 (1989).
20. J. -Y. Chesnel, A. Hajaji, R. O. Barrachina, and F. Frémont, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 100403 (2007).
21. D. S. Milne-Brownlie, M. Foster, J. F. Gao, B. Lohmann, and D. H. Madison, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 233201 (2006).
22. H. T. Schmidt, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 083201 (2008).
23. L. Hardy, arXiv:0804.0054. To appear in A. Bokulich and G. Jaeger (Eds.), Philosophy of Quantum Information and
Entanglement, Cambridge University Press.
 The Explanation of Michelson’s Experiment
Shukri Klinaku

University of Prishtina, Sheshi Nëna Terezë, 10000, Prishtina, Kosovo

Abstract. In this paper we will prove that the Lorentz factor doesn't exist on the relative motion. In fact this factor is the
result of a wrong calculation of Michelson. His mistake was approved by Lorentz and other physicists, including Einstein.
Michelson in order to implement his idea with his interferometer in 1881, made the following mistake: he made the
calculation according to the only principle of relativity which was known by physics – the Galileo principle, but he didn’t
faithfully apply this principle. In this paper, the principle of Galileo will be implemented exactly to Michelson's
experiment and the result will show us that physics doesn’t need the postulates of the year 1905.

INTRODUCTION

In the year 1878, Maxwell gave the idea for the possibility of measuring the velocity of ether through the
influence of Earth’s velocity on the velocity of light’s spreading on her surface [1]. In 1881 Michelson tried to prove
that experimentally [2]. The experiment didn’t show the result that the physicist was expecting. The idea and the
experiment itself were also approved by another physicist, Lorentz, who latter became the number one authority in
Theoretical Physics and continued to support Michelson’s idea until the end. On the exchange of centuries XIX and
XX, the explanation for the inconsistency between the result of the experiment and Michelson’s expectation (1881 and
1887), was the concern of many physicists. The explanation accepted by the world was given by FitzGerald (1889)
and Lorentz (intensively throughout the years 1892 – 1904), but the credits are all given to Einstein and the Special
Theory of Relativity (STR), (1905).

THE IDEA AND THE INTERFEROMETER OF MICHELSON

Michelson built the idea and the interferometer to observe the existence of ether. In other words, by measuring the
velocity of light’s spreading when it spreads in different directions towards Earth’s motion, he expected to find the
influence of Earth’s velocity (v) on the velocity of light (c). Michelson’s interferometer can be seen in figure 1. The
mirror ݉ଵ divides the ray that descends to it in two parts which than move on the directions of the mirrors ݉ଶ and ݉ଷ
along the wings of the interferometer with length l. According to Michelson, after the reflection the rays return to
mirror ݉ଵ but not in equal times. His intention was to measure this difference between these times.


FIGURE 1. The diagram of Michelson interferometer. The source of light is at s, the 45 degree line is the half-silvered mirror ࢓૚ ,
࢓૛ and ࢓૜ are mirrors and d the observer.
 MICHELSON’S CALCULATIONS

These are Michelson’s calculations: with ‫ݐ‬ଵ he designated the time in which the ray of light travels from mirror
݉ଵ to mirror ݉ଶ and backwards and with ‫ݐ‬ଶ he designated the time in which the ray of light travels from mirror ݉ଵ to
mirror ݉ଷ and backwards. The calculations of these times can be seen below.

݈ ݈ ʹ݈ ͳ
‫ݐ‬ଵ ൌ ‫ݐ‬ଵ ሺ݅ሻ ൅ ‫ݐ‬ଵ ሺ݇ሻ ൌ ൅ ൌ 
ܿെ‫ܿ ݒ‬൅‫ݒ‬ ܿ ‫ݒ‬ଶ
ͳെ
ܿଶ
For the time ‫ݐ‬ଶ :

݈ଵ ݈ଵ ξ‫ ݔ‬ଶ ൅ ݈ ଶ
‫ݐ‬ଶ ൌ ‫ݐ‬ଶ ሺ݅ሻ ൅ ‫ݐ‬ଶ ሺ݇ሻ ൌ ൅ ൌʹ Ǥ
ܿ ܿ ܿ

Here ݈ଵ represents the road of the ray on the wing that stands normal to the direction in which Earth moves. This
road is oblique because of Earth’s displacement for the length x with the velocity v.
௫ ௟ ௩
From the ratio: ൌ , we obtain: ‫ ݔ‬ൌ ݈ .
௩ ௖ ௖
For the time ‫ݐ‬ଶ Michelson obtained:

ξ‫ ݔ‬ଶ ൅ ݈ ଶ ʹ݈ ‫ ݒ‬ଶ ʹ݈ ͳ
‫ݐ‬ଶ ൌ ʹ ൌ ඨͳ ൅ ଶ ൎ Ǥ
ܿ ܿ ܿ ܿ ଶ
ටͳ െ ‫ ݒ‬ଶ
ܿ

While, for the difference of these times he obtained:

ʹ݈ ͳ ͳ
‫ݐ‬ଵ െ ‫ݐ‬ଶ ൌ ‫ۇ‬ െ ‫ ۊ‬ሺͳሻ
ܿ ‫ݒ‬ଶ ଶ
ͳ െ ଶ ටͳ െ ‫ݒ‬
‫ۉ‬ ܿ ܿଶ ‫ی‬

And after some approximations Michelson got this equation:

݈ ‫ݒ‬ଶ
‫ݐ‬ଵ െ ‫ݐ‬ଶ ൌ Ǥ
ܿ ܿଶ

And he concluded that this difference can even be measured, [2] and [3].

THE RESULT AND HIS INTERPRETATIONS

The result of the experiment was negative. Thus, the difference between the times of the rays spreading didn’t
௟ ௩మ
turn out to be exact: ‫ݐ‬ଵ െ ‫ݐ‬ଶ ൌ ௖ ௖ మ as Michelson expected but it equals to 0.
This created different interpretations amongst the physicists. Subsequently, a very strange idea began to
dominate: the wing of the interferometer which is in the same direction with the motion of the Earth gets shorter as a
result of motion, as a result of cooperation ether-matter [4], [5]. All the efforts of these physicists were concentrated to
ଵ
mathematically get this factor మ
, which caused the difference between the times (1), which was later called the
ටଵିೡమ
೎
Lorentz factor. Larmor in 1897 [6] and Lorentz in 1904 [5] finally generated the new equations for relative motion,
which today are known as Lorentz transformations and which were the coronation of more then 20 years efforts to
explain the negative result on Michelson’s experiment.

THE RIGHT CALCULATION ON MICHELSON’S EXPERIMENT

 Michelson has judged based on Galileo’s principle of relativity, but has applied it only partially. Michelson
judges that the oblique road of the ray is caused by Earth’s displacement for the length x. However, this displacement
has to be taken in account even for the wing of the interferometer that is in the same direction with Earth’s motion.
The right calculation for ‫ݐ‬ଵ is:

݈൅‫݈ ݔ‬െ‫ݔ‬
‫ݐ‬ଵ ൌ ‫ݐ‬ଵ ሺ݅ሻ ൅ ‫ݐ‬ଵ ሺ݇ሻ ൌ ൅ Ǥሺʹሻ
ܿ൅‫ܿ ݒ‬െ‫ݒ‬

For the ray that pervades the other wing of the interferometer the right calculation is this:

݈ଵ ݈ଵ ξ‫ ݔ‬ଶ ൅ ݈ ଶ
‫ݐ‬ଶ ൌ ‫ݐ‬ଶሺ݅ሻ ൅ ‫ݐ‬ଶ ሺ݇ሻ ൌ ൅ ൌʹ Ǥሺ͵ሻ
‫ݑ ݑ‬ ξ‫ ݒ‬ଶ ൅ ܿ ଶ

Even for (2) and (3) is:

‫ݒ‬
‫ ݔ‬ൌ ݈ Ǥ
ܿ

And for the difference between the times we obtain:

ଶ ଶ
‫ݒ‬ ‫ݒ‬ ඨ൬݈ ଶ ‫ݒ‬ଶ ൰ ൅ ݈ ଶ
݈൅݈ ݈െ݈ ܿ ʹ݈ ʹ݈
‫ݐ‬ଵ െ ‫ݐ‬ଶ ൌ  ܿ൅ ܿ െ ʹ ൌ െ  ൌ Ͳ
ܿ൅‫ݒ‬ ܿെ‫ݒ‬ ଶ
ξ‫ ݒ‬൅ ܿ ଶ ܿ ܿ

‫ݐ‬ଵ ൌ ‫ݐ‬ଶ 

So, not only the result of Michelson’s experiment is zero; moreover, even the expectation from this experiment is
zero.
What is u and why is it in (3)?
Earth’s velocity v, contributes on the oblique direction of the light (the hypotenuse of the triangle, see figure 2),
then the light’s velocity in this direction can’t be c, but another velocity that we designated with u.
We must act like this if we want to entirely apply Galileo’s principle. Michelson had wrongly “discovered” the
velocity of light as a universal constant and had wrongly applied it in only one of the wings of the interferometer (for
‫ݐ‬ଵ he used ሺܿ ൅ ‫ݒ‬ሻ andሺܿ െ ‫)ݒ‬, but for ‫ݐ‬ଶ only c!).


FIGURE 2. The problematic triangle

For a more detailed explanation helps figure 3 which shows the complete aspect of Michelson’s experiment. For
the observer that is “accommodated” in space (system S) the problematic triangle that we saw in figure 2 is created,
because this observer, due to the speed of Earth v, sees the light that spreads in an oblique direction (the red and
interrupted line). Only for this observer are valid the formulas (2) and (3).
For the observer in Earth (system E), from figure 3 it can be seen that the ray of light in the transversal wing of
the interferometer doesn’t even change the direction, because the displacement of interferometer in this system of
reference is zero (x = 0). Consequently, the influence of velocity v in velocity c is also zero (for this observer v = 0).
Thus, the triangle in figure 2 isn’t formed for this observer. For observer in Earth (system E) is valid this calculation
for ‫ݐ‬ଵ and ‫ݐ‬ଶ :

݈ ݈
‫ݐ‬ଵ ൌ ‫ݐ‬ଵ ሺ݅ሻ ൅ ‫ݐ‬ଵ ሺ݇ሻ ൌ ൅ Ǥ
ܿ ܿ
݈ ݈
‫ݐ‬ଶ ൌ ‫ݐ‬ଶ ሺ݅ሻ ൅ ‫ݐ‬ଶ ሺ݇ሻ ൌ ൅ Ǥ
ܿ ܿ

‫ݐ‬ଵ ൌ ‫ݐ‬ଶ Ǥ

In other words, the Earth velocity doesn’t have any effect on the spreading of light in this environment. This is
true for every observer from figure 3. Consequently, the Lorentz factor doesn’t appear on the calculation.


FIGURE 3. Full view of Michelson’s experiment

CONCLUSIONS

The consequences of this small mistake are very big. STR is built based on this mistake, which got physics in the
wrong way. With the right explanation of Michelson’s experiment physics is released from mystique explanations, is
released from absurd quantities, is released from “paradoxes”, is released from theories that physicists don’t
understand, is released from postulates and “thought experiments”.

REFERENCES
1. J. C. Maxwell, Ether, Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition, 1878, VIII, pp. 568-572
2. A. A. Michelson, The relative motion of the earth and the luminiferous ether, American Journal of Science, 1881, pp. 120-129
3. A. A. Michelson and E. W. Morley, On the relative motion of the earth and the luminiferous ether, American Journal of
Science, 1887, pp. 333-345
4. G. F. FitzGerald, The Ether and Earth’s Atmosphere, Science, 13, 1889, p. 390
5. H. A. Lorentz, Electromagnetic phenomena in a system moving with velocity smaller than that of light, Proceedings of the
Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences, 1904, pp 809-831
6. J. Larmor, On a dynamical theory of electric and luminiferous medium, Part 3, Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. , 1897, pp. 205-300
 An Absolute Phase Space for the Physicality of Matter
John S Valentine

(independent researcher) johnv@johnvalentine.co.uk

Abstract. We define an abstract and absolute phase space (“APS”) for sub-quantum intrinsic wave states, in three axes,
each mapping directly to a duality having fundamental ontological basis. Many aspects of quantum physics emerge from
the interaction algebra and a model deduced from principles of ‘unique solvability’ and ‘identifiable entity’, and we
reconstruct previously abstract fundamental principles and phenomena from these new foundations. The physical model
defines bosons as virtual continuous waves pairs in the APS, and fermions as real self-quantizing snapshots of those
waves when simple conditions are met. The abstraction and physical model define a template for the constitution of all
fermions, a template for all the standard fundamental bosons and their local interactions, in a common framework and
compactified phase space for all forms of real matter and virtual vacuum energy, and a distinct algebra for observables
and unobservables. To illustrate our scheme’s potential, we provide examples of slit experiment variations (where the
model finds theoretical basis for interference only occurring between two final sources), QCD (where we may model
most attributes known to QCD, and a new view on entanglement), and we suggest approaches for other varied
applications. We believe this is a viable candidate for further exploration as a foundational proposition for physics.
Keywords: phase space, physicality, matter, fermion, constitution, algebra, boson, wavefunction, symmetry, duality,
vacuum, quark, hadronisation, hadron decay, weak interaction, strong force, quantization, coherence, neutrino oscillation.
PACS: 03.65.Ca, 11.10, 11.15, 11.30, 12.10, 13.30.-a, 12.39, 12.60.Rc, 13., 14.

1 BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION

Our aim is to devise a new foundational basis for physical reality that solves current contentious problems, with the
eventual aim of allowing new discoveries and further predictions. We are using this paper to further develop
“Algebra of a Three-fold Symmetry for Fundamental Physics”[4], to more clearly describe the algebra and model for
a physical reality, and to publish the basic ideas, upon which specialized publications may be based. Although this
paper does not present a complete physical theory, it is positioned within a suitable modular framework that allows
for the modular design of abstraction, physicality, and background. In this work we emphasize physicality and
abstraction, so we will not cover all aspects in detail, but will refer to readily-available workings where appropriate.

1.1 Concepts

We start with the proposition that all matter and energy in the universe is waves. Every compound wave is described
mathematically as a set of three waves, each wave mapping to a one-parameter unitary group a, b, or c, having
cyclic phase 0..2j and sinusoidal value range ±1 with phase. These three axes each represent a pair of dual
properties and respective anti-properties that are important to physics in a fundamental way[1,2,3,4]. The three
property duals are orthogonal, are non-mixing, and have the same (absolute) meaning for every wave. We call this
range of values in {a, b, c} the Absolute Phase Space, or just “APS”, not to be confused with “algebra of physical
space”.
For these waves to conserve their information, they must exist in bound pairs as fundamental bosons (3.1.2).
This structure has many consequences, providing an origin for latency, and an existential and causal perspective on
how instances of matter can unambiguously exist and propagate, including a derivation of the Exclusion Principle[4]
(3.1.3). Two bosons, each having a wave in conserved phase –b, may combine to form a fermion event that exists
only instantaneously before radiating away again as bosons. Bosons do not have definite position; they exist only as
a phase offset from a fermion event, so any propagating matter must re-constitute itself as a sequence of similar
fermion events via the process of boson propagation.
We started with the b wave to denote a ‘conservation’ duality, which when taken in the physical context, is a
quantization algebra that creates the basic structure of a quantized matter network of point-like fermions and wave-
like bosons. We can obtain a surprising amount of pertinent structure from just one APS axis in context of the
physical model without declaring any background dimensions, other than the ability to separately resolve many
events uniquely using only a phase operator; e.g. quantum mechanics, -dynamics and -computation, slit experiments
and their variations, can be reasonably qualitatively explained without using contentious concepts.
Unfortunately, this one primary axis, conservation, alone does not convey the dimensionally rich information
that we need to quantify observables, nor does it produce the background spaces associated with the secondary
phase space. To extend the abstraction from just the b element, we build an implicit secondary, dimensionally-rich
structure by adding orthogonal waves to the compactified primary phase space. Two more waves complete the APS:
again each corresponds to a foundational duality, and in these cases the {a, c} waves on axes representing
real/imaginary and dimensional/nondimensional properties create a geometric algebra, corresponding to the full
Clifford Algebra (Cl3,1). This method of combinatorially creating higher dimensionality is well-known, and is
described in sufficient detail in Hestenes’ 1986 introductory paper on geometric algebra[5]. The {a, c} states at a
fermion event form the basis of our observables algebra, describing more of the quantitative aspects of physics,
and may be transformed into terms of the Dirac Equation or a nilpotent formulation. Taken as an operative
sequence, each introduction of a new axis to the APS creates a new dual for the existing set, creating new number
types that conjugate the existing number types in some fundamental way: a new symmetry for the reality, and a
doubling of the algebra. Rather than continue adding axes to achieve a ‘monster group’ from which we could draw
almost any arbitrary conclusions, we limit the APS to just three axes, because we believe this is all we need to
concisely represent physics in terms of observables and (most interestingly) the behind-the-scenes unobservables
that contribute to physicality.
Perhaps the most controversial and unique aspect of our work is the proposition that fermions do not themselves
propagate, and that all propagation is by bosons. This creates a structure and ‘network’ for matter and its
background spaces, providing a self-generating context for the instantiation, constitution, and re-encoding of matter.
From this, we can reconstruct quantum physical phenomena, and form a view on many established techniques.

1.2 Origination, and Comparisons with Other Authors’ Approaches

Our project is a different take on the early (1991) work of Peter Rowlands[1]. Our first efforts (1991) were an attempt
to deduce the seemingly missing combinatorial trivector states from the three dualities; only four out of a possible
eight (Table 2) were named, and at ANPA[6] we attempted to frame the question and approach the answers1, along
with a way of forming simple closed systems using discrete phase operators2. In recent private communications with
Rowlands[5], the terms again defied satisfactory definition, but it was noted that they could exist as conjugate aspects
to the named terms, and the argument can be repositioned as epistemological rather than solely ontological: they are
components of the nilpotent formulation, rather than physical components in their own right.
After these relatively unproductive lines of enquiry, we think our more recent (2006) direction produces more
useful work. We have taken those three important duals of physics, applied them directly as a phase space
(extending the previous ‘discrete closure’ into a continuous space), and created a minimal model for physicality
while including some basic fundamental requirements. Many aspects of both bodies of work (Rowlands, Valentine)
agree, but have been reached via different approaches and reasoning. We believe this bodes well for the foundational
ideas expressed by Rowlands (pre-1991), from the perspective of authors from different backgrounds being able to
access similar conclusions by different logical deductions.

1.2.1 Rowlands’ Nilpotent Rewrite Formulation and its Associated Algebra

The formulation proposed by Rowlands[3] builds its algebra from a nilpotent universal computational rewrite
system, which uses a simple symbol as both a state and an operator, that can either conserve itself or generate a new

1
This initial effort was not successful, because the states defied definition because the context and language to describe them was not available,
and the common fundamental abstractions used in physics failed to slot neatly into the available places.
2
This was successful as an exercise, but it did not reveal the ontology of matter.
symbol. Meanings for the next new symbols are also proposed, which act as ‘complexify’ and ‘dimensionalize’
operators. In common with a group inverse operation, re-application of the latter two symbols reverses their
respective effects, and re-use of the first symbol instantiates new entities.
Although we have not assumed any ‘creation roots’ from which a universe may emerge from self-rewrite, we
have instead deduced a physical model and phase space from the requirement to resolve all other interacting objects
uniquely from any given object. This resulted in our use of unique relative phases for resolved boson waves (like
–i(Et – p.r)
their e to close the nilpotent), and our use of an absolute reference phase –b, to give ‘wave phase’ an
absolute meaning and physical symmetry, and also to provide a trivial physical structural means for fermions to re-
instantiate themselves in causal sequence from the minimal amount of information encoded in the bosons. We give
the Rowlands symbolic abstraction an underlying physical context in the form of our matter network (3.1.1).
The key difference in our approaches, is that we have concentrated on the (self-) process and model to derive
qualitative results from the physical structure of matter, using only one of the fundamental dualities, and have only
outlined the full geometric algebra of a fermion event, achievable from {a, c}, leaving its detail (e.g. groups,
algebraic equivalence, spin formulation) to others [Clifford, Hamilton, Lie, Hestenes[5], Rowlands[3], Almeida[9]] as
‘standard texts’. In comparison, Rowlands has specialized on the algebraic structure of what we call the ‘fermion
event’, using the nilpotent formulation, to give quantitative results and expression in many scientific disciplines. We
think the most noteworthy point of the rewrite system is the use of three the dualities to create a full algebra (and by
“full”, we mean that it retains the information that many other physical theories accidentally discard by omission);
our {b} duality find expression as a dual algebra for the vacuum in their work, providing an immediately-accessible
conjugation from conserved sources to their respective nonconserved bosons, fields, and quantum potentials, to form
a full picture of possible states that an entity might assume.

1.2.2 Marcer’s Reference Wave

Likewise, our physicality has analogues with Peter Marcer’s notion[10] of states relative to an [absolute] reference
wave. We derive our observables from the {a, c} elements of the APS, rather than from the {b} reference wave,
because the {b} wave cannot itself be measured (in common with Marcer’s method), because it determines the
points at which fermion events may form, which are the only points at which reality can be measured; we cannot
arbitrarily measure bosons where {b} phases do not meet the criteria required for a fermion event.
Although different language is used in respective works, our interpretations on degeneracy and coherence as
phase offset from the reference wave state –b are similar. The idea of co-homology is the same in both cases; any
differences are solely because of our respective interpretations of matter constitution, rather than any difference in
our respective derivations of the principles and self-processes of quantum computation.

1.3 Fundamental Properties

The {b} property is most interesting from the ontological perspective, because at the point where two overlapping
waves have a value –b, they represent a conserved matter state and may become a physical entity, but at any other
value they represent divergences: a nonconserved state. Divergences may be viewed as or unresolved quantities
requiring statistical evaluation in a solution space (standard quantum mechanics: the Copenhagen Interpretation), or
as being realized at events on a mutually-shared world-line (predeterministic). Both of these states, conserved and
nonconserved, have many meanings in physics (3.2). In terms of quantum computation, we regard fermions in
conserved phase as sharp, and bosons in nonconserved phases as multiverse, and our physical model finds new
perspectives on the (re)constitution of fermionic matter from bosons.
With regard to the interface between quantum and classical physics (3.3), there is a clear difference between the
intrinsic phase states in the APS that are point-specific and relate to a quantum interaction, and the macroscopic
quantities that are the accumulated results of many quantum interactions. We may interface the fundamental and
quantum aspects to background in a macroscopic representation, projected through fundamental APS vector of
conservation, dimensionality and sign, as combinatorially constructed in Geometric Algebras (Cl3,1), i.e. the
nonconserved aspects of a fermion state drop into the dimensionally-rich background with every re-constitution.
The {c} property determines whether the APS state or unit vector is dimensional, or nondimensional. Again,
these definitions have equivalent meanings, e.g. nondimensional implies continuity, indivisibility, irreversibility, and
scalar value; dimensional implies their respective duals: discontinuity, divisibility, reversibility, 3-vector value.
Rotation symmetry and translation symmetry apply only to non-conserved dimensional states[1,3].
The {a} property determines whether the APS state or unit vector is real, or imaginary. When applied to
physical source terms, this property determines whether their forces are only attractive (real), or repulsive when
like-signed terms are combined (imaginary).
Combining the {a, c} properties, we generate the bases known to geometric algebra[5,4], for deriving the axes and
number types that we use to represent the physical quantities. The mathematics of our simple phase algebra (2.1) are
similar to GA, and when used in the context of our physical model, are compatible with many aspects of quantum
mechanics (sections 3, 5).
A fascinating aspect of the APS is that its physical model unifies the fermions and bosons as being different
views of the same waves, as well as describing the origins of many principles that are important to physics; such
conventional and abstract phenomena may be described using more fundamental terms from this representation. It
does this while having many desirable features of a good fundamental theory, and for this reason, we think it can be
developed into a worthwhile theory of foundational physics.

2 APS: PRIMARY AND SECONDARY PHASE SPACES

We define the primary phase space from three fundamental properties, each having two opposite-valued meanings
(a: real or imaginary, b: conserved or non-conserved, and c: dimensional or non-dimensional[1,3]) to represent the
important fundamental aspects of physics. These form the three orthogonal bases of our primary phase space,
where a T b 6 a T c 6 b T c 6 0 , which expands combinatorially to eight trivectors, each having sub-physical meaning.
As mentioned (1.1), waves operate independently on each axis of the primary phase space.

2.1 Number types: Secondary Phase Space

For general use, we use projections of real and imaginary elements having dimensionality or non/one-
dimensionality, which we take from Hestenes’ geometric algebra construction[5] (Table 1), to create the secondary
phase space[4]. These e n bases specify the available axes of a quantifiable APS state, and the above table has
conserved and nonconserved forms which are shown in Table 2. Names for primary APS trivector states provided
by Rowlands[1].
Table 1. Grades and number types of secondary phase spaces
for {a, c} binary values in the primary phase space.
Grade +a: Real –a: Imaginary
Unitary Real Scalar Trivector (volume)
–c: 1D (Scalar) 0
1
3
We123X
Vector (of lengths) Bivector (of areas)
+c: 3D (Vector) 1 We1, e2 , e3X 2
We23 , e31, e12 X
Table 2. Number types and basis elements for absolute phase states.
Primary {b} GA {a, c} Elemental Value Secondary Unit Bases
APS State Conserved? Grade Representation and Values
A No 0 Real scalar x=g
space S No 1 Real 3-vector x = sx, y = sy, z = sz
C No 2 Imaginary 3-vector i = Cx, j = Cy, k = Cz
time N No 3 Imaginary scalar i=t
mass M Yes 0 Real scalar x=m
B Yes 1 Real 3-vector x = 2\x, y = \y, z = \z
charge Q Yes 2 Imaginary 3-vector i = Qx, j = Qy, k = Qz
D Yes 3 Imaginary scalar i=„

We adopt the standard GA notation for quantifying values on basis axes (a complete charge vector may be
written as 0i + 1j + 0k, and of writing successive operators from right to left. Imaginary unitary values have negative
norm or signature, so square to –1, and real unitary values have positive norm or signature, so square to 1. It is
worth noting the dimensional geometric equivalence of each basis element, e.g. each axis of charge is an area (Table
1: grade 2).

2.2 Phase Operator: Differences of State

All interactions of state vectors in the APS are phase operations:

…3 6 …1… 2 (1)
i… 3 i…1 i… 2 i (…1 :… 2 )
or e 6e e 6e (2)
[Stone, Euler]
Phase operations in any one of {a, b, c} bases operate in a one-parameter unitary group , having inverse
phase ±j, and identity phase 0. Re-application of an inverting change returns to identity. From this simple binary-
valued phase operation, we can recover:
: a * 5 a 6 5 a * : a 6 5 a, [1,3]
Multiplication, (3)
: a * : a 6 5 a * 5 a 6 : a,
(0 XOR 1) 6 (1 XOR 0) 6 1, [3,6]
binary exclusive-or logic, (4)
(0 XOR 0) 6 (1 XOR 1) 6 0,

(51odd )(51even ) 6 (51even )(51odd ) 6 5 1, [4]

relations from powers of –1 (5)
(51odd )(51odd ) 6 (51even )(51even ) 6 : 1,

to continuous waves (š… ™ 0) Z , 5 1… 6 i 2… 6 cos … 6 e(i)( 2… ) 6 ei… . [4]

(6)

This describes samples from a unit circle U(1), with the complete complex wave [Euler’s formula] preserving
information with changing phase, by including components of a rotor of geometric full product:

ei… 6 cos … : sin … . [4]

(7)

3 PHYSICALITY AND ONTOLOGY

3.1 Basic Phenomenology in a fundamental physical hierarchy

Some previously fundamental phenomena, thought to be abstract or fundamentally unexplained, may be redefined as
being non-fundamental when derived in terms of our scheme. In Table 3, we list the major levels of abstraction,
process and state that may be useful for placing physical or ontological phenomena. For example, the electron is a
fermion, and therefore has an internal structure of four APS waves (4.2).

Table 3. A hierarchy of concepts for our framework for foundational physics.

 3.1.1 A Physical Reality of Fermions, Bosons, and their Interactions

We present a physical reality as follows:

3.1.1.1 A fermion event exists instantaneously at a point, and radiates away as fundamental bosons, leaving
nothing behind;
3.1.1.2 A boson is a compound wave, comprising two waves that operate in the APS, i.e. a boson has six phase
values: two state vectors in {a, b, c}. A radiating boson has no position; just a nonconserved state
having a phase offset from the fermion event;
3.1.1.3 When two bosons meet at a point where one wave from each boson has value –b, then a new fermion
event is formed.
This creates a network of fundamental fermion events with intrinsic values connected by fundamental bosons,
which can reproduce the phenomena known to (quantum) physics. The remainder of this paper explores the
implications of this description of physical reality, the rationale behind it, and its correlation with accepted theory.

3.1.2 Propagation by Bosons; No Propagation of Fermions

Rather than accepting that a fermion moves continuously away from a known point at t = 0, we propose that it
disappears immediately after t = 0, and its constituent bosons move away from the fermion’s former position,
finding a new position when another boson superimposes it to form a new conserved wave pair, i.e. a new fermion
event (fig.1).
3.1.2.1 The fermion particle does not exist between fermion events.
Only at these fermion events may two waves ‘interact’, and this is done without interrupting the phase
progression of the fundamental waves, which remain continuous through the interaction (figs.2a,9,10) without
doing anything spontaneous. This offers: a quantum perspective using continuous waves, where continuous bosons
may naturally create quantized events; and also a perspective from the discrete particles where two fermion events
exist on the same continuous wave, with the boson expressing a latent phase offset that prevents two fermions
having the same state at the same event (3.1.3). The radial generalization, time’s arrow, entropy, and the Second
Law of Thermodynamics, all arise from a physically dimensional treatment of reconciling phase between fermion
FIGURE 1. Quantum movement of a fermion: (a) a new fermion event; (b) propagating bosons and another new fermion event;
(c) propagating bosons from two fermions; (d) and (e) new fermion event at “×”; (f) propagation. Note: some bosons not shown.

FIGURE 2. (a) Four waves of a conserved fermion event; (b) Intermediate alternative to the Feynman diagram; (c) Diagram
showing conservation state of waves in at fermions; (d) Zitterbewegung of possible fermion events from two waves.

(a) (b) (c) (d)

events.

3.1.3 Exclusion Principle and bosons

In our earlier work[4], we derived an Exclusion Principle from the two ideas:
3.1.3.1 A fermion event can only occur at the first unique solution of –b for two bosons, and
3.1.3.2 Bosons resolve the existence of more than one instance of an energy state, and that a phase offset is the
only way of separating similar states that would otherwise have violated 3.1.3.1 because a unique
solution was not available.

3.1.4 Four-Wave Formulation of the Fermion

Rather than assuming propagating fermions at the lowest level, this interpretation of an interaction is unconventional
because we use four contributing parts and assume that a fermion moves by repeated quantum propagation of its
bosons. Our approach breaks previously fundamental fermions down into constituent parts, leading to a better
understanding of interactions. We think of the fermion events as real particles, and the unrealized bosons as
conventional virtual particles.
A simple diagram format illustrates this. Starting with a diagram of QCD from the perspective of one fermion Zn
(fig. 2b), we show fermions as solid dots, and the resolved bosons …n as curly gluon lines.
This can be further developed, to reveal the internal structure of the bosons, and how they couple to the fermion
events (fig. 2c). Conserved states are shown as connecting with the core, and nonconserved states connecting with
the grey outer circle. A boson is shown as a pair of lines connecting two fermions, each line being a resolved APS
wave with known limits. Note the lower view showing the continuous progress of one boson throughout a sequence
of interactions. As with the Feynman diagram, we may, for example apply arrows and interpret an elastic
elec
 
    
wave states in the primary phase space (2).

3.1.5 Finding solutions, splitting and re-emission

Simple quantized radial solutions in a 4D space-time for new fermion events are disproved by their topology; they
fail for two reasons:
3.1.5.1 A quantized function of intersecting radial solutions is degenerate (non-unique), or
3.1.5.2 Unique points are improbable when the function on the conserved property is quantized, because the
quantization phase does not coincide exactly with the unique radial solution.
To resolve this and other problems, we expect to find a field-modulating model for solving fermion events, but
note that there are many approaches, depending on assumptions of background, and its correlation with phase
progression.
3.1.5.3 The infinitesimal probability (of two instantaneous events being on the same world lines) is increased
by phase modulation of b; modulating fields allow bosons to interact, which may be exploited to
determine the likelihood of decoherence of a fermion’s constitution due to interaction with vacuum
(3.3.3, fig.4).
We also require that the fermion event allows a proportion of the wave to be re-emitted from the fermion event’s
point [Huygens-Fresnel], while the remainder continues radially. This is an incomplete coupling of the bosons to
the fermion event, quantitatively set by the conservation phase of the nonconserved waves at the event, that is most
likely to be a phase modulation.
Example candidate equations
For now, we use a placeholder phase operator …f as a modulator of the solution-finding function (eq.8),
describing a single step of phase (approximately time-dependent) evolution, noting the use of l to use the value of
one wave to modulate the phase of the corresponding waves in its partner boson:
 n :1 6 … f … m  n (8)
with, for example, … f 6 f (… , t ) 6 e 5it 5c b (t ,l ) (9)
and b(t , l ) 6 v( S[l ,b,m] ) (10)

where, v is the value of S[l,b,m], using axis x on the APS vector of wave m of boson l at fermion S, with mixing
factor c. Unit scaling factors have been omitted. As a physical consequence, a phase-modulated nonconserved wave
will become part of a fermion event earlier or later during its propagation, depending on the sign of the modulation.
[NB: The event will occur on the zero-thickness propagating boson shell, but it will not cause a solution to occur
ahead or behind the wave’s shell.] This is therefore an action function: it moves the future occurrence of fermionic
matter based on ‘order’ field values.
3.1.5.4 For 0 < c › 1, this creates a convergent series to a phase difference of …, which diminishes the
modulation, and eventually results in a phase operator of no effect.
3.1.5.5 Where c = 0.5, the result is an impulsive merging of the fields to mean-average value, and a merging of
the two bosons to a single boson.
This process is reversible, in that it allows both merging and splitting of bosonic waves. We should make clear
that eqs.8–10 are simply illustrative ‘placeholder’ equations that fulfill our modeling requirements, but have no
direct fundamental basis, and lack the elegance of other parts of this work. We will direct future work towards
quantitatively reconciling a splitting model with current phenomenology (6.2.1.2).

3.1.6 The particle life: creation, idempotent propagation, and collapse

Persistence (or propagation) of a particle state is best illustrated as idempotency (3.2). We distinguish here between
two common definitions of propagation, and here we concentrate on the latter of: (a) Realization of a fermion event:
the collapse of virtual particles to form real particles, which in our model is the formation of a fermion event; (b)
Particle propagation: the sustained re-formation of a self-similar fermion event, or a pattern of events that looks
like a composite particle.
3.1.6.1 Sustainable matter is a sequence of fermion events, from idempotent conditions (eq. may cover more
than one span between events), enabling the realized wave states to propagate in a cyclic manner until
point-local conditions change for the sequence of events, preventing further propagation in the same
state.
3.1.6.2 The absolute value of ‘external’ influences on the sequence does not determine whether the state is
sustainable: some sequences require external fields to continue; sequences will be initiated or
terminated by a change of external fields, e.g. a QCD color singlet might need an external residual field
to remain sustainable.
3.1.6.3 In our picture, nonconserved bosons transmitted from elsewhere may have influence on conserved
solutions [more than two waves in nonconserved phase may exist at the fermion event, allowing the
change of conditions that facilitate conventional creation or collapse of the idempotent condition];
In describing a creation event, it necessary for more than two bosons be involved:
3.1.6.4 The General Exclusion Principle[4] (3.1.3) employs the bosonic phase to allow states >2 to exist
elsewhere in a conserved state. This prevents ambiguity when resolving more than two states at a point.
3.1.6.5 When resolved into macroscopic potentials, matter created from a point would fall back into vacuum
(not be resolved into a fermion event) without an additional field, generated by a further fermion event
on the world lines of the event under consideration.*
The collapse of a sequence is just like the creation of a sequence, again involving a change of field states.
Throughout the life cycle of a ‘particle’, the fundamental quantum processes are the same, and we do not need
special rules to give pre-composite or posts-composite waves a different treatment than those forming the
propagating idempotent particle; the process is constitution-symmetric.

3.2 The Meaning of Nilpotent Factors: Noether’s Theorem and Conservation Laws

In previous papers[2,4], in supporting Noether’s “Theorem I”[8], we proposed that:

3.2.1.1 Conserved terms are: inner product, trace, source terms, fixed, identifiable, absolute phase value, and
invariant.
 3.2.1.2 Nonconserved terms are: outer product, bosonic, fields, latent, unidentifiable, relative, intrinsic quantum
potential, and divergent.
3.2.1.3 Divergence pairs (or their expansions) lead to respective conservation laws: where there is no change in
a property in the ‘divergent loop’, then there is a symmetry in that property, and that aspect of the
system is invariant and therefore conserved while the other aspects (divergences) may change. This
happens because APS ‘channels’ {a, b, c} are non-mixing.
Conventionally, the term nilpotent is given to any form whose powers (above 1) may evaluate to zero. Here, we
use it to describe a scenario where the values at a fermion event are factors of zero product. Open systems
(unsolved divergences, entropic, or vacuum-coupled) have non-zero solutions, and are merely closed systems with
any number of factors (eigenvalues) extracted from the closed system value of zero.
3.2.1.4 Open solutions need not relate to just one specific external entity: they can be expanded to represent any
closed loop or coupled sub-system, and thus may represent the vacuum energy, or fields imposed
remotely upon an event by the rest of the universe.
An idempotent operation is one that imposes no net change on a given state, i.e. any phase operator having
‘integer cycles’ phase value. We also use this informally to mean any particle that conserves its approximate state
over time through many quantum interactions.

3.2.2 Value and potency: an informal guide

A boson wave has no potency when its two elements are a different by a quarter-cycle, which causes the partner of a
conserved wave to have value 0b (fig.3). We contrast this with a pair of waves having conjugate phases, which will
have a maximum field. Applying this to transient waves in background, we find that such waves, when generating a
fermion event with one of its own waves at –b (rather than participating as a field in another wave’s fermions), it
will generate no fields by itself; any fields at the event will be the result of vacuum.
This requires the two waves to have a phase difference of a quarter-cycle. If two such waves should meet in free
space, they would generate no field, and any field at the (ineffective) fermion event would be from vacuum, i.e. the
minor bosons can only be transformed by add  
   
 
     
massless bosonic waves, would usually be undetectable in free space, but would create opportunities for interactions
when fields are present.
3.2.2.1 Minor bosons are a bound wave pair, with one wave having almost (0,0) value in {a, c} when the other
wave has significant {a, c} value at conserved phase –b.
3.2.2.2 Major bosons are a bound wave pair, with one wave having significant nonconserved value in {a, c}
when the other wave has significant {a, c} value at conserved phase –b. This requires the two waves to
have a phase difference approaching half a cycle.
Although there is no absolute distinction between ‘minor’ and ‘major’ bosons, this does help us to understand
some phenomenology, giving us an insight into how matter behaves, in that fermions having a major boson will
remain mostly impervious to the jostling of minor bosons: leptons seem to move around because the major bosons
carry the significant value, which find solution at short distance because many minor bosons exist to impose the –b
quantization condition. It might help the reader to think of Brownian motion, where large particles are jostled by
smaller particles (5.4).
It may also provide a cosmological perspective on the origins of matter: if we can quantify the ratios and values
   
 

Figure 4. PDFs for concurrent boson collapse. No field gives sharp
Figure 3. Partner waves in typical bosons. peak at P(1); increasing random fields spread the PDF.
 The model provides the means for successive fermion states to remain mostly stable, just as they are in the
human environment, and it also allows for those states to be changed in extreme conditions, like those in theorized
early-universe or high-energy scenarios.

3.3 Quantum and classical interpretations

3.3.1 Correspondence Principle

To explain classical movement of a conserved entity in fundamental terms, we have proposed (3.1.2, 3.1.6) that
matter moves by finding complete discrete and conserved solutions to bosonic wave propagation. For there to be any
macroscopic movement of the composite particle, there must be an overall directional aspect to a succession of
solution events (3.1.1).
This description of fundamental mechanics gives us a choice of two levels for abstract modeling:
3.3.1.1 A quantum sequence of many low-level linear segments from the constituent bosons.
3.3.1.2 A classical or high-level polynomial approximation, which fails on closer inspection, because it is a
linear approximation of the non-linear total of the quantum picture.
Thus, a composite particle may be classically stationary despite the fundamental bosons being emitted at ‘light
speed’ to create fermion events in repeating geometric patterns of positions previously occupied.
3.3.1.3 At small linear latencies, the classical limit is exposed (Correspondence Principle), and the
Schrödinger picture also becomes inaccurate (3.3.5). This is because a classical path is not arbitrarily
differentiable in a quantum representation while retaining relevance to the meaning of reality at the
arbitrary limiting points.
In terms of experimental detection, it is only at the fermion events that we may ‘sample’ the bosons, and
unfortunately the most fundamental abstraction levels are not directly observable (4.3); they are only deducible from
higher-level physical measurement and sensing (Table 3). Historically, it is not surprising that we started with the
classical, and are now progressing towards the most fundamental, via quantum physics.

3.3.2 EPR Paradox

Our model uses a different picture of reality than is assumed in the EPR Paradox. Here, definite states exist and spin
or phase correlation originates from the entanglement of two bosonic waves at source, and we do not require the
(Bell) states to be indeterminate.
Component bosons may realize different paths, and they may be collapsed independently (fig.5), which means
that the collapse of the first boson does not necessarily pass information to its partner boson nor does it causally
collapse it, and effects like those observed in slit experiments (5.1) can easily be explained. For the purposes of
these thought experiments, we may substitute a pair of coherent photons, to behave like the two bosons that leave a
fermion event.

3.3.3 Quantum bits (Qubits) in Quantum Theory (QT)

The implications for conventional quantum theory could be profound. With this model, although basic QT and

FIGURE 5. Collapse of two independent bosons FIGURE 6. (a) Constitution is preserved as the fermion
from a fermion: (c) collapse of boson 1; (d) collapse sequence Zn; (b) Constitution changes because the upward
of boson 2. boson from Z0 to X does not return to Z1.
the use of its abstractions is not challenged, we redefine its conceptual reality, in that we do not need to assume a
(static) multiverse, nor many possible realizable (dynamic) futures, nor non-locality (3.3.2), nor an observer and
back-propagation to decide what actually happened.
3.3.3.1 The notion of observables and their eigenstates are actually less stable than QT expects, because the
constitution of the object changes while QT expects it to remain invariant.
Physically, a fermion may seem to be a simple system, but because a fermion is radiated as two bosons and
might not necessarily re-assemble using the same bosons (fig.6), we say that its constitution might change even
when we expect the fermion to be the same fermion in legacy QT. This introduces decoherence (uncontrolled
variables from the environment surrounding the system), effectively a “randomness from vacuum”, and when boson
substitution occurs, such an observable change is a question of whether a state is to occur.
We can achieve a spectrum for qubits from each of the bosons that comprise a fermion; not from the multiverse.
Pairs of bosons can each both physically realize alternative eigenstates, so we now express a Boolean multiverse as
“a pair of simultaneously realizable options in nonconserved (virtual) phase”, and each bosonic divergence from a
fermion may be ‘roots of NOT’.
3.3.3.2 Each non-mixing ‘channel’ of the APS {a, b, c} gives the opportunity of a foundational qubit and its
corresponding observables.
3.3.3.3 Physical qubits comprise two single waves, one from each of two coupled bosons.
3.3.3.4 n external wave pairs introduce n more qubits, increasing the dimension of the observables matrices by
n
factor 2 . The simplest seemingly idempotent step for a fermion introduces external qubits, and
therefore requires tensor products (one for each boson), just as any 2-qubit description in QT is
represented by tensor products and algebra.
3.3.3.5 The Heisenberg picture is suited to qualitative questions of ‘whether’ and ‘how’ (quantized solutions of
whether a specific coupling interaction occurs), and the Schrödinger picture is suited to quantitative
questions of ‘how much’ or ‘how far’ (when we measure the dynamic time evolution of a system having
fixed constitution).

3.3.4 Macroscopic action, intrinsic mass-energy, and inertial mass

A particle structure’s (non-linear) resistance to changes of velocity can help us understand possible origins of the
laws of motion on hadronic matter, including concepts of mass, inertia, movement, acceleration, and momentum.
We understand that composite particles, like hadrons, have a stable repeating structure (3.1.6), and it uses quantum
potential (3.1.2) to distort that structure to take different-sized quantum steps to change the classical direction of
movement. In the presence of a field, the quarks will re-form in a slightly different place than if there was no field,
distorting the structure, and contributing to the classical macroscopic (statistical) momentum (or velocity) vector of
the composite. The direction of the classical impulsive acceleration will depend on the orientations of the
nonconserved fields with respect to the state vectors of the conserved matter. As the classical velocity approaches
light speed, the structure of hadrons must stretch in the direction of momentum, whereas the structure of strong-
residual-interacting hadrons must flatten so that its normal (in terms of its plane) corresponds to its momentum
vector, which would make a hadron’s shape in space-time conform to ‘helixes on a cylinder’, and correspondingly
direct the residual fields. We therefore equate inertial mass to the effect that a given phase operator (field) will have
on the particle under consideration, and we equate the intrinsic mass-energy to the nonconserved phases (quantum
phase potential) at the conserved phase of a fermion event (3.3.5, 3.2.2).

3.3.5 Higgs mechanism

Assuming non-modulated phase progression, a boson’s wave will be at conserved state again at phase +2j, which
defines the position(s) that require least energy (nonconserved modulation) to occupy. If the position of a solution is
modulated by gauge fields (nonconserved terms), then the target fermion is in a higher energy state relative to a
fermion formed at phase ±j2 (which has zero rest mass), and the new position adopts an ‘excited’ state. QCD has
higher-energy fermions, occupying positions at fractional phase relative to each other, thereby giving the composite
a rest mass.
The simplest Higgs-like mechanism in this model is as follows: At near-zero phase offset, it is very unlikely that
a fermion’s bosons will contribute to another fermion event (3.3.1.3, in contrast to the continuous Schrödinger
picture), because it will create a higher-energy state relative to the positions further out – the exception being
condensates. We can show a natural asymptotic freedom from this, and the field modulation model. All four
component waves from a fermion are subject to this condition, and in particular the waves having conserved state at
the fermion event. We predict there is no Higgs particle, but note that all gauge bosons are compacted into APS
phase progression, so are subject to the Higgs Mechanism.

3.3.6 Confinement and Asymptotic freedom

We offer the natural quantization of fermion events as a picture for the confining peculiarities of the strong force
(QCD), where the requirement of an exact phase results in a ‘quantum sifting’ of the action or positional function,
having short-ranging optimum solutions and unfeasible longer-range solutions. Using principles of ‘first unique
radial solution’, we have found that free particle pairs will naturally find solutions at successively shorter intervals,
until they settle at finding solutions spanning less than one wave cycle. However, our universe does not allow such
freedoms because it has a ‘busy vacuum’, and hadronisation is much less likely to occur in sparse situations.

4 ALGEBRA OF THE FERMION EVENT

4.1 Conserved State, Field State, Background

Recall (3.1.1) that our bosons are bound wave pairs, and a fermion event has both nonconserved (field) states and
conserved states. For the ‘free nilpotent’ interaction, where two boson states are represented together as four state
vectors [Y1, Z1], [Y2, Z2] (fig.7), states
Y1 Z1 Y2 Z2 = 0 (11)

We may show this relationship as bosons linking phase difference … between two fermion events XW and ZY
(eq.12). As an equation, only the phase operators are necessary; we show the ‘limiting’ fermion states XW and ZY
for convenience only:
(XW…ZY)1 (XW…ZY)2 = 0 (12)
This bosonic phase difference is in the nonconserved light cone, which includes not just spacetime, but all
nonconserved states in the APS: space S, time N, gravity A, and C, compacted into a unified field covered by {a, c}.
More precisely, bosons span the real and imaginary macroscopic nonconserved open path integrals.
Simplistically, the macroscopic nonconserved distance P between two entities (comprising a closed system) is
equivalent to the summed history of nonconserved quantum phase actions between the conserved states, where some
terms may be destructive.
m
Pm 6 i…
n 61
n (13)

It describes our universe as a sea of bosons meeting to form matter at interaction events, in a way that mostly
preserves (3.3.3.1) the idempotent ‘particulate’ matter that we observe, where …n (eqs. 13, 14) is the total influence
between any Z and its pattern-cyclic successor:
…n Zn = Zn+1 (14)
The field states Y can be considered to be the influence that the rest of the universe has on the point (vacuum,
FIGURE 7. Wave states in the APS at a fermion event.
3.1.2), limited to its nonconserved world-lines. We may choose any arbitrary point and calculate the field states
because the waves are continuous, but the usefulness of such points is limited, and we question whether a physical
point can exist outside a fermion event. These fermion events are point-local, such that ‘sub-physical’ interactions
need have no notion of the conserved entities occupying the external (physical) space, other than through the
nonconserved field state at that point. The basic model therefore does not include terms for non-local couplings.
The macroscopic effects of these interactions can only be seen when we accumulate the nonconserved
expressions of the sub-physical interactions. Thus, we have a clear distinction between a sub-physical representation
(a single interaction), and a macroscopic expression (an open path integral). This distinction is important for
understanding the nature of the quantum and macroscopic viewpoints, and we feel that this approach successfully
unites the two. This picture assumes that the macroscopic spaces are complete Hilbert spaces, which incidentally
weakens the proposition for background-independent representations. Using this model, we aim to understand
particle physics through an understanding of the mechanics of the single boson, and the implications of the
interaction of two bosons at the fermion event.

4.2 Observables: Mapping the Algebras of Hestenes, Clifford and Dirac

Where two bosons are represented by four state vectors [Y1, Z1], [Y2, Z2] at the same event (fig.7), we require that Z
terms are conserved at the event, and Y terms are the nonconserved fields at the event. These Y states have potential
to form a conserved solution at other events. At an event, we compute the relevant quantities as follows:
4.2.1.1 Combine the nonconserved Y states into the field state.
4.2.1.2 Combine the conserved Z states into a fermion state.
For b-conjugated waves, this eliminates the b property from the equation, and we are left with terms in properties
a and c, to create the paravector, which is given geometric relevance by Hestenes among others (Table 2) as
components of Clifford algebra, including Cl3,1. Starting with a closed system (nilpotent, eq.15), we rewrite
{Z1, Y1, Z2, Y2} as rows in APS {a, b, c} with index values to identify the waves. With the assumption of b-
conjugate wave states, we may simplify four terms into two by using indices {1, 2} with relative sign ~ and # :

h# a1 e h~ a1 e h# a2 e h~ a2 e
Y1 Z1 Y2 Z2 = 0 = ff : b1 cc f5 b c
f 1c
f: b c
f 2c
f5 b c
f 2c (15)
fg # c1 cd fg ~ c1 cd fg # c2 cd fg ~ c2 cd

4.2.1.3 If we assign the conserved state Z to be the absolute state (fixed term), and nonconserved state Y to be
the relative state (an divergence to be solved), we resolve the ordering problems of commutation
typically associated with phase operators of seemingly equal status: we let Y operate on Z.
Pairing the states (4.2.1.1, 4.2.1.2) produces paravectors, representing conjugate divergences at the point. We adopt
the convention of writing relative operators to the left of absolute states:

h~ a ~ a2 e h# a2 # a1 e
YZ = 0 = f 1 (16)
g ~ c1 ~ c2 cd f# c
g 2 # c1 cd

In losing the b terms, we discarded the non-observables, losing some information about the bosons’ coupling to
the fermion event (3.1.5). However, we have all parts of the full products in the Clifford3,1 algebra (or GA), where
we may extract scalar, vector, bivector and trivector parts. We may treat it as a Hamiltonian that summarizes all the
fundamental observables, or make a direct number-type-compatible substitution[4] into the Rowlands nilpotent
representation for the Dirac equation[3], by taking the states of all waves at an event (eq.16), as Z and Yœœ (4.2.1.3),
which correspond to tensor constructions in {a, c} that are the four ‘Dirac images’ of a fermion. From fermion state
Z, we find the pentad from a re-compactified expansion from basis e0..3. Almeida[9] provides further insights into the
equivalence of other 5-dimensional GA representations in this context, in particular Cl4,1. See below (5.3) for a
description of the duality of the Z and Y states within the fermion event.

4.3 Hidden value, geometric product, and physical expressions

To achieve a model of observational truth, the scientific method attempts to uncover hidden truths about nature, and
tests a model by attempting to measure converted aspects of it. In doing so, we invent abstract concepts about these
hidden aspects, and relate them to what we observe. In making a quantifiable observation, it must always relate to a
spatial offset, but (without restricting the scope for physics), the measurable physical aspect is:
4.3.1.1 A privileged subset of the possible wave operations within the APS, and
4.3.1.2 A presentation layer based on the measuring interaction.
Given a sufficiently fundamental understanding of an interaction, we will be able to ‘unify’ all types of physical
expressions, rather than applying different conversion rules at higher levels of the hierarchy. In defining the APS
and its physical model, a more useful unification is achieved.
Geometric algebra is powerful in this respect: it allows two interacting vectors to be expressed in terms of the
full product, without losing information:
ab = a $b + a  b (17)

4.4 Uncertainty and projections on divergence

Given our assignment of divergences to outer products, and couplings to inner products (see also 4.5), we already
have the tools needed to losslessly map dimensional values (covered by the unit basis elements of Table 2) to any
phase in the APS. When deducing hidden structure, we must be careful to understand when we are reading the
underlying APS state, and when we are reading the residuals of a fermion state. We regard the conserved state to be
of absolute value, and the nonconserved state to be relative, so ordering the anti-commuting terms (4.2).
Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle tells us that anti-commuting terms cannot be measured simultaneously, but we
can explain further.
4.4.1.1 Knowing that the uncertainty-paired terms have different basis axes (Table 2), we cannot obtain a full
inner product on both terms’ axes with one single measurement; we would need two separate
projections to gain a full-value readings of both, but the first measurement would corrupt the quantum
state before we could make the second.
Anti-commutation is not itself the reason for Uncertainty; a more fundamental explanation, rooted in the basic
algebra, is that:
4.4.1.2 Any difference in APS phase between a state vector and a projector means that we cannot fully measure
the state vector, so when a pair of state vectors is presented for measurement, then at least one of the
two cannot be measured fully.
So where we stated that terms with differing b (conservation) properties anti-commute, we were only stating a
small part of the uncertainty relation: properties a and c also imply uncertainty.
4.4.1.3 The (nonconserved) bosonic offsets, equivalent to a latent phase change in the wave, or phase difference
from the fermion state, respond as a compact unified field. Measurement interactions may act from any
projection on this unified field, and the uncertainty-paired terms (inner and outer products) correspond
to conserved and divergent relations [Noether] at the measurement event (3.1.2).
We note (from 4.4.1.1) that there are other problems in measuring a complete quantum state:
4.4.1.4 Likewise, attempting more than one measurement, as is required to gain a more complete picture when
there are discarded products, will necessarily sample different (event-sequenced) states of the target,
rather than measuring the state at one event.
4.4.1.5 It should be possible to obtain a more complete quantum image of the target’s state using a probe
having two orthogonal-phase waves (QM: so an expectation value is at one extreme of the spectrum;
outer products are off-diagonal in matrices), but then (a) choosing the correct probe needs knowledge of
the target state, and (b) that image would be subject to the same uncertainty restrictions as the original
target, and be equally impenetrable [No-clone Theorem].

4.5 Preserving information: bosons and fundamental angular momentum

In building a boson from two waves (3.1.1.1), we can maintain dimensional (vector) information throughout a
boson’s wave cycle, even when its state vector appears to be in scalar phase (where vectors have no meaning), and
we can manage exposure of nonconserved values from conserved quantities, e.g. fields from their sources. A
continuous rotation transformation is needed to traverse phase in any of the properties {a, b, c}, for which we can
use the magnitude-preserving (geometric algebra) rotor,
V = (W $c) cos ; + (X $c) sin ; (18)
where W is the initial state, and X is the orthogonal final state. We may interpolate phase ; of the transformation
from W to X, for ; = 0..2j, to give the interpolated state V. This may be applied for any or all APS phases {a, b, c}
simultaneously, to transform the expanded dimensional terms (Table 2), and combines into a single continuously
differentiable expression.
4.5.1.1 The property a, between real and imaginary. This is readily available as a multiplication by i 6 ei ;  2 ,
as typified in complex rotations. Interpolating or extrapolating the phase value of this rotation loses no
information. Note that a complete phase cycle in a spans only half of one rotation on the Argand
diagram.
4.5.1.2 Property b works similarly to property a, but with no change of number type.
4.5.1.3 For the c axis, we should be able to express the nondimensional side as a direct scalar equivalent of the
dimensional 3D values (the GA grades have the same ‘evenness’). Doing this should be a simple
process of 4D rotation from vector into scalar, with phase determined by the position in c in the APS.
Rotations in properties a and c have the same form as those of GA constructions of Cl3,1, and so provide the same
algebraic origins for half-integer spin.
4.5.1.4 A boson is the minimum physical structure that can sustainably conserve information.

Affinity of Waves at a Fermion Event

At the fermion event, we have at least four waves, two of which will be at conserved phase: 2 conserved, and 2+
nonconserved: each conserved wave is bound to a nonconserved wave, and any remaining waves are nonconserved.
Without even considering orientation to macroscopic background (space), the intrinsic angular momentum of a
boson at a fermion event may appear to have one of two directions, determined by the slope of nonconserved order
waves. If we take the two individual waves that are at conserved phase –b, they will have identical value in all
orders of b. One would think that this makes them interchangeable so that the set of conserved waves could
somehow select their nonconserved partner, but this possibility is eliminated because it would violate angular
momentum in axes {a, c}. One cannot argue that they would be interchangeable if the {a, c} terms were identical,
because that would violate the Exclusion Principle, and the fermion event being discussed could not be constituted.
This leaves the nonconserved waves that have no conserved partner: these are the hypothesized incidental
bosons, where both waves are nonconserved. These may couple with the fermion event, and be split or merged,
according to the splitting and mixing formula (3.1.2).
Conserving dimensional elemental value by order*
3D vector information would not be lost at phase ; = jwhen the vector is fully rotated to a scalar, because of
the internal housekeeping process of fundamental angular momentum in the boson, which mediates the phase
change between its two waves. In doing so, it also mediates the dimensional values as a second-order differential
term, which would otherwise have been lost by a single wave at scalar phase. Rather than it being a symmetry that
must somehow be spontaneously broken to invoke causality, we view the simple four-order differential cycle,
… 6 5 d n cos ; 6 5 d n :1 sin ; 6 d n : 2 cos ; 6 d n : 3 sin ; 6 5 d n : 4 cos ; 6 … (19)

(domain omitted) as being a relation between the conserved state and ideally ordered fields, as found at a fermion
event in a predetermined spacetime matter network. It allows latent bosons to avoid self-exclusion and conserve
themselves by propagation into implicit macroscopic nonconserved domains. This may be re-written as an
‘elliptical’ (rather than circular) relation by treating axes {a, b, c} independently.
We are as yet uncertain whether adjacent-order differentials of sin ; are intrinsic to the wave (which would
imply new detail not yet described here), or to the boson; we expect the latter.
 5 APPLICATIONS AND FURTHER WORK
5.1 Double-slit experiment, and variations

Using the four-wave formulation for the fermion (3.1.4), we apply those principles to slit experiments, and find that
we can reproduce the expected results. At the source, a ‘particle’ S is emitted as two bosons S1 and S2, which are
independently propagated through latent space (3.1.2). Each boson has two waves, e.g. S1 has waves S1A and S1B.
Even when we factor in a positional randomness of the target positions that is greater in magnitude than the
wavelength of the quantizing wave, the image formed at the target may then show an interference pattern, or not,
depending on the apparatus between the source and the target (3.1.5). If there is a choice of paths, with no
confinement to one path on any two consecutive screens, then an interference pattern may be present if the bosons
are coherent at the target. With two paths and one common target fermion, the two bosons’ phases will be
synchronized with respect to their paths, whereas with two targets, the source bosons may be incoherent with respect
to any other bosons, implying no interference pattern at the target.
We admit that the following outcomes (fig.8) are possible for the fermion S, where its two parts S1 and S2 may:
5.1.1.1 Each couple with a boson from separate fermions in the target (we’ll call those fermions U and V,
which each have two boson parts), so an interaction might look like “S1A to U1A, S1B to U2A, with the
implied S2A to V1A, and S2B to V2A” with the bosons U1B, U2B, V1B, and V2B coupling with other
bosons from the target area. We call this diffuse propagation. It does not produce an interference
pattern (unless its component waves form at the targets with other waves that are coherent with it); or
5.1.1.2 Taking the diffuse propagation (5.1.1.1) in reverse, we have converging propagation, which has an
interference pattern if the two sources’ emission phases are synchronized (i.e. if they previously came
from the same fermion); or
5.1.1.3 Both couple as one new fermion S, from the same waves that made up fermion S. The fermions at the
target contribute only nonconserved values to the solution. We call this conserved propagation, which
is the same as “diffuse + converging”. This has an interference pattern only if S1 and S2 are coherent
and converge at T via different paths; or
5.1.1.4 As a variation on 5.1.1.3, both couple with the bosons from fermion T at the target, to make two new
fermions U and V. An interaction might look like “S1A to T1A, S1B to T2A, with the implied S2A to
T1B, and S2B to T2B”. The two fermions form: U where T1, and V where T2 are in conserved phase,
and has an interference pattern only if S1 and S2 arrived via different paths. We call this separating
propagation, which is the same as “diffuse – converging”.
A slit provides the distinguishable location that seems to be a new source. It does this, not necessarily because
the slit provides a break in the screen, but because of the matter around the slit re-encodes the source wave as a
multi-source wave packet (this causes fringing, because we are effectively providing more than one point of
Table 4. Interference outcomes of slit experiments, based on the four-part fermion formulation.
Slit sequence Independent paths Interference observed?
(No slits) Infinite No
1 1 Diffraction fringing only
2 2 Diffraction fringing only
1, 2 2 Yes
1, 1 1 Diffraction fringing only
1, 2, 2 4 (half will interfere)*
1, 2, 1 2 No*
.

FIGURE 8. Outcomes for source bosons forming at a target.

emission, which again behaves like two slits). This re-encoding depends on the wave splitting (3.1.5; merely
assigning a proportion of the wave to a new source position, while the remainder continues). Experimental scenarios
are tabulated in Table 4, and we predict that all slit experiments will behave as if two actual paths are always
formed.
As well as fermions, we can show the same results for source bosons (photons), provided they are from a
coherent source such as a laser, which can provide phase-correlated (non-random) waves. This confirms what
standard quantum physics tells us, but by other means: that waves will pass through both slits in the ‘multiverse’, if
they are presented as classically alternative options. Our four-part fermion construction, being a snapshot of two
independent bosons, allows a determinate solution to the problem by allowing two waves to start with coherent
phase, each wave having option of a different path (by first unique solution), re-propagating at slits as wave packets,
to finally re-combine at the target plane.

5.2 Hadron Structure

Using our description of fermions and bosons, we may describe stable hadrons as repeating sequences of fermion
events, and for each fermion event, its bosons are realized at two different fermions in the future. An ideal baryon is
composite of three continuous bosons (six APS waves), tightly confined by the quarks (fermion events). We propose
that two quarks each emit bosons at phase _` a`  , and these bosons interact to form the state at
phase ` When the composite is not accelerating, the quark at phase 3`s identical to the quark 
_` and
the process continues, with each quark disappearing when it emits a boson, and re-appearing when bosons coincide
in conserved phase. Assuming it can remain stable, a two-quark hadron (meson) may propagate similarly in
alternating two-phase.
We may generalize a trivial entangled baryon pattern (fig.9):
NPm = …1..6, (20)
and X1 … P m … X2 = 0 (21)
with fermions indexed Zn+0..2 and bosons (gluons) indexed …1..6, X terms representing full creation and annihilation
operator sets, Pm as the nonconserved action (eq.13), and N normalizes the total phase progression to equal the
composite’s displacement (parallelism in the networks). Note that eqs.22–29 assume phase modulo 2j:
At rest, Pm = 0, (22)

FIGURE 9. Three structures for continuous bosons in baryons: (a) simplest structure, (b) one segment [Z1 to closest Z2] is too
distant to be linked by a boson, (c) two segments are too distant. Note that residuals are omitted.
and with uniform external fields, i.e. non-accelerating,
…1 …3 …5 = …6 …4 …2 = 0. (23)
At any given instant in time, a whole hadron does not exist in a fermionic state; rather you would find only
bosons-in-transit (conventionally termed ‘virtual particles’), which are re-propagated, ready to produce
instantaneous fermion events in the future. The Standard Model’s values for the charge of quarks are merely a
probabilistic averaging the three available ‘valence’ phase values, none of which actually realizes a fractional charge
when using a deterministic approach.
In all hadrons, we have two bosons meeting at a fermion event, and then bosons are emitted to the next event,
and so on. From the perspective of quark Zn, we see two bosons entering the fermion event, and two bosons leaving
the fermion event (fig.9).
…4Zn–2 = Zn ; …5Zn–1 = Zn ; …1Zn = Zn+1 ; …2Zn = Zn+2 . (24)
and …4 …5 …1 …2 = 0. (25)
To signify RGB colors of Standard Model QCD, we may assign color operators to phase terms that sum to one
complete phase revolution, like three nodes on a unit circle. We note that eq.20 contains three sets of colors and anti-
colors,
…n = red, …n+2 = green, …n+4 = blue, (26)
…n …n+3 = 0, (27)
and …n+3 = anti-red, …n+5 = anti-green, …n+1 = anti-blue. (28)
Co-homology (alternative routes from start to end points, admitting entanglement) has the forms:
for even n, …n = …n+5 …n+1, (or …n = …n+5 –…n+4),
and for odd n, …n = …n+1 …n+5, (or …n = …n+1 –…n+2). (29)
All the above still applies when …n ് …n+2 ് …n+4; if we assume equal frequencies for all waves in property b,
then phase values for the color bosons need not be equal for there to be a sustainable composite particle state. Fig.9

 
  €     
     
  

‚   
continuous and repeating wave that crosses fermion events in conserved phase (shown as filled circles) and in
nonconserved phase as fields (shown as slashes). Consistent with our previous principles, each of the … phase
segments represents a boson and its limits. Each boson comprises two APS waves that are labeled A and B, and two
… phase operators …n …n+3 (color and anti-color) cover a full phase cycle (eq.27). From this, we see precisely how the
three bosons’ component APS waves interact at fermions Z0..2, without breaking phase continuity.
In terms of degeneracy or ambiguity, the two conserved wave states at any fermion event are not arbitrarily
interchangeable, because to conserve intrinsic angular momentum in other elements {a, c}, the bosons’ waves must
resolve themselves to a continuous sequence (see examples, fig.9).The seemingly inseparable pair of conserved
wave values implied by quantization of the physical model (e.g. in fig.9a, waves 1B and 3A at fermion event Z1)
will each resolve their quantum potential when they form new separate fermion events at Z0 and Z2 respectively
(figs.9,10).
This approach gives us some clues about the specific values that quarks and their gluons may assume, and their
inter-relationships (we are particularly fascinated by the quarks sharing each others’ constitutions). However, we
cannot simply assume that, for example, all instances of ‘up’ quark will have consistent intrinsic APS (or elemental)
values; the phase positions of the fermions (valence quarks) may move around the phase span, and the limits of the
bosons will accordingly change. Our future analysis will therefore focus on the gluons themselves, and the totality of
the composite, which should reconcile with current experimental deductions.

5.3 Super-symmetry and duality

We do not subscribe to super-symmetry as-is; instead we describe conserved and nonconserved states as being dual
(1.1, fig.10). A fermion event includes a conservation duality, of conserved states, and of nonconserved states
describing the fields, relative operators, and gauge generators (all of these are the same underlying phenomenon).
 FIGURE 10. Conserved opportunities for a single boson.

Inverting the phase of b for all waves would not be symmetric with the original system, because the fermion events
would then form in different places, with different {a, c} values. Thus, fermions and bosons are not directly
interchangeable entities, but we have instead unified the more fundamental aspects of fields and particles, so that we
can describe them all in terms of the same type of wave.

5.3.1 Zitterbewegung and Weak Interactions

A structural weak interaction can be produced by swapping adjacent Z fermions (fig.9) via an external boson, to
change the relative ordering of waves in a boson (fig.3), and change the structure and mass of the composite. This
also can be done for long-range interactions (like neutrino flavor oscillation) via zitterbewegung (fig.2d shows all
four possible fermion events from two bosons).

5.4 Emergent aether-like medium of fermions

Fundamentally, we assume that there is no aether. However, because all fermions radiate themselves as bosons, and
the conditions for further fermions can occur in the intermediate space, we can show that an aether-like sea of
fermion events could form if there is sufficient surrounding matter and time for its bosons to propagate and intersect
(fig.11a). We call this a secondary aether. This is not a continuous background aether, is not fundamental, and may
seem random if there is no knowledge of the specific boson sources. The individual fermions will be instantaneous
like all other fermions, and will not propagate as idempotents, so they will not be seen to form and move around.
Instead, they act as interaction points for fields to influence idempotent fermions or composites.
If we apply this idea to dark matter and dark energy, where the dark energy corresponds to propagating
bosons, and dark matter corresponds to the aether-like fermions, we immediately find that there is a measurement
problem when we consider that fermions are instantaneous: it is not possible to measure the ratio of fermions to
bosons at any given instant (the fermion count diminishes to zero). Instead, we must adopt reference frames and the
idea of simultaneity, and use a time interval or field modulation (3.1.2, fig.11b) to count the fermions and bosons in
a modeled scenario. Indeed, the ratio doesn’t make much sense in this context, and neither do the ‘missing mass’ or
‘missing energy’ anomalies described by contemporary physics, for the same reasons.

5.5 QED: moving the electron

We may use the same four-part fermion model with QED. A fermion emits itself as bosons, with the dominant
(idempotent) boson waves then interacting with another boson at a new fermion event. Electromagnetic fields find
projection in the APS, and are realized in the fermion events (5.4) in the space surrounding their source charges.

FIGURE 11. (a) Minor fermions in a volume; (b) Spacetime map centered on a fermion, where solid dots show fermions
connected by bosons, and hollow dots are fermions measured in a time interval; (c) Radial dissipation.

(a) (b) (c)

 5.6 Inverse proportionality

Being a pure phase interaction, there should be no magnitude fall-off with distance. This seems to be at odds with
our current understanding of Coulombic forces and inverse-proportionality laws, but following on from 5.4, we
propose that inverse proportionalities can be explained as secondary effects of the dissipation caused by aether-like
fermion events in a busy universe. This dissipation is well-known in computer modeling, and has been shown in the
author’s own ‘adjacency lattice’ computer simulations (1993) having one axis of freedom (fig. 11c). It is a simple
derivation of the second law of thermodynamics; dimensionality is essential in its construction (3.1.2).

5.7 Black holes: event horizon and information paradox

We propose that information may escape a black hole if fermion event solutions are allowed to occur consistently in
the outward direction, rather than the inward direction. Conditions are such that gravity causes solutions to be
strongly inwardly oriented, so the fundamental signature of any radiation would be quite specific, as follows. The
unitary phase operation implies that no quantum field value may exceed unity, and the scenario of a fermion
outwardly crossing the event horizon is possible: a fermion near the event horizon must have an environment that
allows an approximately idempotent fermion state (to continue the outward momentum), and must have a
counteracting field value closer to unity than the field imposed by the inner gravitational mass. We look to
imaginary sources (like charge), and find that they can provide the necessary force (phase modulation), and note that
charges tend to cancel out over distance if both signs are present, so escape sites are likely to have a concentration of
one polarity over the other.
We may resolve the information paradox by suggesting that the ‘event horizon’ is not a strict barrier but a
probabilistic one, and we suggest conditions whereby all bosons may eventually traverse the event horizon, in a
different ‘encoding’ than the matter that entered the body, by re-combination of the component waves into radiation
that does not form matter on an inward vector, nor does it find proximate solutions that would easily return inwards.
Our physical model allows one half of the fermion’s waves to be separated from the other, so allowing entangled
states (or eigenstates of a trapped fermion event) to exist on both sides of the event horizon, or to be transformed
into radiation that may escape; this separation becomes viable because the phase of each component in the wave pair
(fig.10) becomes critical to its chance of escaping. Notably, being a quantum process, it does not conform to a
continuous function with radius, and conventional rigidity of Schwarzschild solutions is probabilistically avoided.

5.8 Other phenomena with reasonable description

5.8.1.1 Condensates and Cooper Pairs, from the assumption that fermion events do not dictate where other
fermion events form if their conserved waves are not shared.
5.8.1.2 Quantum nature of matter: We can use the four-part fermion formulation, and its realization in
physical form as a ‘matter network’ to provide satisfactory pictures for slit experiments and
Aharanov-Bohm Effect experiments, where a fermion’s constituent parts may take different virtual
paths (i.e. influenced by fields within the unrealized radius), and combine at the target, either as a
reconstituted conserved particle, or as a random matching with other parts of a coherent source (5.1).
5.8.1.3 Quantum entanglement, where terms are phase-correlated from a fermion event or coherent source.
For a ‘comparative circuit’, co-homology presents two paths to a final event, via an intermediate stage
that is a destructive integration in one nonconserved term, while being a constructive integration in
another (e.g. space). We may also calculate results of particle pair experiments designed to test Bell’s
Theorem, using ‘diffuse propagation’ (5.1.1.1).
5.8.1.4 Dark energy and dark matter, using bosons in transit as dark energy, and the secondary aether (5.4) as
the dark matter [Speculative].
5.8.1.5 CMBR, as second-generation radiation returning from distantly-formed fermion events (5.4), and there
would be a very weak action of similar returning radiation on disparate matter, possibly a contributor to
the Cosmological Constant. An alternative derivation of the cosmological constant is that field
modulation only modulates values where a solution may occur, resulting in a bias towards expansion
that is significant (as a proportion of distance) the very smallest scales (fig.4), which is evident at large
scales.
 6 SUMMARY

For brevity, we only outline key features, predictions and where we believe further work will be fruitful.

6.1 Basic Conclusions

6.1.1.1 Unification: We can show how all matter may exist as sequences of continuous waves and particle
events. The fermion (3.1.1) is a snapshot of the component bosonic waves at a point, when specific
simple conditions are met: two bosons each having a wave element in conserved phase. This unifies the
traditional categories of ‘wave’ and ‘particle’, and provides satisfactory answers to wave-particle
duality, including double-slit experiments. The fermion event description also includes a unified field
that encapsulates known forces, both as intrinsic quantum potentials and their integrable macroscopic
expressions.
6.1.1.2 Correspondence Principle: Our model derives both quantum and classical mechanics using the same
picture and hierarchy (3.3), along with reasons for classical limits.
6.1.1.3 New fundamentals: Quarks and leptons are no longer fundamental, existing only instantaneously
before being radiated away as bosons again (3.1.2). We have a minimal description of real and virtual
parameters at a fermion event, and the compactified form is a referencing projection to source terms like
charge and mass.
6.1.1.4 Exclusion and Latency: The boson structure and its phase mechanism provide the means for two
distant fermion states to become part of the same continuous wave, with many physical consequences
(4.5): conservation of source information during propagation, the latency of all nonconserved terms,
fundamental angular momentum, causality (quantum sequence), wave propagation, and the origins of
nonconserved (gauge) fields and integrable macroscopic domains and potentials.
6.1.1.5 Confinement: With phase operators and self-quantizing matter in a predeterministic model, some
infinities and discontinuities are avoided. Fundamental fields have no fall off, and have unitary source
value.
6.1.1.6 Relativity and Inertial Mass: A change of velocity of a composite particle requires a distortion of the
‘macroscopic positional structure’ of the sequence of fermion events (3.3). We believe that this would
demonstrate length contraction, and the model as a whole can demonstrate both Special Relativity and
General Relativity at the abstraction level where macroscopic physics is emergent.

6.2 Predictions and further work

We have made predictions and identified many objectives for further works, beyond the scope of this short paper:
6.2.1.1 Create a computer simulation, using the model. Reconcile ratios of energies, masses, or other
characterizing measure of entity, with those of the Standard Model. Formally unify those entities, and
demonstrate their equivalence without privileging the processes. Reconcile values of important
constants, and conditions that generate entities known to the Standard Model.
6.2.1.2 Find a sufficiently fundamental model for splitting of bosons, and a means of finding ‘unique first
solutions’ for field-modulated radial bosons (3.1.5).
6.2.1.3 Split bosons (3.1.5) should be visible as a wave packet when the radiated bosons are viewed off-axis
from the line between the originating fermion and the fermion where the splitting occurs. This could
have applications in sensing.
6.2.1.4 Apply the principles to QED (5.5).
6.2.1.5 Calculate the vacuum energy density of transient bosons and their ‘aether-like fermions’, and whether
they give expected values for dark energy and dark matter respectively (5.8.1.4).
6.2.1.6 Derive current 5D algebraic representations[9] from the APS, and give them deeper physical meaning
with the fundamental origins implied by the APS.
6.2.1.7 Establish whether the APS and physical model outlined in this paper can be a useful basis for a quantum
theory for gravity (Table 2: state A, 4.1, 4.4.1.3).
6.2.1.8 Understand the physical meaning of all differential orders of a boson (4.5).
 6.2.1.9 Analyze ‘uncertainty pairings’ by the ‘projectors’ rule (4.4.1.2), to see if new relations can be
discovered.
6.2.1.10 Prediction: Our description of stable hadrons allows for the signature of residuals to be predicted, and
vice versa. Residual fields should be directionally polarized because of the spatial reformation pattern
(5.2), appearing as a strong force ‘multi-pole’ source residuals (or multiple monopoles) approximated
by unitary groups. This, along with relativistic changes to the composite particle, should be confirmable
by experiment.
6.2.1.11 Prediction: There is no Higgs boson (3.3.5), but the Higgs mechanism is inherent in the propagating
APS phase of the two bosons (four waves) leaving a fermion event, each wave has the freedom of the
APS, and is therefore a compacted form of all four SM gauge bosons (4.4.1.3).

7 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We would like to thank Peter Rowlands for providing stimulating conversation and suggesting networking
opportunities to discuss ideas with others having similar interests, and members of various regular conferences
(ANPA, PIRT, Vigier) for interesting discussions.

8 REFERENCES

1. P. Rowlands, The Fundamental Parameters of Physics: an Approach towards a Unified Theory, PD Publications, Liverpool
(1991).
2. J.S. Valentine, Gravitation in Symmetrical Context of Space-Time, Conference on Physical Interpretation of Relativity
Theory X, British Society for Philosophy of Science, London (2006).
3. P. Rowlands, Zero to Infinity, ISBN-13: 9789812709141, World Scientific Publishing, (2007).
4. J.S. Valentine, Algebra of a Three-fold Symmetry for Fundamental Physics, Physical Interpretation of Relativity Theory XI,
British Society for Philosophy of Science, London (2008).
5. D. Hestenes, A Unified Language for Mathematics and Physics, in J.S.R. Chisholm/A.K. Commons (Eds.), Clifford Algebras
and their Applications in Mathematical Physics„…
‡‰Š‹Œ–23.
6. J.S. Valentine, Presentation “A Development of The Fundamental Parameters of Physics”, Alternative Natural Philosophers’
Association 20, Cambridge (1998).
7. P. Rowlands, (private communication) “four from eight”, (20 February 2009).
8. E. Noether, Invariante Variationsprobleme, Nachr. v. d. Ges. d. Wiss. zu Göttingen (1918), pp235–257. English translation
(1971),
 Ž
     

‹‹

9. J. Almeida, Different Algebras for One Reality, arXiv:0807.3668v1 [physics.gen-ph] (2008).
10. P. Marcer, Presentation “Further Evidence in Support if the Nilpotent Grammatical Computational Paradigm of Quantum
Physics”, Vigier VII Symposium, London (2010).
11. J.S. Valentine, Presentation “Splitting the Fermion”, Vigier VII Symposium, London (2010).
 Baryogenesis in the Early Universe
Danuta M. Karczewska 1

University of Silesia, ul. Jagiellonska 28, 40-032 Katowice, Poland

Abstract. The Universe we observe is baryon-antibaryon asymmetric. There is a negligible amount of primordial
antimatter. The presented theoretical scenarios provide a possible mechanism of baryogenesis which could have taken
place in the Early Universe, and which may explain the observed asymmetry.
Keywords: Baryogenesis, Early Universe, Cosmology.
PACS: 98.80.Cq

INTRODUCTION
The existence of antimatter was first postulated in 1928 by Dirac [1] and it appeared that elementary particle
physics is qualitatively unchanged if we replace particles with antiparticles and the world composed of antimatter
would behave in a similar way to the world we live in. Four years later, C. Anderson [2] was the first who observed
positron as an evidence of antimatter.
The experimental evidence is that we live in a matter dominated Universe. Explorations of our local Universe tell
us that it is made up of the same material as the Earth. Observational evidence from radio-astronomy and cosmic ray
detection indicate that the Milky Way, as well as interstellar space and distant galaxies, are also made of matter. This
is a strong evidence of the asymmetry. It is difficult to tell if distant galaxies consist of matter or antimatter (spectra
are the same). But, the Universe could consist of domains of matter and antimatter, with net baryon asymmetry. If
such domains are in contact then gamma rays from annihilation would be produced. Voids between domains would
be visible in the CMB. Cosmic gamma ray background indicates the domains must be at least ~Gpc in size. And no
one can say if there are in our Universe islands of antimatter separated by empty space from regions containing
normal matter.
There is no doubt that we consist of matter. There are three possibilities of why the Universe is baryon-
asymmetric [3]:
1. The Universe has always been baryon-asymmetric. The Big Bang has produced asymmetry in the
beginning and nothing has changed since then. Had the Universe had any initial asymmetry the asymmetry
would have been quickly eliminated due to thermodynamical processes.
2. The Universe actually is baryon-symmetric. In this model, ž 6 0 (baryon asymmetry of the Universe) at the
Big Bang and remains always zero. The Universe expanded quickly enough that not all of the matter and
antimatter annihilated and huge clouds of matter and antimatter became separated. It is possible that the
Universe is charged asymmetrically only in our neighborhood, never mind how large it is (it may be even
larger than the horizon), but it is charged symmetrically as a whole? The questions are (still unanswered): Is
the baryon asymmetry of the Universe ( ž ) constant or does it change at different locations in space?
Is ž Š 0 ? Are there any regions of antimatter where ž x 0 ? What is the total baryonic charge of the
Universe (positive, negative or zero)? What kind of anti-objects may there exist?
3. The Universe began in a baryon symmetric state but particle interactions produced a net asymmetry. That
means, ž 6 0 in the beginning, and after Big Bang there was produced an excess of matter shortly after
nucleosynthesis. This idea is called baryogenesis.

1
e-mail: dkarcz@us.edu.pl
 Explaining the origin of the matter-antimatter asymmetry of the Universe [3,4] is essential to our understanding
of the history of the Universe.
The magnitude of baryon asymmetry of the Universe (BAU) ž is characterized by the dimensionless ratio (the
WMAP result [5]):

nB 5 nB
ž6 6 (6.15 ~ 0.25) ? 10 510 (1)
n9

where n B , n B , n9 are the cosmological number densities of baryons, antibaryons, and photons in cosmic
microwave background radiation (CMBR). In the last few years, the Cosmic Microwave Background has given us
an independent way of measuring the baryon asymmetry [6].
E.W. Kolb and M.S. Turner [7] estimated 30 million antiquarks for every 30 million and 1 quarks, a very tiny
asymmetry during this epoch. Over time most of the antimatter annihilated with matter, leaving the very small initial
excess of matter to dominate the Universe. Although this is a tiny number, it is hard to understand why BAU differs
from zero if the Universe possessed equal amounts of matter and antimatter at its birth.
According to simple models of baryogenesis, pioneered by A.D. Sakharov [8] in 1967, baryon asymmetry is
homogeneous,  Î     S  S   , and the total baryonic charge of the Universe is non-zero.
Still, this idea has not been rejected theoretically or observationally. Sakharov suggested three principles which are
required for baryogenesis to occur:
1. Non-conservation of baryonic charge.
2. Breaking of symmetry between particles and antiparticles (C and CP violation).
3. Deviation from thermal equilibrium.
The first principle seems rather clear. If there is no ž violation, then the total number of baryons in the Universe
must remain constant, and therefore no asymmetry can be generated from symmetric initial conditions.
The second condition seems to be clear, too. If C and CP are exact symmetries, than the total rate for any process
which produces an excess of baryons is equal to the rate of the complementary process which produces an excess of
antibaryons and so no overall excess of matter can be created. The baryon number of this state should be zero. C and
CP violation have been verified experimentally in neutral Kaon decays [9].
The requirement of the third condition is the departure from thermal equilibrium. In thermal equilibrium the
number density of a particle species is determined by its energy and since the masses of particles and antiparticles
are equal, the number density of baryons equals that of antibaryons. The Universe must have been out of thermal
equilibrium in order to produce net baryon number. The departure from thermal equilibrium could be attained in two
ways: by the presence of heavy decaying particles or during the phase transitions which lead to the breaking of some
global (or gauge) symmetry [4].
Baryogenesis is a process of generation of an excess of baryons over antibaryons which presumably took place at
the early stage of the evolution of the Universe. Explaining the origin of the matter-antimatter asymmetry of the
Universe is an crucial point in our understanding of the history of the Universe.

Possible Scenarios
There are many theoretical scenarios at different scales which allow to explain this ž value describing the
observed baryon asymmetry.

Planck-scale (at 1019 GeV) baryogenesis

At the Planck scale (1019 GeV) we expect quantum gravity to become the dominant interaction. In quantum-
gravitational interactions, we should not expect any quantum numbers to be conserved. If quantum gravity is the
mechanism for baryogenesis it is untestable by experiment. If baryon excess was generated by quantum gravity it
would have been washed out by inflation; and so the present-day baryon excess was probably not generated by
quantum gravity.
 GUT-scale (at 1016 GeV) baryogenesis

The Grand Unified Theories (GUTs), which can unify the fundamental forces of nature (electromagnetic, weak
nuclear and strong nuclear forces) involve heavy bosons (m ~ 1016 GeV) that couple quarks to leptons. B violation is
built into GUTs from the start, CP violation can come from Kobayashi–Maskawa mechanism as in the Standard
Model or from the newly introduced couplings to the heavy bosons. However, GUT-scale baryogenesis poses a
similar problem as the Planck-scale baryogenesis. Due to high energies it involves, testing it in terrestrial
experiments is not possible yet. If the reheating of the Universe at the end of inflation exceeds a certain temperature,
more WIMPs are produced. But the reheating temperature is likely to lie below the GUT scale, and baryogenesis
probably did not occur at this scale [10].

Baryogenesis by heavy particle decays

Heavy particle decay baryogenesis [3,10,11] is naturally realized in grand unification theories, GUTs, where
gauge bosons X with mass around 1016 ’ 1015 GeV are present. These bosons can decay e.g. into, qq and q l pairs
where baryon number is evidently not conserved.

X y qq, X y ql
(2)
X y qq, X y ql

Due to the large mass of X the deviation from equilibrium could be significant, CP-violation might be sufficiently
large (we know nothing about it) and the mechanism could be efficient enough to generate the observed asymmetry.
The problem with GUTs is that the temperatures of the GUT scale might not be reachable after inflation. But,
baryogenesis might proceed with under-abundant X–bosons created out of equilibrium.
On the other hand, in the proposed GUTs the baryon number symmetry may be broken allowing protons to
decay (via the Higgs particle, X bosons or magnetic monopoles). One of the predicted proton decay mode is: a
proton decays to a positron and to a neutral pion, and a neutral pion immediately decays into two gamma rays.
However, all attempts to observe these events have failed (Super Kamiokande). So far, no candidate proton decay
events have been observed and the life time of the proton is estimated at more than 8.2 T 10 33 years [12].

Baryogenesis through evaporation of primordial black holes

Baryon number nonconservation is not required at particle physics level for generation of the baryon asymmetry.
The charge asymmetry is not created by thermal evaporation. The mechanism of baryon number violation can be
explained as follows: the meson A is created at the horizon and it decays as:

A y H : L, Ay H :L (3)

where H and L are a heavy and light baryons, e.g. t and u quarks, respectively. Due to CP-violation the branching
ratios of these decays may be different. Back-capture of H by gravitational field of the black hole is larger than that
of L. Thus some net baryon asymmetry could be created [3].

Space separation of baryons and antibaryons

Space separation of B, and B at astronomically large distances [13], is probably not effective. However anti-
baryons might be removed from our space into higher dimensions [14] or predominantly accumulated inside quark
nuggets [15].

ELECTROWEAK BARYOGENESIS VIA SPHALERON

The state of the art in particle physics is the Standard Model of the theory of interactions between quarks and
leptons. CP violation has been observed and might originate from the mass matrix of the quarks. B violation is
believed to have taken place through non-perturbative processes of the theory of weak interactions in a high
temperature plasma. Non-equilibrium in particle distributions in the plasma was generated at the electroweak phase
transition. In what follows, I will describe baryon number violation in the Standard Model induced by sphalerons.

Phase Transition in the Standard Model.

The Sakharov third condition for baryogenesis requires a deviation from the thermal equilibrium. We know that,
in order to ensure sufficient deviation from thermal equilibrium, the electroweak phase transition should be first
order (Fig.1.a).
Ÿ)
U(Ÿ

Ÿ)
U(Ÿ
 

22Ÿ222 2 2222222222222222222222222 2 22Ÿ2

2
22a)222 2 2222222222222222222222222 2 22b)
FIGURE 1. The shape of the potential. The dependence of the potential on the order parameter ŸA2The discontinuous phase
transition (a), (T2>Tc, T1<Tc). The continuous phase transition (b).

As the Universe cools down, the shape of the potential of the scalar field that is responsible for the electroweak
symmetry breaking has two degenerate minima, where one of them is the (false) vacuum of the symmetric state and
the other is the (true) vacuum of the broken state, at the critical temperature. The first-order electroweak phase
transition takes place from the false vacuum to the true vacuum. In general, the first-order electroweak phase
transition is regarded as strong if the vacuum expectation value of the scalar field at the true vacuum is larger than
the critical temperature. The difference between first and second order is determined by the behavior of the potential
(here the order parameter is the mass of Higgs boson) at finite temperature, as shown in the figure above. In a first
order transition, the potential develops a bump which separates the symmetric and broken phases, while in a second
order transition or a smooth cross-over there is no bump. The critical temperature Tc is defined to be the temperature
at which the two minima are degenerate in the first order case, or the temperature at which U(0) = 0 in the second
order case. A first order transition proceeds by bubble nucleation where inside the bubbles all the particles are
massless and outside gain mass (Fig 2.). The bubbles expand to eventually collide, join together and fill all of space.
particles
gain mass

FIGURE 2. The sphaleron (a bubble with the topological charge) in the Standard Model.

We can make an analogy between the phase transition in the Standard Model and the phase transition of water. In
water there is a high temperature gas phase inside a bubble. Inside a sphaleron there is a high temperature
SU (2) ? U (1) unbroken phase, and outside U (1) broken phase, see Figure 2.
 Sphalerons
The Standard Model of electroweak interactions has static but unstable, classical solutions to the field equations
called sphalerons. A sphaleron was introduced by Klinkhamer and Manton [16] in 1984 to describe an electroweak
gauge-field configuration that constitutes a saddle point between two vacua differing by non trivial topology (the
“hedgehog” topology) and posseses Chern-Simons number equal to 1/2. The situation is schematically depicted in
Fig.3.

FIGURE 3. Schematic representation of the energy dependence of the gauge configurations as a function of the Chern-Simons
number. The sphaleron is a static configuration with non-vanishing values of the Higgs and gauge boson fields. Its energy may be
identified with the height of the barrier separating vacua with different baryon number. Sphalerons correspond to the maxima of
the curve.

It may be interpreted as a bubble with the topological charge different from zero. One can explain the baryon
number violation induced by sphalerons. Sphalerons posses ‘onion like’ structure (Fig.4) the Higgs field, surrounded
by the gauge field. The mass of the sphaleron is ~10 TeV, radius is of order ~10-3 fm. These sphaleron solutions
allow transitions to topologically distinct SU (2) vacua with differing baryon number.
Baryon number violation in the electroweak theory was discovered by ‘t Hooft in 1976 [17]. Classically,
baryonic and leptonic currents are conserved but this conservation is destroyed by the quantum corrections. In the
Standard Model baryon number is violated in a non trivial way due to quantum anomalies. The anomalous B+L
( r @ J B@: L ¡ 0 ) symmetry is violated, while B’L ( r @ J B@5 L 6 0 , and wB 6 wL ) is a conserved anomaly-free
symmetry, where

Nf a ~ a@K ~
r @ J B@: L 6 [ g 2Tr ( F@K F ) 5 g '2 B@K B @K ]. (4)
16j 2

N f is the number of fermion generation, g (g ' ) and F@K ( B@K ) are the gauge coupling and the field strength of the
SU (2) (U (1)) gauge field W@ (x) ( B@ ( x)) , respectively. Integrating these equations, we find that the change of
Chern-Simons number implies the change of baryon number wB 6 N f wN CS . That means, that if we change the
Chern-Simons number we change the baryon number, baryons are produced. The tunneling probability depends on
5E
the mass of the sphaleron (~ e sph ) and it increases if the mass of the sphaleron decreases. The problem faced here
is: how to decrease the mass of the sphaleron to increase the tunneling probability, to increase baryogenesis [18].
One of the possibilities is to extend the Standard Model with dilaton fields. Dilatons appear in a natural way in the
Kaluza-Klein theories [19] in the higher dimensional theory after the process of compactification. To illustrate the
point, we consider the six-dimensional Kaluza-Klein theory.
 2
2
2
2a)222 2 2222222222222222222222222 2 22b)
FIGURE 4. The sphaleron in the Standard Model (a) and the sphaleron embedded in the dilaton field (b).

Let us now consider the action integral of Einstein-Yang-Mills-Higgs theory in the six-dimensional spacetime:

³
S 6 d 6 x 5 g6 L (5)

where g 6 6 det( g MN ) and M 6 {@ , i}, N 6 {K , j} with x M 6 {x @ , y i }, i 6 1,2. The metrical tensor in the six-
dimensional spacetime can be written:

S e 52€ ( x ) / f0 g @K 0 P
g MN 6 Q 2€ ( x ) / f 0
N (6)
Q 0 5 ` ij e N
R O

where f 0 is an arbitrary constant. According to the above definition we can write:

5 g 6 6 5 g e 52€ ( x ) / f0 . (7)

In equation (6)

g @K 6 e 52€ ( x ) / f 0 g @K (8)

represents the four-dimensional metric in the Jordan frame, while g @K refers the Einstein frame. Fluctuations around
the four-dimensional Minkowski g @K 6 † @K : h@K ( x, y ) will produce the interaction with Kaluza-Klein dilatons

i h@K ( x)e 5i 2jn y

i i
n
h@K ( x, y ) 6 / r2
with the typical mass scale M (for n i ¡ 0 ).
n
We consider here the Lagrangian of the Einstein-Yang-Mills-Higgs field as follows:

L 6 Lg : LSM ` ( y ) (9)

and

1
Lg 6 5 R (10)
2v 6
 1
LSM 6 5 FMN a F aMN : ( DM H ) : D M H 5 U ( H ) (11)
4

1
where v 6 is the six-dimensional gravitional coupling and U ( H ) 6 3 ( H : H 5 v02 ) 2 .
2
R is a curvature scalar defined as usual: R 6 g MN RMN , and RMN is the Ricci tensor

RMN 6 r L tMN
L
5 r N tML
L
: tMN
L
tLR
R
5 tML
R
tNR
L
. (12)

tMN
L
are the six-dimensional Christoffel symbols. Let us compactify the six-dimensional spacetime to the four-
dimensional Minkowski one on the torus ( M 6 y M 4 ? S 1 ? S 1 ). Here we assume that the extra dimensions are
compactified to a two-dimensional torus with a single radius r2 . For the four-dimensional Minkowski spacetime
( g @K 6 † @K )

4
R 6 e 2€ ( x ) / f0 {5r @ € ( x)r @ € ( x) : f 0 r @ r @ € ( x)} . (13)
f 02

The six-dimensional action may be rewritten as:

³ ³
S 6 d 4 x d 2 y 5 g 6 L 6 d 4 x 5 g L, ³ (14)

³d y 6 (2jr2 ) 2 and L is the effective Lagrange function in four-dimensional spacetime. It is convenient to

2
where

define the six-dimensional gravitional coupling v 6 6 8jG6 as: G651 6 4j M 4 , where M is the energy scale of the
2
(2j )
compactification (~10-100 TeV). The cosmological consideration [20] gives the bound M Š 100 TeV which
corresponds to r2 x 5.1 T 10 55 mm. By denoting the four-dimensional coupling constant v 6 8jG N 6 8jM Pl 52
, we get
1
2
M Pl 6 4jM 4 r22 . The parameter f 0 is determined by the Planck mass: f 02 6 2 M 4 r22 6 2
M Pl so as to produce the
2j
1
1/2 term for the dilaton field in (17). At present we have f 0 6 M Pl ~ 4.87 T 1018 GeV / c 2 but here the Planck
2j
mass M Pl is no longer a fundamental constant, it may change during the evolution of the Universe [21].
Cosmological considerations [21] suggest that in the early Universe the internal radius r2 was smaller
(r2 (t ) 6 b(t )r2 where b(t ) is the radion field). As a result, the Planck mass M Pl was smaller in the early Universe,
and the gravitational interaction bigger than at present time. An estimate [21] of the Planck mass in the early
Universe gives

M Pl ,0 a 10 511 M Pl ~ 108 GeV . (15)

This also leads to lowering of the f 0 .

As a result of compactification of the six-dimensional Lagrangian, we get the following Lagrangian for the
Yang-Mills-Higgs fields :

1 2€ ( x ) / f 0
L SM 6 ( D@ H ) : D @ H 5 e 52€ ( x ) / f 0 U ( H ) 5 e F@K a F a@K : ... . (16)
4
And

1
Lg6 r @ € ( x)r @ € ( x) : ... (17)
2

for gravity.
We will focus on the electroweak theory with the gauge field extended by adding the dilatonic field. The
Glashow-Weinberg-Salam dilatonic model with SU (2) ? U (1) symmetry is described by the Lagrangian

1 1 1
L B 6 5 e 2€ ( x ) / f 0 F@K a F a@K 5 e 2€ ( x ) / f 0 B@K B @K : r @ € ( x)r @ € ( x) : ( D@ H ) : D @ H 5 e 5 2€ ( x ) / f 0 U ( H ) (18)
4 4 2

with the SU (2) field strength tensor F@K a 6 r @WKa 5 rK W@a : g‡ abcW@bW cK and the U (1) field
tensor B@K 6 r @ BK 5 rK B@ . Dilaton fields increase the participation of the gauge fields in the Standard Model and
change the Higgs potential into:

1 1
5 F@K a F a@K y 5 e 2€ ( x ) / f 0 F@K a F a@K (19)
4 4

U ( H ) y e 52€ ( x ) / f0 U ( H ) . (20)

1 1 1
The covariant derivatives are given by D@ 6 r @ 5 igW@aŸ a 5 ig 'YB@ , where B@ and W@ 6 W@aŸ a are local
2 2 2
gauge fields associated with symmetry groups as before, with two gauge couplings g and g’. The generators of
gauge groups are represented by the unit matrix for U (1) and Pauli matrices for SU (2) . In the simplest version of
SH: P
the Standard Model a doublet of Higgs fields is introduced as H 6 QQ 0 NN, with the new Higgs potential:
RH O

1
U ( H ) 6 3 ( H : H 5 v 2 ) 2 e 52€ ( x ) / f0 . (21)
2

The dilaton fields change the scale of the interacting constant 3 , thus the mass of Higgs bosons is changed; but the
scale of the spontaneous breaking v, is not altered. The f 0 parameter in the Lagrange function (18) determines the
dilaton scale. At the present time f 0 is rather high, so the interaction with dilatons can be neglected. However, in
the early Universe when the Planck mass M Pl was smaller (for details see [20]) the value of the f 0 was smaller, as
well. For that reason we choose the intermediate scale f 0 6 10 7 GeV, and the electroweak symmetry breaking scale
v 6 246 GeV. The form of the potential (21) leads to a vacuum degeneracy, leading to the presence of the non-
vanishing vacuum expectation value of the Higgs field, and consequently to the presence of fermion and boson
masses. In the spontaneous symmetry breaking process, the Higgs field also acquires nonzero mass.
The Euler-Lagrange equations for the Lagrangian (18) are scale-invariant:
 u

x y x' 6 e x @
@ @ f0

€ ( x) y € ' ( x) 6 € ( x) : u
H y H '6 H . (22)
u
5
f0
W@a y W 'a@ 6 e W@a
u
5
f0
B@ y B'@ 6 e B@

These transformations change the Lagrange function in the following way:

u
5
f0
L y L’= e L. (23)

This symmetry can be formulated equivalently as a scaling symmetry on the coordinates, and the dilaton is often
denoted as a Goldstone boson for dilatation. The origin of the symmetry of the equations of motion is easily
understood from the Kaluza-Klein origin of action. The scale transformations are equivalent to a rescaling of the
internal dimensions.

The Dilatonic Sphaleron

Let us now consider the sphaleron type solution in the electroweak theory with dilatons. The sphaleron may be
interpreted as inhomogeneous spherical topological solutions of the motion equations in the Standard Model. We
make the ansatz for the sphaleron Higgs field (and assume for simplicity, that g’=0 [4]):

S 0P
iŸ
1
H6 vU ( x)h(r )QQ NN, where U ( x) 6 i a a
n (24)
2 R1O

and n a 6 r a r describe the “hedgehog” structure. This produces a nontrivial topological charge of the sphaleron. The
topological charge is equal to the Chern-Simons number. Such a “hedgehog” structure determines the asymptotic
shape of the sphaleron with gauge fields different from zero:

1 5 f (r )
Wi a 6 ‡ aij n j , W0a 6 0. (25)
gr

We can define the dilatonic field:

€ ( x) 6 f 0 s( x). (26)

2r 1
Let us introduce the dimensionless variable x , defined as: x 6 gvr 6 2 M W r 6 ( M W 6 gv ~ 80GeV),
rW 2
1
rW 6 ~ 10-3 fm). The spherical symmetry is assumed for the dilaton field s (x), as well as for the Higgs field
MW
h(x), and the gauge field f (x), resulting in the following expression for the total energy:

4jv
E6
g ³
\ 0 ( x) x 2 dx, (27)
where the energy density is:

1 2 1 1 1
\ 0 ( x) 6 h' ( x) : žs'2 ( x) : 2 e 2 s ( x ) { f '2 ( x) : 2 ( f ( x) 5 1) 2 ( f ( x) 5 3) 2 }
2 2 x 2x

1 1
: ‡ (h 2 ( x) 5 1) 2 e 52 s ( x ) : 2 ( f ( x) 5 3) 2 h 2 ( x). (28)
4 4x

M H2 6 23v 2 determines the Higgs mass;

f 02 2 M 4 r22
ž6 6 ~ 10 9
v2 v2
M H2
and ‡ (6 ) ~ 1.152 (for the Higgs mass M H 6 3 2 gv ~ 120GeV), is a dimensionless parameter which
2 M W2
determines the sphaleron system completely. As a result, the Euler-Lagrange equations are:

1 1
f ' ' ( x) : 2 f ' ( x) s ' ( x) : (3 5 f ( x)h 2 ( x)e 5 2 s ( x ) 5 2 ( f ( x) 5 1)( f ( x) 5 2)( f ( x) 5 3) 6 0; (29)
4 x

the f (x) function describes the gauge field inside the sphaleron, and the h(x) function describes the Higgs field in
our theory. The last one satisfies the following equation:

1 1
h' ' ( x) : h' ( x) : ‡e 52 s ( x ) (1 5 h 2 ( x))h( x) 5 2 (3 5 f ( x)) 2 h( x) 6 0. (30)
x 2x

The s (x) function describes the dependence of the dilaton field on x in the extended electroweak theory and obeys
the equation

2 e2s( x) 2 1 ‡ 5 2s( x)
s' ' ( x) : s ' ( x) : {5 2 f '2 ( x) 5 4 ( f ( x) 5 1) 2 ( f ( x) 5 3) 2 } : e (1 5 h 2 ( x)) 2 6 0. (31)
x ž x x 2ž

The simplest solutions are global and correspond to the vacuum with the broken symmetry in the Standard Model. It
is obvious that far from the center of the sphaleron our solutions should describe the broken phase which, is very
well known from the Standard Model. And easily can find the asymptotic solutions for x y 0 :

f ( x) 6 1 : 2rx 2 : O( x 3 ),
h( x) 6 ux : O( x 3 ), . (32)
s ( x) 6 a : s¢ 5 awx : O( x ),
2 3

and for x y ¢ :

f ( x) 6 3 5 f ¢ e 5 x ,
h¢ 5 2‡
h( x ) 6 1 5 e ,. (33)
x
d
s ( x) 6 s¢ 5 ¢ .
x
 E(r,u) GeV

FIGURE 5. The total energy of the sphaleron in the Standard Model with the parameters ‡ 6 1.152, M H 6 120 GeV); the
minimum energy ( E (r , u ) 6 10 006 GeV ) is for the values: r 6 0.1735, u 6 0.7586.

We make the ansatz for the trial functions as:

4r 2 x 4
f ( x) 6 1 : 2 tanh 2 ( r x) ~ 1 : 2rx 2 5 : O( x 5 ), (34)
3

u 3 x3
h( x) 6 tanh(ux) ~ ux 5 : O( x 5 ). (35)
3

where u, r are parameters. The variational method is based on trial functions depending on two parameters, u and r.
We can find the E total energy dependence on the u, r parameters, for the sphaleron (Fig.5).
We then get the minimum energy for u 0 and r0 . The trial functions for these parameters ( u 0 and r0 ) give us
initial data for the numerical solutions. So, we have the trial functions (solid lines in Fig.6) and the numerical
solutions (dashed lines) from the initial conditions obtained. We use the Runge-Kutta method (the shooting method
[22]) for our numerical calculation. The trial functions are used to find the initial data: close to zero, if x goes to zero
( x0 ), and far from zero, if x goes to infinity ( x¢ ). We start from x0 and x¢ and get two solutions. Then we
combine them. If the numerical method is correct then both of solutions should overlap. We obtain such results for
the gauge field and for the Higgs field (Fig.6).
It is also very interesting to find the sphaleron mass dependence on the Higgs mass (Fig.7). The rest mass of a
sphaleron (without dilatons) is rather large (for our parameters):

M sph ~ E 6 10.006 TeV. (36)

The sphaleron remains a bubble of the old high temperature phase. We construct also a trial function for the dilaton
field:

s ( x) 6 s¢ : ae 5 wx ,
2
(37)

where w and a are parameters.

 f(x)

h(x)
x 222 2 2 2 2 2222 222222x
a) 222 2 2222222222222222222222222 2 22b)

FIGURE 6. The dependence of the gauge field f(x) (a), and the Higgs field h(x) (b) of the sphaleron on x (with the parameters:
r=0.2958, u=0.9862, a=-0.3540, w=2.47 T 10-8).
Msph (GeV)

222
222£¤

FIGURE 7. The dependence of the mass of the sphaleron on the Higgs mas2£¤A2

We solve the set of the differential equations (29-31) using the trial functions (34-35), which provide the initial
conditions for a numerical estimate. The method of calculation is the same as for the sphaleron without dilatons. For
the dilatonic sphaleron, we can also find the E total energy dependence on the a parameter (Fig.8).
The minimum energy we get for a0 6 50.384 (the other parameters are unchanged). The mass of the dilatonic
sphaleron is decreased, as follows:

M dilsph ~ Edil 6 7.917 TeV. (38)

The trial functions with these parameters give us the initial conditions for the numerical solutions. So, we have
the trial functions (solid lines), and the numerical solutions (dashed lines) in Fig.9. The trial functions are used to
find the initial data close to zero, and far from zero. We get two solutions and we combine them. Both numerical
solutions overlap, again. We present the cases for the gauge field and the Higgs field (Fig.9). With respect to the
dilatation symmetry of the dilaton field, we can shift the dilaton field and require that it vanishes at infinity. The
numerical solution is stable for the dilatonic field over all x (see the dashed line in Fig.10). The numerical solutions
of the coupled system of the differential equations are close to our trial functions.
We have also found another local minimum for a Š 0 (Fig.8). We see that it is very close to the sphaleron
configuration without dilatons. These solutions differ from one another in the dilatonic cloud.
 Mdilsph (a) (GeV)
Mdilsph (a) (GeV)

a T 10-3 a
2a) 222 2 2222222222222222222222222 2 2222b)

FIGURE 8. The dependence of the mass of the dilatonic sphaleron on the a parameter; a>0 (a), and a<0 (b), with the parameters:
r=0.2958, u=0.9862, w=2.47 T 10-8. The minimum (Mdilsph(a)=7917.36 GeV, at a<0), is for a=-0.3540.

In the first solution (if a0 6 50.384 x 0) the Higgs field is amplified (the dilaton field causes the increase of the
energy of the Higgs field) and the gauge field is suppressed (the dilaton field reduces the energy of the gauge field)
in the sphaleron. In the second solution (if a0 Š 0) we have the oposite.
f(x)

h(x)

x 222 2 2 2 2 2222 222222x

2a) 222 2 2222222222222222222222222 2 22222b)
FIGURE 9. The dependence of the gauge field f(x) (a) and the Higgs field h(x) (b) of the dilatonic sphaleron on x (with the
parameters: r=0.2958, u=0.9862, a=-0.3540, w=2.47 T 10-8).
10-8(S(x)-Sˆ

x 22
FIGURE 10. The dependence of the dilaton field s(x) on x (with the parameters: r=0.2958, u=0.9862, a=-0.3540, w=2.47 T 10-8).

Numerical solutions suggest that the sphaleron possesses an “onion-like” structure. In the small inner core, the
scalar field decreases, with global gauge symmetry restoration SU (2) ? U (1) . In the middle layer, the gauge field
undergoes sudden change. It is very interesting that the sphaleron coupled to the dilaton field has also an outer shell,
where the dilaton field changes drastically. Our solutions describe the shapes of Higgs field and gauge field inside
the sphaleron, as well as the change of the dilaton cloud surrounding the sphaleron. Such a cloud is large and
extends far outside the sphaleron [24]. The sphalerons might be created during the first order phase transition in the
expanding Universe. The bubbles left after the phase transition could break the CP and C symmetry on their walls
and could cause the breaking of the baryonic symmetry. Further increase of the energy of the dilaton fields causes
the increase of the energy (mass) of the sphaleron. However, a decrease of the energy of the sphaleron causes an
increase of the tunneling probability to the new nontrivial configuration. This effect generates the increase of the
probability of baryogenesis. With the sphalerons, the gauge field and the Higgs field configurations are very similar
to the configurations of the same fields without dilatons. Comparing Figs. 9, 10 we can conclude that the dilatonic
area is much bigger than the area of the change of the gauge field and the Higgs field. The conclusion drawn is that
the dilaton field in general causes an increase of the mass of the sphaleron. However, there exists a minimal
configuration at which the energy of the sphaleron is decreased. A sphaleron is said to be concentric with the
following configuration: the Higgs field and the gauge field are embedded in the dilaton cloud; close to the center
there is a change of the Higgs field, and then a change of the gauge field, both of them penetrated by a change of the
dilaton field [23]. Now, we see that dilatons have a small influence the Higgs field and the gauge field
configurations. That means that a topological “hedgehog” structure of the sphaleron is not modified. The sphaleron
properties depend strongly on the dilaton field which appears from more dimensional spacetime compactification.
Due to the topological charge, the sphaleron solutions are stable in the four-dimensional spacetime.

The Collision Theory

On the other hand, we consider scattering process of fermions and antifermions by sphalerons [24]. The element
S ba of the scattering (S matrix) gives the component J b of the final state U (t y ¢) that emerges from the initial
component J a :

S ba 6x J b U (¢,5 ¢)J a Š, (39)

where J b ,J a are the final and initial states respectively. In the first order approximation we find useful terms for
electrons and positrons, respectively:

t1 t1

³ ³
5i ( k0 5 k0' )t
5 i dte 5i ( k0 5k0 )t x k , Ÿ H Int k ' , Ÿ ' Š p
'
5 i dte x k , Ÿ H Int k ' , Ÿ ' Š e (40)
t0 t0

³
and interaction Hamiltonian H Int 6 5 d 3 x L Int . The aim of this consideration is to show the difference in the
interaction between particles and antiparticles by sphalerons.

Scattering process of electron and positrons by sphalerons

Far from the sphaleron we treat all particles as being free, and near the sphaleron particles interact with
sphaleron. We can expect a nontrivial interaction caused by topological charge of the sphaleron.
The Lagrange function for fermions is as follows:

L F 6 iL 9 @ D@ L : ieR 9 @ D@ eR : g e ( L H )eR : g e eR ( H : L), (41)

and we divide it in two parts:

L F = L ¢ + L Int (42)

where

L Int 6 iL 9 @ (W@a 5 W@a,¢ )T a L : g e L ( H 5 H ¢ )eR : g e eR ( H : 5 H ¢: ) L (43)

is the interaction Lagrangian and

 L ¢ 6 iL 9 @ r @ L : ieR 9 @ r @ eR : g e L 9 @W@a,¢T a L : g e ( L H ¢ )eR : g e eR ( H ¢: L) (44)

describes the Lagrangian for free fermions at infinity, so if x goes to infinity, the Lagrangian goes to L ¢ ,
gev 1
me 6 defines the mass of the electron, T a 6 Ÿ a are generators of the SU (2) group. We define
2 2

L 6 LC ( x) : U ( x) L0 (45)

where using the formalism of second quantization LC ( x) 6 i

Ÿ
J Z ,Ÿ ( x)bŸ denotes the quantum field with zero mode,

Ÿ is the spin of fermions, Ÿ 6 p~ m 6 W|zX, bŸ: , bŸ - are creation and annihilation operators, respectively,
q 1n
o 2l
SK P
k @ 6 Wk 0 , kX , k 0 6 k 2 : m 2 , L0 6 QQ NN and L 6 L: 9 0 . The covariant derivative for the left- and right-handed
R e OL
fermions are given by:
1 i
D@J L 6 r @J L 5 igT aW@aJ L 5 g 'YB@J L
2 2 (46)
i
D@J R 6 r @J R 5 g 'YB@J R .
2

The interaction Lagrangian we can rewrite:

L Int = L F - L ¢ . (47)

After calculations we can rewrite the interaction of the fermions with the sphaleron as follows:

3 5 f (r ) i a
L Int = i (J Z ,Ÿ ( x)bŸ: : L0U : ( x))‡ aij n j
gr
9 T ( i
Ÿ
J Z ,Ÿ ( x)bŸ : U ( x) L0 : ... (48)

And we obtain:

3 5 f (r ) a
i
i
L Int = {J Z ,Ÿ ( x)bŸ: 9 i ‡ aij n j Ÿ J Z ,Ÿ ( x)bŸ :
2 gr Ÿ
3 5 f (r ) a
(J Z ,Ÿ ( x)bŸ: 9 i ‡ aij n j Ÿ U ( x) L0 :
gr
3 5 f (r ) a
L0U : ( x)9 i ‡ aij n j
gr
Ÿ
Ÿ
i
J Z ,Ÿ ( x)bŸ : (49)

3 5 f (r ) a
L0U : ( x)9 i ‡ aij n j Ÿ U ( x) L0 : ...
gr
Where J Z,Ÿ ( x) is defined in following way:

1
iN 5 t 2 M W2 r 2
J Z,Ÿ ( x) 6 e 2 ¥ 1 ,m,Ÿ . (50)
r 4 gM W
Calculating the interaction Lagrangian:

1
5 t 2 M W2 r 2 3 5 f (r ) a
i
iN b b :
L Int = ... : e 2 (3 5 f (r )) ‡ aij x j ¥ 1 ,m,Ÿ 9 iŸ a ‡ aij n j Ÿ Ÿ x bŸ L0 : ... (51)
r 4 gM W gr Ÿ

1
iN 5 t 2 M W2 r 2 S x3 x1 5 ix 2 PNSQ bŸ:K L PN
= ... : e 2 (3 5 f (r )) ‡ aij x j ¥1 ,m,Ÿ 9 iŸ a QQ 1 : ...
4
r gM W R x : ix
2
5 x 3 NOQR bŸ: eL NO
1
iN 5 t 2 M W2 r 2
6 ... : e 2 (3 5 f (r )) x 2 ( x1 5 ix 2 ) ¥ m62,Ÿ 9 3 (1 5 9 5 )bŸ: e : ...
r 4 gM W
1
1 iN 5 t 2 M W2 r 2 d 3 k1
6 ... : 4
2j 3 r gM W
e 2 (3 5 f (r )) x 2 ( x1 5 ix 2 ) ¥ m62,Ÿ 9 3 (1 5 9 5 )bŸ: ³ u k ,Ÿ e ik1x ck1 ,Ÿ1 : ...
2¦ k1 1 1

for electrons we obtain non-vanishing terms:

1
1 iN 5 t 2 M W2 r 2
x Z,Ÿ H Int k ' ,Ÿ ' Š e 6 5
2j 3 ³ d 3x
r 4 gM W
e 2 (3 5 f (r )) x 2 ( x1 5 ix 2 ) e ik1x ¥ m62,Ÿ 9 3 (1 5 9 5 )u k1 ,Ÿ1 : ... (52)

where

m : k0 5 k3
¥ m62,|9 3 (1 5 9 5 )u k1 ,| 6 . (53)
m : k0
2m
m

We calculate in the similar way the interaction terms for positrons and we find:

x Z, Ÿ H Int k ' , Ÿ ' Š p ~ 0. (54)

Here, only the identity element is different from zero. The scattering amplitude for positrons are almost equal to
zero, while the scattering amplitude for electrons contains non-vanishing terms. Consequently, while we can notice
the interaction of electrons with sphalerons, there is no interaction of positrons with sphalerons.
If we include dilatonic fields in our theory the Lagrangian reads as follows:

L F 6 ie 5€ ( x ) / f 0 L 9 @ D@ L : ie 5€ ( x ) / f 0 e R 9 @ D@ e R : g e e 52€ ( x ) / f 0 ( L H )e R : ge 52€ ( x ) / f 0 e e R ( H : L). (55)

then the difference in the interaction between electrons (positrons) and the dilatonic sphaleron drastically increases.
We obtained more non-vanishing terms for electrons, while the positron part becames unchanged (almost equal to
zero). The asymmetry of interaction between electrons and positrons caused by inclusion of dilatons, increases.

DISCUSSION
In the proposed model the baryon number violation in the Standard Model is explained by introducing
sphalerons. The processes of baryon number violation depend on the energy of the sphaleron. The extended
Standard Model with dilatonic fields decreases the mass of the sphaleron and thus increases the tunneling probability
of fermions. The increase of the tunneling probability increases the asymmetry. On the other hand, during the
cosmological phase transition (first order), which results in bubble nucleation and collisions, the created bubbles
(sphalerons) may be key quantities entering the calculation of the baryon asymmetry in electroweak baryogenesis.
Considering the scattering process by sphalerons, we can conclude that only electrons (not positrons) interact with
sphalerons. In a more general way: we can expect the interaction of fermions with sphalerons, while there is no
interaction of positrons with sphalerons (the above model considered only electrons and positrons and not other
fermions). After including dilaton fields in our theory we see that the asymmetry drastically increases. In view of the
cosmological consequences of the asymmetry of interaction between particles and antiparticles with sphalerons we
can conclude that in may be an explanation of the excess of matter over antimatter.
The Standard Model is certainly the most successful theory so far for electroweak interactions. Although the
electroweak interactions satisfy all three of the Sakharov criteria, the electroweak phase transition is not sufficiently
strongly first-order and the CP-violating effects do not give rise to baryon asymmetry which we observe. In order to
increase baryogenesis we can modify or extend the Standard Model including models with two Higgs doublets [23],
heavy Majorana neutrinos [4], dilaton fields [18, 24, 25, 26], supersymmetric particles (MSSM) [27] and many
others. MSSM models of low energy seem to be the most promising candidates for physics beyond the Standard
Model, which may be tested in a not too distant future.
The Universe is full of unanswered questions, one can be sure that extensive investigations will allow us to
understand the mysterious nature of the Universe. The theoretical activity is stimulated by the existing and future
missions and experiments. For example: Pamela, BESS, AMS-02, XMASS detector search for Dark Matter, missing
matter and antimatter. Fermi Gamma-ray Space Telescope (the newest major space observatory launched into orbit
on June 11 this year) works to unveil the mysteries of the high energy Universe and will be able to observe physical
processes far beyond the capabilities of earthbound laboratories. The discovery of the Higgs particle, on the other
hand, would provide an important link to foundations of physics.
Finding a hypothetical process that implements baryogenesis and explains the observed matter-asymmetry is an
important open question in physical cosmology. There are many proposed scenarios, each corresponding to
baryogenesis occurring at a different scale. However, at present we have no convincing evidence for any particular
scenario and we still search for a model which would explain the baryon number violation sufficiently well.

REFERENCES
1. P.A.M. Dirac, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, A117, 610 (1928).
2. C.D. Anderson, Phys. Rev. 43, 491 (1933).
3. A. Dolgov, J. Silk, Phys. Rev. D47, 4244 (1993).
C. Bambi, A.D. Dolgov, Nucl. Phys. B784, 132 (2007), astro-ph/0702350.
A.D. Dolgov, M. Kawasaki, N. Kevlishvili, Nucl. Phys. B807, 229 (2009), arXiv:0806.2986.
A.D. Dolgov, presented at Rencontre de Physique de la Vallee d’Aoste, La Thuile, February 4 - March 1, 2008,
arXiv:0806.4554.
4. A. Riotto, Phys. Rev. D49, 730 (1994).
A. Riotto, Phys. Rev. D58, 095009 (1998).
M. Trodden, Rev. Mod. Phys. 71, 1463 (1999), arXiv:hep-ph/9803479.
A. Riotto and M. Trodden, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 49, 35 (1999), arXiv:hep-ph/9901362.
5. D.N. Spergel et al., Ap. J. Supp. 148, 175 (2003).
6. Hh W. Hu, S. Dodelson, “Cosmic Microwave Background Anisotropies,” Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 40, 171 (2002),
arXiv:astro-ph/0110414.
7. E.W. Kolb, M.S. Turner, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 33, 645 (1983).
E.W. Kolb, M.S. Turner, The Early Universe, Addison-Wesley, 1989.
8. A.D. Sakharov, Pisma Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 5, 32 (1967); JETP Lett. 5, 24 (1967).
9. N. Petropoulos, “Baryogenesis at the electroweak phase transition”, arXiv:hep-ph/0304275.
10. A. Arvanitaki, S. Dimopoulos et al, Phys. Rev. D79, 105022 (2009).
11. V.A. Kuzmin ibid, 12, 335, (1970).
V. A. Kuzmin, V. A. Rubakov and M. E. Shaposhnikov, “On The Anomalous Electroweak Baryon Number Nonconservation
In The Early Universe,” Phys. Lett. B155, 36 (1985).
12. Data from Super Kamiokande, Tokyo, 2009.
13. R. Omnes, Phys. Rev. Lett. 23 (1969) 38; Phys. Rev. D1, 723 (1969).
D.P. Kirilova, Astronomical and Astrophysical Transactions, Vol.15, 211, (1996).
14. B G.R. Dvali, G. Gabadadze, Phys. Lett. B460 47 (1999).
15. D.H. Oaknin, A. Zhitnitsky, Phys. Rev. D71 023519 (2005).
D.H. Oaknin, A. Zhitnitsky, Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 101301 (2005).
16 N. Manton, Phys. Rev. D28, 2019 (1983).
F.R. Klinkhamer, N.S. Manton, Phys. Rev. D30, 2212 (1984).
17. G. ‘t Hooft, Phys. Rev.Lett. 37, 8 (1976).
18. D. Karczewska, R. Manka; Phys.Scr. 63, 87,(2001).
19. T. Appelquist, A. Chodos, P.G.O. Freund, Modern Kaluza-Klein Theories, Addison-Wesley Publishing Comp. Melo Park,
1987.
20. J. Hall, D. Smith, “Constraints on Theories with Large Extra Dimensions”, LBNL-43091.
21. E.E. Flanagan, S,-H.H. Tye, I, Wasserman, “A Cosmology of the Brane World”, hep-th/9909373.
22. W.H. Press, S.A. Teukolsky, W.T. Vetterlino, Numerical Recipes: The art of Scientific Computing, Cambridge University
Press (1992).
23. M. E. Peskin, “Beyond the Standard Model”, SLAC-PUB-7479, May 1997.
24. D. Karczewska, R. Manka, “Baryogenesis and the phase transition in the standard model”, Proceedings in the APCTP, June
4-10,1996, Seoul,Korea, World Scientific, 1998
25. D. Karczewska, "Phase Transitions and Baryogenesis in the Early Universe", Ph.D. Thesis, University of Silesia, 2002.
26. D. Karczewska, R.Manka, Austral.J.Phys. 53, 5 (2000).
27. I. Affleck and M. Dine, Nucl. Phys. B249, 361 (1985).
J. R. Espinosa, Nucl. Phys. B475, 273 (1996).
B. de Carlos, J. R. Espinosa, Report No. SUSX-TH-97-005, hep-ph/9703212.
 The Hypergeometrical Universe:
Cosmology and Standard Model
1
Marco A. Pereira
Citigroup, 390 Greenwich Street, New York, NY 10013, USA

Abstract. This paper presents a simple and purely geometrical Grand Unification Theory. Quantum Gravity, Electrostatic
and Magnetic interactions are shown in a unified framework. Newton’s, Gauss’ and Biot-Savart’s Laws are derived from first
principles. Unification symmetry is defined for all the existing forces. This alternative model does not require Strong and
Electroweak forces. A 4D Shock-Wave Hyperspherical topology is proposed for the Universe which together with a Quantum
Lagrangian Principle and a Dilator based model for matter result in a quantized stepwise expansion for the whole Universe along
a radial direction within a 4D spatial manifold. The Hypergeometrical Standard Model for matter, Universe Topology and a new
Law of Gravitation are presented.

INTRODUCTION

Grand Unification Theories are the subject of intense research. Among current theories, Superstring, M-Theory,
Kaluza-Klein based 5D Gauge Theories have shown diverse degrees of success. All theories try to keep the current
conceptual framework of science. Kaluza-Klein melded both Electromagnetism and Einstein Gravitational equations
in a 5D metric.
Here is presented a theory that departs radically from other theories and tries to bridge the conceptual gap as
opposed to explore the formalism gap. Most research is concerned on how to express some view of Nature in a
mathematically elegant formalism while keeping what we already know. It has been said that for a theory to be
correct, it has to be beautiful.
This work concentrates on what to say, the conceptual framework of Nature instead. All the common constructs:
mass, charge, color, hypercharge are dropped in favor of just dilator positions and dilaton fields, which are metric
modulators and traveling modulations, respectively. There is no need for the concepts of charge or mass. Mass is
modeled as quantity proportional to the 4D metric displacement volume at precise phases of de Broglie cycles.
Charge sign is modeled by dilaton phase (sign) on those specific phases. The mapping is needed to demonstrate that
the geometrical framework replicates current scientific knowledge.
The logical framework is presented on the Hypergeometrical Universe Topology section.
On the Cosmological Coherence section, the consequences of the topology of the hypergeometrical universe and
the homogeneity proposed in the Fundamental Dilator based model for matter is shown to result in a cosmological
coherence, that is, the whole 3D universe expands radially at light speed and in de Broglie (Compton) steps.
When cosmological coherence is mentioned it is within the framework of absolute time and absolute 4D space
(RXYZ or XYZ). There is no sense in speaking of synchronous motion within frameworks containing proper time
•. All force derivations are done considering a framework at rest with respect to the Fabric of Space.
A new Quantum Lagrangian Principle (QLP) is created to describe the interaction of dilators and dilatons.
Quantum gravity, electrostatics and magnetism laws are derived subsequently as the result of simple constructive
interference of five-dimensional spacetime wave overlaid on an expanding hyperspherical universe. In the
electrostatics and magnetism derivation, a 1.007825046 atomic mass unit (atomic mass of a Hydrogen Atom)
electron or fat electron is used. This means that the dilatons being 5D spacetime waves driven by coherent metric
modulations are coherently produced by all phases of the dilator coherence.
Hypergeometrical Standard Model Section contains a brief description of the Hypergeometrical Standard Model.
It shows that hyperons and the elements are modeled as longer coherences of tumbling 4D deformations. Nuclear
energy is proposed to be stored on sub-coherence local twisting of the fabric of space.

1
Ny2292000@yahoo.com
 A grand unification theory is a far-reaching theory and touches many areas of knowledge. Arguments supporting
this kind of theory have by definition to be equally scattered. Many arguments will be presented with little
discussion when they are immediate conclusions of the topology or simple logic.

HYPERSPHERICAL UNIVERSE TOPOLOGY

The picture shown in Fig. 1 represents cross sections of the proposed hyperspherical light speed expanding
universe. The universe is hypothesized to be created by a four-dimensional explosion, a Big Bang in a Four
Dimensional Spatial Manifold. The evolution of such Big Bang is a lightspeed expanding three-dimensional
hypersurface on quantized de Broglie steps. The steps have length equal to the Compton wavelength
associated with the fundamental dilator (the atomic mass of a hydrogen atom). All times (proper time • and
Cosmological time ) are made dimensional by the multiplication by the speed of light c.

FIGURE 1. These are the cross-sections X• and XR for the expanding universe. The universe direction along X is represented by
the band. X (or Y or Z) is displayed along the perimeter of the circle. Also shown in the diagram is ˆ (cosmological time),proper
time •, radial direction R, proper radial projection r, the Cosmological Angle — between two reference frames XYZ• and
X’Y’Z’•’, the local torsion angles —• and —r.
Pseudo-Time Quantization/de Broglie Stepwise Expansion of the Universe are the result of the proposed model
for matter based upon the Fundamental Dilator together with the proposed topology. These concepts will become
clearer when the Fundamental Dilator is presented.
Definitions and simple topology based conclusions:
Cosmological time ˆ represents an absolute time frame, as envisioned by Newton and Mach - it is a fifth
dimension in the Hypergeometrical Universe Model. It times the expansion of the Universe.
Proper time ‰, ‰’ are projections of the Cosmological Time ˆ on the respective reference frames.
Fabric of Space (FS) is the Lightspeed traveling locus where our 3D Universe exists. This is a 3D hypersurface
of a shockwave within a 4D spatial manifold. Anything at rest with respect to the Fabric of Space would just travel
radially at the speed of light. At the Big Bang all dilators would be initially traveling at the speed of light not only
radially but also tangentially in all directions. When the Universe is a point, there is no difference between
tangential and radial directions. As the Universe aged, dilators would, on average, reach equilibrium and a low
velocity with respect to FS.
The radial direction is a preferential direction in 4D space. It is the radial expansion direction. This direction
doubles as a direction on 4D Space and a projection of the cosmological time, since they are related by the
expansion speed (light speed).
The 3D Universe has a radius of curvature equal to the age of the Universe time the speed of light. This radius is
independent of mass distribution. This is not the same as stating that General Relativity theory cannot reproduce
Gravitation effects by mass induced curvature of spacetime (XYZ•).
It will be derived that the Gravitational Constant G is inversely proportional to the 4D radius of the Universe,
thus being stronger in the earlier Universe. This should affect the mass of stellar candles such that earlier (far away)
stellar candles would have smaller mass and thus smaller energy release, thus misleading intensity based distance
measurements.
The Universe is finite but cannot be traversed since it is expanding at the speed of light. Simple geometry can
provide the volume of the Universe.

2
 One can only see the Universe up to cosmological angle —=45 degrees.
Any observer is always at the center of their Universe.
The 4D Big Bang occurred on each and every point of the 3D Universe.
Since one can only see the past, cosmological angle —=45 degrees corresponds to the Big Bang or thereabouts.
Doppler shifted Gamma radiation is hypothesized to be the Microwave Cosmic Background [1]. A geometric
mechanism for Doppler shifting will be presented later.
The moving frame aspect of this model requires the actual speed of light to be ξ૛ ‫ ࢉ כ‬since all measurements of
the observed speed of light c can only be done at distances small in comparison to the 4D radius of the Universe.
ߙோ and ߙఛ represent a direction of propagation and a deformation of the local fabric of space. Since these angles
point to direction of propagation it is clear that a local deformation of the fabric of space maps directly to a state of
motion. Motion is the result of the relaxation process of the local FS (Hypergeometrical Universe interpretation of
Newton’s first law) as the FS expands.
ܴܻܼܺ is modeled as a Cartesian space
ʣܻܼܺ is modeled as a hyperbolic space and thus consistent with Strict Relativity [2,3] if one considers that the
Lorentz transformation is a rotation on an imaginary angle equal to atan(v/c).
The rate of torsion of the local FS is proportional to the force (Hypergeometrical Universe interpretation of
Newton’s second law).
d tanh(1‰ )
F 6 m0 c 2
d‰
(1)
Adding the extra spatial dimension implies that:
d tan(1 r ) d tanh(1‰ )
F 6 m04 D c 2 6 m03D c 2
dr d‰
(2)
In this theory, a force capable of moving a body corresponds to a stress capable of deforming the Fabric of Space
where that body is located. Notice that the body only has footprints on the FS where the dilators are. The strains are
d tanh(1‰ ) d tan(1 r )
given by and where the angles are shown on the two cross-sections on Fig. 1. The “areas”
d‰ dr
where the strain takes place are given by m04Dc2 and m03Dc2, respectively. They provide the extensive nature
associated with mass in our current view.
Deformation of the Fabric of Space can be understood as acceleration from equation (2).
Newton’s Third Law also has a representation within this theory. The stress on interacting dilators (bodies) is
also the same with opposing signs; this is equivalent to say that the force felt on each other is equal with opposite
signs. This law is valid both on the RXYZ and in the XYZ. Newton’s fourth law is the Natural Law of Gravitation
which will be derived later from first principles.
The above equations are the basis for the more fundamental theoretical development in this theory. In first
analysis, it is just an extrapolation of Newton’s Law, which only covers the 3D space and introduces an unknown
quantity F. The introduction of a four spatial dimension allows for the creation of the purely geometric tautology
relating Stress on the two cross-sections shown on Fig.1. The stress associated with interaction is then same on both
cross-sections. The strain is expressed differently in each cross-section and that permits the derivation of our
fundamental laws of physics (Newton’s, Gauss’s, Biot-Savart’s) from first principles. If you replace the masses by
displacement volumes (4D) and displacement volumes overlap with FS (3D), it becomes clear that Newton’s
equation can be thought as a Stress-Strain description, where the fundamental laws can be derived from comparing
strain on different cross-sections of the Universe.

FUNDAMENTAL DILATOR

We propose that dilators are the basic building block of matter. They are coherences between two metric
deformation stationary states in a rotating four-dimensional double well potential. A single coherence between two
4D-space deformation states or fundamental dilator is shown to account of all the constituents of non-exotic matter
(elements, neutrons, electrons and protons and their antimatter counterparties) and hyper-nuclei (hyperons) on
Hypergeometrical Universe Standard Model Section. This coherence is between two deformation states with 4D
volumes corresponding to the electron and proton, or electron-proton coherence. Here the proton, anti-proton,

3
electron and positron are considered to be the same particle or the fundamental dilator, just four faces of the
same coin.

ElectronandProtonModel

4D Displacement Volume Composition e=(0,-2/3,-1/3), p=(2/3,2/3,-1/3)

0,-1/3,-2/3 0,-1/3,-2/3
0,1/3,-1/3 0,1/3,-1/3
0,-2/3,-1/3 0,-2/3,-1/3

Electron Proton
2/3,-1/3,2/3 0,-1/3,1/3 2/3,-1/3,2/3
0,-1/3,1/3
2/3,0,1/3 2/3,0,1/3
0,-1/3,1/3 0,-1/3,1/3
2/3,1/3,0 2/3,1/3,0
0,-1/3,1/3 0,-1/3,1/3
2/3,2/3,-1/3 2/3,2/3,-1/3

FIGURE 2. 4D Stationary Deformation State diagram for electron and proton.

The coherence four notes are meant to repeat forever since this is a coherence between ground states. He 4D
Displacement Volume corresponds to the three axes length of a 4D ellipsoid of revolution.
Where p=(2/3,2/3,-1/3), p*=(2/3,-1/3,2/3),e=(0,-2/3,-1/3),e*=(0,-1/3,-2/3) are a subset of states involved in the
three most common “particles”= proton, electron and neutron. Notice that p(e) and p*(e*) differs only by
orientation. In this dynamic model, spatial degeneracy is lifted due to the finite time it takes for a proton or electron
to rotate within the 3D hypersurface. This subcoherences involving the * states introduce dephasing between
tunneling and spinning (rotating perpendicular to R and a direction X or Y or Z), increasing tension on the FS and
changing which phase is in phase with the FS. For that, they are referred to as transmutation notes.
A half-cycle shifted diagram would account for positron and antiproton, this just means, that when a Proton is
expanding space, an antiproton would be contracting space.
Below is another representation of the electron and positron.


FIGURE 3. Dimensional notes associated with Electron and Positron. Lighter = positive charge, darker = Negative charge,
White = Invisible in 3D due to 4D orientation – perpendicular to the Fabric of Space.
The term dimensional note was used to emphasize the similarity between the dilators (metric modulators) and
musical instruments and the dilatons (traveling metric modulations) and sounds. The Fundamental Dilator is the
ensemble of four dimensional notes, each one corresponding to a dilation or contraction of the local metric. The two
involved states correspond to two metric volume displacements mapped to proton and electron masses. Simple
inspection of Fig. 3 clarifies the why the usage of a Fat Electron with a mass equal to the mass of a Hydrogen Atom.
The mass we are referring to is a 4D Mass, which is the basis for the dissociation of Inertial Mass (3D Mass) and
Gravitational (Electromagnetic) Mass (4D Mass). One associated the 4D Mass to the ability to generate a dilaton
field. It is clear that with this representation for protons and electrons, they ability to generate a dilaton field is the

4
same (same 4D Mass), since the coherent addition of dilaton fields at 45 degrees does not depend upon which phase
of the coherence is in phase with the FS.
Inertial Mass or 3D Mass is the overlap of the Fundamental Dilator with the FS at phases 0, , 2 and so on. The
lettering shown on Fig. 3 indicates the orientation of the state with respect to the FS. Vertical lettering indicates
minimum overlap with the FS, thus minimum interaction. Horizontal lettering indicates perfect overlap. It is clear
that only at a very specific phase there is interaction, thus one would expect an intermittently interaction Universe.
The phase would be randomized after a while if there wasn’t a reason for dilators to rephase themselves at each de
Broglie step. This reason is the Quantum Lagrangian Principle.
Notice that the first and last elements of the coherence chain are the same and that the coherence repeats itself for
its lifetime. In the case of a proton/electron, that lifetime is infinite, since that coherence is between two ground
states. Belly up states represent anti-states (anti-proton or positron states).
Since in the theory, there is an absolute time, one can define an absolute phase and that is what distinguishes an
electron from a positron. Later it will be clear that more complex coherences involving the p* state (neutrino) will
result in a phase shift of the tunneling process with respect to the tumbling process, thus modifying which state is in
phase with the shock-wave universe.
The colors are shown only for states that have both a FS overlap and the same frequency as the fundamental
dilator.
Another important element of the model is the bolding of the third axis length (e.g. p=(2/3,2/3,-1/3)). This means
that the spin is a tumbling process around and rotational axis perpendicular to both the radial direction
(perpendicular to all three spatial coordinates and the z coordinate). This defines a 4D angular momentum which
has to be conserved. More complex coherences like the ones associated with Delta and Sigma particles differs just
by the final spin and thus by how the sub-coherences tumbles to make up the final amount of spinning. Details will
be
Here is the representation of a proton and an antiproton.


FIGURE 4. Dimensional notes associated with Proton and anti-Proton.

NeutronModel

4D Displacement Volume Composition: neutron = e(0,-2/3,-1/3) plus p(2/3,2/3,-1/3) plus antineutrino(0,-

1/3,1/3)= (2/3,-1/3,-1/3)

0,-1/3,-2/3
0,1/3,-1/3
0,-2/3,-1/3

Neutro n

2/3,-1/3,2/3
0,-2/3,1/3
2/3,1/3,1/3
0,1/3,1/3
2/3 ,0,0 0,-2 /3,1/3
2/3,2/3,-1/3

FIGURE 5. Neutron coherence. Notice the electron coherence followed by a subcoherence corresponding to a 90 degrees
rotation within the FS followed by a proton coherence and another 90 degrees rotation within FS. Right panel shows Neutron
diagram displaying the two fundamental subcoherences and two transmutation notes (half-antineutrino each).

5
 The subcoherences corresponds to the electron antineutrino and changes the phase relationship between
tunneling and spinning, permitting a change in the nature of the state in phase with FS. This means that at each de
Broglie state, the neutron changes character from electron to proton. Another aspect of this model is its dimer
character. Due to the uncertainty on the phase of the initial dilator state, neutron is better described as a dimer
(proton/electron) in a pseudo-rotation of 180 degrees at each de Broglie step. A de Broglie step encompasses the
four phases of the fundamental dilator subcoherence.
The red lines correspond to the Electron-Proton-Electron transmutation notes. Currently they are assigned to a
3D rotation of the fundamental dilator while in the proton state, due to the larger inertia (displacement volume) of
this state, thus slower rotation. The alternative assignment would be that the transmutation note and thus the halv-
neutrino subcoherence to be assigned to a 3D rotation while the Fundamental Dilator is in the electron state. This
assignment is not cruxial to the theory.

AntineutrinoModel

Electron-Posit ron Transmutation Note

0,- 1/3,-2/3
0,-1/3,-2/ 3
0,1/3,-1 /3
0,-2/3,- 1/3 0,1/3,-1/3
0,-2/3,-1/ 3
Elec tr on-Pr oton
Tr ans mutation Note

2/3,-1/3,2/3 2/3,-1/3,2/3
0,-2/3,1/3 0,-2/3,1/3
2/3,1/3,1/3 2/3,1/3,1/3
0,1/3,1/3 0,1/3,1/3
2/3,0,0 2/3,0,0
0,-2/3,1/3 0,-2/3,1/3
2/3,2/3,-1 /3 2/3,2/3,-1/3

FIGURE 6. Electron-Proton/Proton-Electron and Electron-Positron/Positron-Electron transmutation notes
Each one of these two transmutation notes contribute to a dephasing angle to particles which contain it. The
electron-proton transmutation note is present in neutrons while the electron-positron note is present in pions. Two
eletron-proton transmutation notes form an antineutrino.
The half-antineutrinos subcoherences (transmutation notes) change the relative phase between tunneling and
spinning, thus changing the nature of the FS in-phase coherence from electron to proton and later vice-versa. They
also introduces the spring tension associated the nuclear energy stored in a neutron. The pseudo-rotation
accompanies a local FS deformation associated with a strong centrifugal acceleration as the dimer rotates within the
3D space. The total deformation is equal to the stored nuclear energy of the particle. When a neutron decays, it
generates an antineutrino and a proton and an energetic electron. The energy is stored in the Fabric of Space and the
associated angle can be easily calculated. The shift in phase is such that the electron/proton fabric of space twisting
is 43.90266/-0.07294 degrees for a neutron at rest, respectively. This is the fabric of space twisting that would result
in the observed relative exit velocities plus antineutrino after neutron decaying. Notice that twisting the fabric of
space results in an increase in the observed mass or FS overlap of the 4D volume displacement associated with
different states, and thus explains the extra mass involved in the neutron formation. This “extra mass or extra
overlap” concept is an artifact of the current choice of laws of motion. If one could remain in the logical framework
of this theory, the explanation for “larger inertia” is just due to the fact that the larger the twisting of the local FS, the
smaller subsequent twisting will be for the same dilaton field. This is due to the fact that interaction always occurs
at 45 degrees and that is the maximum angle one can twist FS through this mechanism (dilaton-dilator interference).
The same reasoning is applicable to all particles and elements. The elements and isotopes are modeled as simple
coherences involving only the fundamental dilator (electron and proton) and the Electron-Proton transmutation note.
Elements and isotopes are represented by more complex polymeric coherences (a neutron is a dimer in this theory).
A polymeric coherences containing n Dilators pseudo-rotates by (2/n) at each de Broglie step of Universe
expansion. The uncertainty on the orientation of the axis of rotation in the 3D manifold is due to our inability to
point to the radial direction within a 3D manifold. The axis of rotation undetermined until measured.
Further research should follow to pinpoint the exact angles and their application to the mass calculation of the
subatomic particles and isotopes.

6
 PionMinusModel

The state diagram should read as an electron coherence followed by a electron-positron transmutation note
(rotation in the 3D Space in the electron metric deformation state). This transmutation note changes the phase
relationship between tunneling and spinning making the next phase to be in phase with the FS to be a positron
coherence. This repeat twice (electron->positron->electron) followed by an electron-proton and a proton-electron
transmutation notes.
Assignments were made for all hyperon family and will be presented elsewhere.

0,-1/3,-2/3
0,1/3,-1/3
0,-2/3,-1/3

PionMinus

2/3,-1/3,2/3
0,-2/3,1/3
2/3,1/3,1/3
0,1/3,1/3
2/3,0,0 0,-2/3,1/3
2/3,2/3,-1/3

FIGURE 7. Pion Minus Coherence and diagram. Pion minus contains two electrons and one positron subcoherences and form a
trimer in the 3D space rotating 120 degrees at each de Broglie expansion step.

PSEUDO TIME-QUANTIZATION AND THE STROBOSCOPIC UNIVERSE

Pseudo Time-Quantization arises when one considers Newton’s Law, where mass attracts mass at the direct
products of their values. On the intermediate phases, the 3D overlap of the fundamental dilator with the FS goes to
zero and so goes its perceived 3D mass, resulting in an intermittent interacting Universe (Stroboscopic Universe).
This pseudo-time quantization and the introduction of a four spatial dimension creates inherent uncertainties in
the dynamics of dilator which together with the Quantum Lagrangian Principle would result in the basis for
Quantum Mechanics.

QUANTUM LAGRANGIAN PRINCIPLE

The Quantum Lagrangian Principle is nothing more than a direct result of the quantization of space deformation
or metric deformation. It states that:

DILATORS ALWAYS DILATE IN PHASE WITH THE SURROUNDING DILATON FIELD

Since Gravitation and everything else is described in terms of metric deformations, all fields are quantized in a
sense but not in another. Gravitational/Electromagnetism fields are dependent upon dilaton fields from dilators
which provide quantized dilations amplitudes and have to be at any given time on a well defined spatial interference
patterned grid, although not at quantized distances. This means that the generation of the field is quantized but the
actual dilaton field is not.
This means that interacting dilators (e.g. Hydrogen atom composed of electron and proton), will always be at the
nearest maximum dilation (contraction) for proton (electron) at each de Broglie step of the Universe expansion. The
phase choice is arbitrary. This means that the electron (the most mobile) with have an uncertain trajectory (due to
the azimuthally nature of the interferometric dilaton pattern resulting from proton-electron interaction.
Due to the Quantum Lagrangian Principle, peak dilaton field and dilator position can be thought as being the
same, that is, a dilator will surf a dilaton field, which has the real physical meaning of a local metric deformation.
The dilaton field-FS overlap on XYZ cross-section corresponds to the de Broglie material waves. While traveling

7
within a 4D spatial manifold, a dilator will always surf the total dilaton field according to RXYZ cross-section. One
should be careful not to interpret that particles (dilators) follow just an interference pattern in our 3D Universe. The
perceived reality in the 4D spacetime (•XYZ) depends upon the solution of the Hypergeometrical Universe
Newton’s equation of motion.

ELECTROMAGNETIC AND GRAVITATIONAL DILATORS

The archetypical Electromagnetic Dilator is represented by the Proton or Electron coherences presented
previously. The Gravitational Dilator is represented by a spin zero Hydrogen Atom shown below:
Gravitational
Fundamental Dilator Spin 0.5 Electron
or Hydrogen Atom
Proton Electron
Electron

Proton Electron
Fat Electron
or
Fundamental
Dilator

Positron

Proton Positron
Anti-

FIGURE 8. Archetypical Gravitational Fundamental Dilator (zero spin Hydrogen atom) and Electromagnetic
Fundamental Dilator (electron).
The first thing that comes to mind is that the Gravitational Fundamental Dilator contains two Electromagnetic
Fundamental Dilators. Positive and negative phases of the dilator are positioned such as to minimize dilator work,
that is, the phases are positioned to be in phase with the surrounding dilaton field.
Their 3D mass or inertial mass behaves as expected. An Electrostatic Fundamental Dilator on an electron pattern
has the inertial mass of an electron. A Fundamental Dilator on a proton pattern has the inertial mass of a proton.
The reason for a light speed expansion of the shockwave Universe and the synchronization event that forever
synched all dilator’s spinning will be explained later when we briefly review Cosmogenesis in the Beginning of
Times section.

THE MEANING OF INERTIA

Inertia maps to the overlap of the dilator with FS at specific phases when the Universe interacts. At those phases,
the larger the overlap, the larger the inertia will be. The reason lies on the Stress-Strain view of interaction.
Interacting dilators create dilaton fields which affect the position of other dilators at subsequent de Broglie steps.
This is equivalent to changing the propagation direction within the 4D spatial manifold and thus to a local
deformation of the FS. The larger the area that should be deformed the larger the required stress (Force), thus the
larger the inertia.
The intersection of this 4D dilator displacement volume with the very thin 4D Universe (Fabric of Space)
multiplied by a 4D mass density corresponds to the perceived 3D mass, a familiar concept. Since both the dilator
and the Fabric of Space are very thin, the intersection decreases extremely rapidly with spinning angle. The
interaction between dilators and dilaton fields (generated by other dilators) is directly dependent upon that footprint.
Since the footprint is non-null only at specific spinning angles, interaction is quantized and “existence” is quantized.
Where existence was construed according to the following paradigm: “I interact, thus I exist”. Neutrinos have been
called “Ghostly Particles” due to their very small interaction with the rest of the Universe (dilators). It will be shown

8
that neutrinos correspond to coherences with different wavelength or frequency than the Fundamental Dilator, thus
resulting in alternating interactions that are only effective at very short range, thus making neutrino matter
interaction cross-section very small.

COSMOLOGICAL COHERENCE

Given that dilators obey the Quantum Lagrangian Principle, thus are never dephased by interactions, then it
becomes clear that all dilators are in phase throughout the Universe, creating a Cosmological Coherence.
The existence of macroscopic coherence is the underlying reason why the concept of field can work. If one
considers a field to be a property of space, then the coherent addition of dilaton fields is a requirement for the fields
to be an extensive property of the number of dilators.

THE PIONEER ANOMALY

The Pioneer Anomaly can be derived directly understood from the Hypergeometrical Universe topology. The
anomaly is an unexpected deceleration that cannot be explained by all known facts.
It is our current understanding that only matter curves spacetime, this means that locally the curvature is quite
well defined by the inexistence of localized matte. In the vicinity of Pioneer without the obvious occurrence of
matter, it is equal to zero. The addition of another spatial dimension in the Hypergeometrical Universe theory
changes things, since there are now many curvatures to talk about.

FIGURE 9. Figure showing the reflected radiation bouncing back from the mirror at rest, posing as the Pioneer spacecraft.
Let’s see what happens when one measures the speed of light within our standard paradigm. The measure time
delay between shooting the laser pulse and measuring the reflection is equal to twice the distance divided by the
speed of light.
For a static mirror, the relationship between frequency, wavelength and the speed of light states that:
c
f 6
3 (3)
Now if we place the mirror in motion we arrive at the standard derivation of the Doppler Effect:
c:v
f Shifted 6
3 (4)
The Doppler shift is given by:
v
˜f 6 f
c (5)
The derivation is different if one allows both c and v to vary:
c:v
f Shifted (0) 6
3 (6)
c : c˜t : v : v˜t
f Shifted (˜t ) 6
3 (7)
Resulting:

9
 ˜f Shifted c : v
6 f
˜t c (8)

FIGURE 10. Geometry of reflected radiation bouncing back from the Pioneer spacecraft as it travels away.
This means that both accelerations on the speed of light or the actual speed of the Pioneer spacecraft would
contribute to the Doppler Shift. The figure below shows how the perceived speed of light would vary as a function
of the spacecraft distance.
Fig. 10 shows what would be the path traversed by each pulse emitted by the Pioneer spacecraft. The angle of the
light ray is always 45 degrees is consistent with a lightspeed expanding shockwave Universe and with a real speed
of light that is ξʹܿ. The leftmost radial line represents Earth position. This means that when Pioneer is far from
గ
Earth by 45 degrees or ܴ଴ , light will never come back (the light ray will be parallel to the Earth radial line. Two
ସ
parallel lines never meet. From the point of view of being on Earth, this could be interpreted as if the Pioneer
spacecraft had reached the speed of light, which it did just by being at that position if one considers the lightspeed
expansion of the hyperspherical surface.
Let’s say that at time zero, Pioneer is at R0 from the 4D Center of the Universe and L from Earth and let’s derive
the deceleration from the simple geometry.
Let R(t) be the Radius of the Universe at the time t:
R 8 t 4 6 R0 : ct
(9)
Where time is being measured after a light pulse is emitted from the Pioneer while it is at distance from the 4D
Center of the Universe equal to R0.
The Cosmological Angle associated with Pioneer at time t given by:
8 L : ct 4
1 8t 4 6
8
R : ct
0 4 (10)
for calculating the deceleration of the speed of light and
8 L : vt 4
1 8t 4 6
8
R0 : ct 4 (11)
for calculating the deceleration of the speed of the Pioneer spacecraft.

10
 The Cosmological Angle alpha is measured from the actual Center of the Universe. The time that measures the
expansion of the Universe is the Cosmological Time , but for quasi-relaxed fabric of space (low velocities), the
Cosmological Time is a reasonable approximation to the proper time.
The equation for the photon trajectory leaving the Spacecraft and reaching Earth later is given by:

8 4 Sj P
y t , t ' 6 R 8 t 4 sin 8 ƒ 8 t 4 4 5 c 2t ' sin Q 5 1 8 t 4 N
R4 O (12)
Where y(t,t’) is the tangential distance represented in the Fig. 10 of the reflected light beam as a function of time
t’, which starts counting at the reflection moment. The time t refers to the t governing the expansion of the Universe
from some given initial condition (R0, L).
Equating this equation to zero and solving for t’, one obtains the time it takes for light to come from Pioneer to
Earth at any given time or Pioneer position.
The perceived distance traversed is given by x=c.t’:
R 8 t 4 sin 8 ƒ 8 t 4 4
x 6 ct ' 6
Sj P
2 sin Q 5 1 8 t 4 N
R 4 O (13)
Taking the second derivative, expanding in Taylor Series and simplifying to obtain the acceleration as:
d 2 x 2c 2 2v 2
6 :
dt 2 R0 R0
(14)
The observed acceleration is 8.75e-10 m/s2, the speed of light = 299792458 m / s. This yields a value for R0=
2.05E+26 meters. Since the Pioneer velocity is much smaller than c and the second term can be neglected.
The 4D observed velocity of light is 2 c but the Universe expansion velocity is just c. This means that the
R0 R0
Universe is (21.72 billion years old) and not (1.5364E+10 years old). Analysis using Hubble constant
c 2c
would yield the incorrect results of 15.36 billion years old. Hubble constant is only valid for short cosmological
distances. For long distances one should use this equation:
2c
H6
j
R 0 cos( 5 1 )
4 (15)
Where — is the Cosmological Angle.
Setting ߙ ൌ Ͳ recovers:
2c
H6
R0
(16)
This is the standard Hubble constant or the inverse of 1.5364E+10 years in seconds.
While observing the past by peering further into space, one changes the angle of observation from 45 degrees for
short distances to zero degrees when looking at the Big Bang. This change in the direction of propagation of light as
seen from the 4D spatial manifold implies that light wavelength will change (red shift) just by geometrical
considerations, thus the Hypergeometrical Universe theory provides a geometrical mechanism for Hubble’s red
shift.
The conclusions in this section are very important because they break the symmetry between dilators and
dilatons, in the sense that they do not travel at the same speed. On the other hand, this velocity relationship is
strictly necessary for the Quantum Lagrangian Principle to make all dilators to surf the surrounding dilaton field,
since dilators always see retarded dilaton fields at 45 degrees with respect to R.

THE BEGINNING OF TIMES

At the time of the Big Bang, the Universe is a small macroscopic metric fluctuation in a 4D spatial manifold. We
speculate that this moment followed a dimensional transition that made the process entropically irreversible.

11
FIGURE 11. Time zero boundary conditions are shown.
In the subsequent instant, the initial metric fluctuation decays into a myriad of smaller metric coherences
(dilators) which start to recombine creating Gamma Radiation. The initial burst of Gamma Radiation propels all
dilators with the correct spinning phase outwards. This is the synching event that synchronized the spinning of all
dilators.
The symmetry of the problem makes radial and tangential degrees of freedom equivalent. Since one would
expect equipartition of energy among all degrees of freedom, them one would expect that dilators would be
accelerated to the same speed on all directions. Once the Universe is more than a point, the surfing of the retarded
dilaton field requires interaction to take place on 45 degrees with respect to the radial direction for the equipartition
of energy to take place. This and the first principle derivation of the natural laws of physics are the basis for
considering that the initial Universe was accelerated to c at time zero.
Fig. 11 left panel also shows how we peer into the past. Looking at close epochs means looking at a small
cosmological angle — where the two near hyperspheres can be approximated by a two hyperplanes. The farther we
look, the smaller the hyperspherical Universe was. Light travels at 45 degrees with respect to R from prior epochs.
When the inner circle (prior epoch) gets really small, the cosmological angle — moves towards 45 degrees.

QUANTUM GRAVITY AND ELECTROSTATIC INTERACTION

First let’s express Gauss law in terms of two interacting bodies of one Kg4D (4D Mass of one Kg) of dilators
separated by one meter distance. The reason for expressing Gauss Law in term of 4DMass is to have a term of
comparison with Newton’s Law, that is, both Gravitational and Electrostatic laws should be measuring the effect of
the same number of dilators(1Kg4D of electrons or 1Kg3D of Hydrogen Atoms). Due to Fundamental Dilator
Model, electron, positron, antiproton and proton are all equivalent to a Hydrogen atom.
The standard MKS equation for electrostatic force between two one Kg4D bodies of electrons (¥ a.m.u.
“electrons” or “protons”) = x Coulombs, is giving by:
2 2
1 S Coulomb P 2 S DilatorE P 2 S 1Kg 4 D 2
P S Kg 4 D P S Kg 3 D P 4D S Kg 3 D P
2
FElectrostatic 6 Q N Q N Q N Q N Q N 6 G Electrostatic RQ meter NO
4j‡ 0 R 1meter O R Coulomb O R DilatorE O R Kg 3 D O R Kg 3 D O (17)
Where
Gravitational Fundamental Dilator=DilatorG
Electromagnetic Fundamental Dilator = DilatorE
Kg3D (Kg4D) is one Kg of 3DMass(4DMass)
Electromagnetic Fundamental Dilator 4D Mass= Hydrogen 3DMass=¥= 1.00794u
S 1Kg 4 D P
Q N =Spatial Anisotropy = v
R 1Kg 3D O

12
 G is the gravitational constant = 6.6720E-11 m3.Kg-1.s-2
N=1Kg4D of DilatorE =0.5Kg3D of DilatorG 1000 Avogrado’s Number/¥=5.97470265E+26
dilators per Kg4D.
S DilatorE P e
Q N6 (18)
R Coulomb O Coulomb
S 1Kg 4 D P
QQ NN 6 N 6 5.97470265E : 26 (19)
R DilatorE O
2
1 S N P
4D
G Electrostatic 6 Q .ev N 6 8.23558E : 25v
2
4j‡ 0 R 1Kg 3D O (20)
Similarly Newton’s Gravitational Law can be written for 1Kg4D of Gravitational Fundamental Dilators
(Hydrogen Atoms).
2 2 2
S Kg 3D P S Kg 4 D P 4D S Kg 3D P
FGravitational 6 G Q N Q N 6 GGravitational Q N
R 1meter O R Kg 3D O R 1meter O (21)
Resulting:

4D 2 2
G 6 Gv 6 6.6720E 5 11v
Gravitational
(22)
§  1000*Avogrado/1 Kg4D/¥=5.97470265E+23.
31  h*1000*Avogrado/(1 Kg4D * c)/¥ /v= 1.32054E-15/v meters ( in the MKS system).
32631Kg4D h/(1Kg4D x c) /v= 2.2102E-42/v meters ( in the MKS system).= 31/N
e=Single electric charge (1.6022E-19 Coulomb).
™0=permittivity of the vacuum = 8.8542E-12 C2.N-1.m-2 (MKS)
Thus
2
1 S N 2P
4D Q ev N
GElectrostatic 4j‡ 0 R 1Kg 3D O 8.23558E : 25v 2
66 6 6 1.23435E : 36 (23)
4D
GGravitational Gv 2 6.6720E 5 11v 2
To analyze the interaction between a probe dilator and a 1Kg4D body, let’s express the dilaton field for a single
particle as:
K K
cos(k .r )
J 1 ( x, y , z , \ , ˆ ) 6 K1 K K
1: P. f (k , r 5 r )
1 0 (24)
where
K K K K
f ( k1 , r ) 6 k1 .r
(25)
K K K K
For k1.r x 2j we have f ( k1 , r ) 6 0 ,that is there is not decay within the first cycle
|| means absolute value
P (absolute value of the phase volume) is 3. The meaning of P is that for one de Broglie wavelength traversed
path along R by the hyperspherical universe, a propagating spacetime wave spreads along by a factor of P2 (6j)
due to the number of cross-sections involved.
K
Similarly, for a 1 Kg4D of DilatorE body located at position R :
K K K
M .N .cos(k2 .( R 5 r ))
J 2 ( x, y , z , r , ˆ ) 6 K K K
1 : P. f (k2 , R 5 r )
(26)

13
 where the effect of the 1 Kg4D mass is implicit in the k2-vector and expressed by the factor N. The wave
intensity scales up with the number of particles (N). One kilogram of mass has N=1000/¥ moles of ¥ a.m.u.
Fundamental Dilators or |k2| = 1000.Avogadro/¥. |k1|=(N). |k1|, where
M=1 for neutral matter-matter, or antimatter-antimatter interactions or opposite charge interactions
M=-1 for same charge or matter-antimatter interactions
To calculate the effect of gravitational/electrostatic attraction, one needs to calculate the displacement on the
dilaton field maximum around each particle or body due to interaction with the dilatons generated by the other body.
This is done for the lighter particle, by calculating the derivative of the waveform and considering the extremely
fast varying gravitational wave from the macroscopic body always equal to one, since the maxima of these
oscillations are too close to each other and can be considered a continuum.
The total waveform is given by: K K
cos( k1.r ) M *N
J total ( x, y , z , r , ˆ ) 6 K K K : K K K
1 : P. f ( k1 , r 5 r0 ) 1 : P. f ( k 2 , R 5 r )
(27)
Why is the lightspeed c the limiting speed in this Universe?
The reason can be seem from equation (27). Taking of the derivative equation (27) with respect to r and equating
it to zero, yields: K K K K K K
k1 sin( k1.r ) k1 cos( k1.r )
K K K 5 60
8 4 8
1 : P. | k1.( r 5 r0 ) | K K K
4
1 : P. | k1.( r 5 r0 ) |
2
(28)
Notice that the second term was considered saturated, that is, independent upon r.
K K K
As interaction increases, r shifts asymptotically to some r , that is, r 6 r0 is achieved at saturation. The
0
resulting saturation equation states that: K K K K
cos( k 1 .r0 ) 6 sin( k 1 .r0 ) (29)
This means that the limiting angle of acceleration is 45 degrees or the speed of light. Notice that there was no
use of any postulate as in the Theory of Relativity. This speed limit is the direct result of the choice of interaction
and the proposed topology.
Equation (27) is the one and only unification equation, that is, it is the four-dimensional wave equation that
yields all the forces, when one considers four-dimensional wave constructive interference. It shows that anti-matter
will have gravitational repulsion or anti-gravity with respect to normal matter. The derivative for J1 is given by:
rJ ( x , y , z , r , ˆ )
1 6 5 k 2 r
rx 1
r 63
1 (30)
K K K
8
K K K
4
‚ P. f (k1, r 5 r0 ) 6 0 8
k . r 5 r0
1
4
due to << 2j.2
Similarly
rJ ( x, y, z, r ,… ) NM
2 6
rx Pk .R 2
r 63 2
1 (31)

Solving for x:
N 312 32 NM
x6 6
Pk12 k2 .R2 P 8 2j 4 R2
3
(32)
There are two regimen of spacetime travel for the probing dilator and they are depicted in Figure 12 below:

14
FIGURE 12. This figure shows the geometry of a surface bound particle. This is a X versus R cross-section of the
hyperspherical expanding universe. Notice that the two circles represent a one step de Broglie expansion of the hyperspherical
universe.
At each de Broglie step both types of particles (zero and non-zero spin) change position by the same amount x
and that defines a change in their k-vector direction. The difference is with which referential that change in angle
occurs. In the case of volumetric waves (non-zero spin particles), the k-vector is allowed to change by the angle 11,
while in the case of superficial waves (zero spin particles), the k-vector changes just by the amount given by 10
since its k-vector has to remain perpendicular to the fabric of space. Tan(1) is given by tan(1¨) =x/31 or by tan(1 )
=x/31*( 31/R0) depending upon if the interaction is such that the particle k-vector shifts as in 11 or it just acquires the
radial pointing direction as in 10. A further refinement introduced by equation (33) below introduces a level of local
deformation of the de Broglie hypersurface or fabric of space. A change in angle 10 corresponds to a much smaller
angle change between the radial directions (by a factor 31/R0 = 6.43E-42, with R0 (circa 21.72 billion light-years) as
the dimensional age of the Universe). The experimental spacetime torsion due to gravitational interaction lies
someplace in between 1 and 10-41, thus showcasing a level of local deformation of the fabric of space. From Fig. 12,
one calculates tan(1) as:
x 3132 N
tan(1 ) 6 ` 6 `
31 P 8 2j 4 R2
3
(33)
31
Where 6.43E 5 42 6 › ` › 1 and M=1. It will be shown that the upper limit is valid for charged particle
R0
interaction, while the lower limit modified by a slight deformation of the fabric of space will be associated with
gravitational interaction. For the case of light, one has:
tan(1 0 ) 6 1
(34)
That is, light propagates with proper time projection/propagation direction ‰ at 450 with respect to the radial
direction. To calculate the derivative of tan (1) with respect to ‰, one can use the following relationship:
r tan(10 ) 32 N
tan(10 ) 6 6 `
rr 31 P 8 2j 4 R2
3
(35)
Acceleration is given by:
r c 2 32 N
a 6 c2 tan(1 0 ) 6 `
rr P 8 2j 4 R 2
3
(36)
To calculate the force between two 1 Kg4D masses separated by one meter distance expressed in terms of Kg3D,
8 4
one needs to multiply equation (36) by N 1Kg3D v 2 since the acceleration was calculated by a 1Kg4D of DilatorE:
2
S 1K g 4 D P
c 2 32 * N 2 Q N
81 K g 3 D 42 R 1 K g 3 D O ` 81 K g 3 D 4
2
F 6 G C alcula ted 8` 4 6 5
(1m eter ) 2 P 8 2 j 43 81 K g 3 D 4 (1m eter ) 2 (37)

15
 For `=1 and P=3 one obtains the GElectrostatic (20).
c2 8N v 42 3 2
G C a lc u la te d 8 ` 6 1 4 6 6 8.2 3 5 5 8 E : 2 5 v 2
6 G E4 leD c tro s t a tic
P 8 2 j 43 81 K g 3 D 4 (38)
With anisotropy given by:

 v 6 1.157055733 

Remembering of the v dependence of 31. It is important to notice that in the derivation of the GCalculated never
made use of any electrostatic property of vacuum, charge etc. It only mattered the mass (spacetime volumetric
deformation) and spin. Of course, one used the Planck constant and the speed of light and Avogadro’s number. By
setting `=1 one recovers the electrostatic value of G!
To analyze gravitational interaction, let’s consider our estimate the universe as being around 21.72 Billion Years
old or 2.05E+26 meters radius. To obtain the elasticity coefficient of spacetime, let’s rewrite `=2831/R0)€ on
equation (36) and equate the GCalculated to GGravitational for two bodies of 1 Kg3D separated by 1 meter.
81 K g 3 D 42 81 K g 3 D 42 c 2 N 2 32 31 81 K g 3 D 42
F 6 G G4 ra
D
vita tio n a l 6 5 6 .6 7 2 0 E -1 1 v 2 6 5 v 2€
(1 m eter ) 2 (1 m eter ) 2 81 K g 3 D 4 P 8 2 j 43 R0 (1 m eter ) 2 (39)
Where P =3 since we are considering a spin-zero interaction. Solving for €:
P 8 2 j 43 R 0 G 81 K g 3 D 4
€ 6 6 1.4 5 7 6 4 5 E : 0 5
c 2 N 31 2 (40)

If we consider that the force is given by mass times acceleration:

r tan(; ) mMass c2 31
F 6 mMass ax 6 mMass c2 6 € .x
r3 3 21 R0 (41)
2 2
€ .x 6 mMass SQ 2j .©G P
mMass c
F6
Universe ON
.x
31R0 R (42)
The natural frequency of spacetime oscillations is:
1 c2€
©G 6 6 37.6 KHz
Universe 2j 3R (43)
1 0
Notice that this is not dependent upon any masses. That should be the best frequency to look for or to create
gravitational waves. Of course, Hubble red shift considerations should be used to determine the precise frequency
from a specific region of the universe. At last one can calculate the value of the vacuum permittivity from equations
(20) and (27) as:
c2 8 N v 42 3 2
G C a lc u la te d 8` 6 14 6
P 8 2 j 43 81 K g 3 D 4 (44)

1 S N P c2 N 2v 2 32
2
GElectrostatic 6 Q eN 6
4j‡ 0 R 1Kg 3D O P 8 2j 43 81Kg 3D 4 (45)

6j 2 e2
‡0 6 6 8.85418782E-12
81Kg 3D 4 c232 (46)
Not surprisingly, there is a perfect match between theoretical and experimental (8.85418782E-12 C2.N-1.m-2 )
values. The Space Anisotropy coefficient v was derived to make this identity true. It is important to notice that this
derivation don’t use any parameterization. The Space Anisotropy coefficient v and the “FS elasticity €” are

16
predictions of the theory, which uses only electron charge, speed of light, Avogadro’s number and Planck’s constant
to relate it to non-hypergeometrical physics.
The complete gravitation equation is given by:
h c 2 N 2 32 3 em m
FGravitational 6 f v2 1 €c 1 2
f 3 R0 c R 2
gf P 8 2j 4 81Kg 3D 4 dc (47)
Quantum aspects can be recovered by not using fast oscillation approximations. It is also important to
notice that equations (26) and (27) can be used to calculate the interaction between any particles (matter or anti-
matter) or to perform quantum mechanical calculations in a manner similar to molecular dynamic simulations. The
quantum character is implicit in the de Broglie wavelength stepwise quantization. It is also relativistic in essence, as
it will become clear when one analyzes magnetism next.

MAGNETIC INTERACTION

TheDerivationoftheBiotSavartLaw

Let’s consider two wires with currents i1 and i2 separated by a distance R. Let’s consider i2 on the element of
length dl2 as the result of a moving charge of mass of 1Kg4D of electromagnetic fundamental dilators. This is done
to obtain the correct scaling factor.
Without loss of generality, let’s consider that the distance between the two elements of current is given by:
S1P S0P
Q N Q N
1 Q0N
K R Q N K
R6 Q 1 N 6 RI
ˆ r0 6 Q 0 N
3Q N Q N
Q0N and Q0N (48)
Q0N Q0N
R O R O
The velocities are:
S 11 P S12 P
Q N Q N
Q ž1 N Q ž2 N
K Q N K
V1 6 v1 Q 9 N V2 6 v2 QQ 9 NN
1 2
Q 0 N and Q 0 N (49)
Q N Q N
Q 0N Q 0 N
R O R O

Due to the spin half, one has after a two de Broglie cycles:
S r v P
Q .(1 : 2 1 2 3) N S R P
Q 3 c N Q N
Q v2 N Q 3N S 0 P
Q r
.(1 : ž 3) N Q R N Q N
K Q 3 c 2 N Q N 0 N
r 6Q N K Q 3N K QQ
R6Q R N r0 6 0 N
Q r .(1 : v2 9 3) N and Q N
Q 231 N
Q N and (50)
Q 3 c 2 N
Q N Q 3N Q 23 N
231 Q 23 N R 1O
Q N
Q N Q 1N
Q 3 N Q 23 N
R 2 1 O R 1O

Since one expects that the motion of particle 2 will produce a drag on the particle 1 along particle 2 direction of
motion.
The figure below showcase the geometry associated with these two currents.

17
FIGURE 13. Derivation of Biot-Savart law using spacetime waves.
Notice also that the effect of the ½ spin is to slow down the rate of phase variation along the dimensional time ‰
in half.
In the case of currents, the velocities are not relativistic and one can make the following approximations to the
five-dimensional rotation matrix or metric: cosh(1) 1 and sinh(1ª) vi/c where vi is the velocity along the axis i.
The k-vectors for the two electrons on the static reference frame are given by:
h v e
f 1 0 0 511 1 0 c
f c c
f v1 c
f 0 1 0 5 ž1 0c
1ef c
K 2j h 1 c
1 1
k1 6 f 5 1 c f v c (51)
31 g 3 3 3 2d f 0 0 1 591 1 0c
f c c
f v1 v1 v1 c
f 51 5 ž 59 5 1 0 c
f 1 c 1 c 1 c c
f 0 5 c
g 0 0 0 1d
K 2j S 1 h v P S 1 v P S 1 v P S S v v v P P S 1 Pe
k1 6 fQ : 11 1 N Q : ž1 1 N Q : 91 1 N Q 5 Q 11 1 : ž1 1 : 91 1 N 5 1N Q 5 N c
31 gfRQ 3 c ON RQ 3 c ON RQ 3 c ON RQ RQ c c c ON ON R 2 O c
d (52)

Similarly:
K 2j hS 1 v P S 1 v P S 1 v P S v v v P S 1 Pe
k2 6 fQQ : 12 2 N QQ : ž2 2 N QQ :92 2 N QQ 51 2 2 5 ž 2 2 5 9 2 2 5 1NN Q 5 N c
32 fgR 3 c NO R 3 c NO R 3 c NO R c c c O R 2 O dc
K (53)
The wave intensities at r are:
K K
cos(k1.r )
J1 ( x, y , z , r , ˆ ) 6 K K K
1 : P. f (k1, r 5 r0 )
(54)
K K K
N .cos(k2 .( R 5 r ))
J 2 ( x, y , z , r , ˆ ) 6 K K K
1 : P. f (k2 , R 5 r )
(55)
Where N= 1000 Avogadro/¥, 31=2de Broglie wavelength of a ¥ a.m.u (atomic mass unit) particle/v, 32=de
Broglie wavelength of a 1Kg4D particle= 31/N.
Now one can calculate:

18
K K K
8
k1. r 5 r0 64
S r v P
Q .(1 : 2 1 2 3) N
Q 3 c N
Q v2 N
Q r
.(1 : ž 2 3) N
2j hS 1 v P S 1 v P S 1 v P S S v1 v v P P S 1 Pe Q 3 c N
6 fQ : 11 1 N QQ : ž1 1 N QQ : 91 1 N Q 5 Q 11 : ž1 1 : 91 1 N 5 1N Q 5 Nc Q N
Q
31 fgR 3 c NO c NO c NO Q Q c c c NO NO R 2 O cd Q v
R 3 R 3 R R .(1 : 2 9 2 3) NN
r (56)
Q 3 c
Q N
Q 0 N
Q N
R 0 O

K K K K
K K 2j r S V1.Rˆ V2 .Rˆ V1.V2 P
k1.r 6 Q1 : : : N : 2j
31 Q c c 2 N
R c O (57)
K K K K
2j S V1.R V2 .R V1.V2 P
K K K K K ˆ ˆ
8 8 44
‚ k1. r 5 r0 6 ‚ k1.r 6 8 4 Q1 :
31 Q c
:
c
:
c2
N Rˆ
N
R O (58)
K K K
8
K K K
4
‚ P. f ( k1 , r 5 r0 ) 6 0 8
k1. r 5 r0 4
due to << 2j. (59)2
Similarly:
K K K
k2 . 8 R 5 r 4 6
S R r v
2 P
Q 5 .(1 : 1 3) N
2
Q 3 3 c N
Q R r v N
Q 5 .(1 : 2 ž 3) N
2j hS 1 v P S 1
2
v P S 1
2
v P S
2
v
2
v
2
v
2 P S 1 Pe Q 3 3 c 2 N
fQ :1 :ž :9 51 5ž 59 5 1N Q 5 Nc Q
2 c N Q 3 2 c N Q 3 2 c N Q 2 c
6 N
O R 2 Od Q
3 gR 3 2 c 2 c
O R O R O R v
3) N
2 R r
5 .(1 : 2 9
Q 3 3 c 2 N
Q N
Q 0 N
Q N
R 0 O
K
2j R S V2 .R P
ˆ
6 Q1 : N
32 Q c N
R O (60)

K K K
8
‚ f ( k2 , R 5 r ) 4
S 1 v P
Q5 .(1 : 2 1 3) N
2
Q 3 c N
Q 1 v N
Q5 .(1 : 2 ž 3) N
2j hS 1 v
2P S 1
v
2P S 1
v
2P S
v
2
v
2
v
2 P S 1 Pe Q 3 c 2 N
fQ :1 :ž :9 51 5ž 59 5 1N Q 5 Nc Q
2 c N Q 3 2 c N Q 3 2 c N Q 2 c
6 N
O R 2 Od Q
3 gR 3 2 c 2 c
O R O R O R v
3) N
2 1 2 (61)
5 .(1 : 9
Q 3 c 2 N
Q N
Q 0 N
Q N
R 0 O

19
 K
K K K 2j S V .Rˆ P
8 4
‚ f ( k2 , R 5 r ) 6 5
32
Q 1 : 2 N Rˆ
Q c N
R O (62)

Hence: K K
‚(k1..r ) K K
‚J1( x, y, z, r , ˆ) 6 5 K K K sin(k .r )
1
1 : P. f (k1, r 5 r0 )
(63)
2 K K K K 2
S 2j P S V .Rˆ V .Rˆ V .V P
‚J1 ( x, y, z, r , ˆ) 6 5 Q N Q1 : 1 : 2 : 1 2 N rRˆ
Q3 N Q c c c 2 NO
R 1O R (64)

And
K K K K
K NP‚( f (k2 , R 5 r )) N Rˆ S N 32 P S V2 .Rˆ P Rˆ
‚J 2 (r , r , ˆ ) 6 5 65 6 5 Q Q1 5 N
K K K 2 K Q 2j P NN Q c N R2
8
1 : P. f (k2 , R 5 r ) P 4
2j S V2 .R P
. Q1 :
ˆ
N
R2 R OR O (65)
32 Q c N
R O
Thus,
K K K K K K
S N 32 P S V2 .Rˆ P Rˆ S V .Rˆ P S V .Rˆ V .Rˆ V .V P
QQ NN Q1 5 N Q1 5 2 N Q Rˆ .Rˆ 5 2 1 5 2 2 5 2 1 2 N
R 2j P O QR c N R2 Q c NQ c 2 NO
8 4
c c Rˆ
r 6 5 O 6 5 N 312 32 R OR
K K K K 2
S 2j P
2S
V .Rˆ V .Rˆ V .V P 2j 3 P
8 4 R2 (66)
Q N Q1 : 1 : 2 : 1 2 N
Q3 N Q c c c 2 NO
R 1O R
K K K K K K K K K K K K
S ˆ ˆ V1 .Rˆ V .Rˆ V .V V .Rˆ S V .Rˆ P S V .Rˆ P S V .Rˆ P S V .Rˆ P S V .V P S V .Rˆ P P
Q R. R 5 2 5 2 2 5 2 1 2 5 2 2 : 2Q 1 NQ 2 N : 2Q 2 NQ 2 N : 2Q 1 2 NQ 2 NN

8 4 R c O R c O R c O R c O R c 2 O R c O O Rˆ
2
2
r 6 5 N 3 3
R c c c c
ee 1 2
8 2j 43 P R
2
(67)
K
S V1.Rˆ P
Q Rˆ .Rˆ 5 2 N
Q c N Rˆ
8
rep 6 : N 312 32 R 4 8 2j 4 P R 2
3
O

since v2=0 (68)

K K K K
S V2 .Rˆ V2 .Rˆ S V .Rˆ P S V .Rˆ P P
Q Rˆ .Rˆ 5 2 52 : 2Q 2 NQ 2 NN
Q Q c NQ c NN
8 4
c c Rˆ
R OR OO
rpe 6 N 312 32 R
3 R2
8 4
2j P since v1=0 (69)

4 8 28j 434P RR2

Rˆ .Rˆ
8
ˆ
rpp 6 5 N 312 32
since v1=v2=0 (70)
K K K K K
S S V .Rˆ PS V .Rˆ P S V .V P S S V .Rˆ P P P
Q 2Q 1 NQ 2 N 5 2Q 1 2 N Q1 5 Q 2 N N N
Q Q c NQ c N Q c 2 N Q Q c N N N
rtotal 6 ree : rep : rpe : rpp 6 5 N 31232 R 8R OR
4 O R
2j P3
OR R
8 4
OOO Rˆ
R2 (71)

Where p stands for proton and e for electron.

20
 K K K K
S V .V S V .Rˆ P S V .Rˆ P P
Q 52 1 2 : 2Q 1 NQ 2 NN
Q 2 Q NQ c NN ˆ
8 4
c
c R OR OO R
r 6 5 N 312 32 R
8 2j 43 P R2 (68)
Here we introduce the correction to the 5D speed of light. From the Pioneer Anomaly analysis, c 5 Š c 2
yielding:
4 4
48
8
hV « V « Rˆ e .Rˆ ˆ
8
r 6 N 31232
g 1 2
3
8 2j 4 Pc 2
d R
R2 (69)

Where non-velocity dependent and single velocity dependent contributions where neglected due to the
counterbalancing wave contributions from static positively charged centers.
The force between two 1 Kg4D dilators is given by:
K
32
8 4 4
K 2 2 r tan(1 )
F 6 N *(1Kg 3D)v c 2 r 2
6 N v (1Kg 3D)c 2 6 N v (1Kg 3D)
2 2 h 8 ˆ e
V1 « V2 « R .Rˆ R
rr 31 8 2j 43 P g d
R3 (70)
To scale this force into the force between two Coulomb charges traveling with velocities v1 and v2 one just have
to multiply the equation by (1C/Nev)2:
2 2 K
K S 1C P2 N v (1Kg 3D)32 v1.v2
F 6Q N
R eN v O g 1 8 28 d 4 4
h dlˆ « dlˆ « Rˆ e .Rˆ R
8 2j 43 P R3 (71)

Where one took into consideration that a particle with spin half has a cycle of 2231 instead of 31.
The Biot-Savart law can be written as:
K K K
K @0 I1.I 2 ( dl1.dl2 ) x12
dF 6
4j K
| x12 |3 (72)
Comparing the two equations one obtains:
@ 0 81Kg 3 D 432
6
4j 3 2
8 2j 4 e P (73)
Thus
3
@ 0 6 1Kg 3 D 2
2j 2 e 2 P (74)
From equation (45)
2 Pj 2 Ne2
‡0 6
(1Kg 3D)c 231 (75)
Thus
3 (1Kg 3D) 2 Pj 2 Ne2 1
@0 .‡ 0 6 2 6
2 Pj 2 e2 c 2 31 (1Kg 3D) c 2 (76)
Thus one recovers the relationship between @0 and ‡0.
We recovered the Biot-Savart law for infinitesimal elements of current. This was achieved by considering the
many contributions of positive and negative center charges and using the low velocity approximation. Within a
Tokamak Nuclear Fusion device, currents are both positive and negative (hot plasma) and velocities are relativistic.
Under these conditions one should use the non-approximated equation derived from equation (62):

21
 K K
S N 32 P S V2 .Rˆ P Rˆ S V .Rˆ P
QQ NN Q1 5 N Q1 5 2 N
2j P Q c N 2 S 33 P Q c N
R OR OR R O Rˆ
r 6 5 6 Q 1 N
2 K K K K 2 Q 3 N K K K
Q P(2j ) N S V .Rˆ V .Rˆ V .V P R 2 K 2
S 2j P S V .Rˆ V .Rˆ V .V P R O (77)
Q N Q1 : 1 : 2 : 1 2 N Q1 : 1 : 2 : 1 2 N
Q3 N Q c c 2 N Q c c c 2 NO
R 1O R c O R
The force between two 1 Kg4D dilators is given by:
K
S V2 .Rˆ P
S N3 P Q 15 N
K 2 2 r tan(1 ) 2 2 r R c O Rˆ
6 81Kg 3 D 4 v c Q
1 N
F 6 81Kg 3 D 4 v Nc 6 81Kg 3 D 4 v Nc
2 2
rr Q 3N K K K K
3 21 2 2
R P8 2j 4 O S 1: V1.Rˆ : V2 .Rˆ : V1.V2 P R
Q N (78)
R c c c2 O
To scale this force into the force between two Coulomb charges traveling with velocities v1 and v2 one just have
to multiply the equation by (1C/Nev)2:
K
S V .Rˆ P
Q1 5 2 N
K
2
@0c C1C 2 Q c N Rˆ
R O
F 6 K K K K
1 4j S V .Rˆ V .Rˆ V .V P R
2 2
(79)
Q1 : 1 : 2 : 1 2 N
Q c c c 2 NO
R
Or
K
S V .Rˆ P
Q1 5 2 N
K Q c N Rˆ
C1C 2 R O
F 6 K K K K 2 2
1 4j‡ 0 S
V1.Rˆ V2 .Rˆ V1.V2 P R (80)
Q1 : : : N
Q c c c 2 NO
R
Where C1 and C2 are the charges traveling at V1 and V2 and c is the speed of light.

GYROGRAVITATION-ELECTROMAGNETISM UNIFICATION

Similarly one can derive the Gravitational Biot-Savart equation by simple analogy to our derivation of the
Gravitation Law.
The limit with zero velocity independent term corresponds to the steady state gravitational field (Newton’s Law).
h c 2 N 31 31 e m1m2 mm
FGravitaional 6 f €c 6G 1 2
f 3R c 2 R2
gf 81Kg 3D 4 P 8 2j 4 0 dc R (81)
Notice that the value of the Gravitational Constant G is inversely proportional to the 4D Radius of the Universe
R0. This means that at earlier epochs, Gravitation was stronger and at a precise time in the life of the Universe all
forces had the same strength. It also means that Stellar Candles would contain smaller masses in the past than they
do at later epochs. This means that current measurements of distances across the Universe based upon Stellar
Candles might not work properly and indicate unreasonable large distance incompatible with the age of the
Universe.
For non-zero relative speed, we obtain the Hypergeometrical Universe Law of Gravitation:
S K P
Q S V .Rˆ P N
Q1 5 2 N
Q Q c N N
K ˆ
R Q R O N
F1 6 Gm1m2 Q
2 K K K K 2N
R Q S V .Rˆ V .Rˆ V .V P N (82)
Q Q1 : 1 : 2 : 1 2 N N
QQ c c c2 NO NO
RR

22
 Equations (79-80) express the force for two elements of charge in motion. They recover Gauss Law under
conditions of rest and have identical form as equation (81). This means that a single equation describes everything
we know about electrostatics, electromagnetism and gravitation.
The Force derivation uses a boundary condition where the dilator is at rest with respect to the FS. This is
equivalent to say that all forces are partial derivatives with respect to R while keeping velocity constant. This is
important since the force is velocity dependent. To obtain a potential from which one can calculate dynamics, one
need to integrate the equation (81) with respect to R.
S K P
Q S V .Rˆ P N
Q Q 1 5 1 N
N
G G 1Q Q c N N
V2 ( R,V1,V2 ) 6 Gm1m2 Q R O
RQS K K K K 2N
V .Rˆ V .Rˆ V .V P N (83)
Q Q1 : 1 : 2 : 1 2 N N
QQ c c c2 NO NO
RR
This potential can be used in calculating the equations of motion of Mercury around the Sun for instance.
From equation (47) it is clear that R points from position 1 to position 2, F1 is force acting upon body 1 under the
influence of body 2. There is an inherent asymmetry due to the usage of a third inertial reference frame which is
inertial. Any reference frame based upon either body would be non-inertial. This equation was derived under the
regimen of weak (normal) gravitational pull. It would be easy to derive the same equation for conditions in the
surroundings of a Black Hole. One would just not use the derivative approximations.
This means that there is AntiGravity (weakening of Gravitation) right within the Law of Gravitation. If for a
moment one sets the referential frame on body 1, thus having V1=0, the Gravitational Force on F2 becomes:
K
K Rˆ 1 Rˆ S V .Rˆ P
F2 6 Gm1m2 a Gm1m2 Q1 5 2 2 N
K
R2 S V .Rˆ P2 R2 RQ c N
O (84)
Q1 : 2 N
Q c N
R O
This is a much more complex view of Gravitation and it is a view derived from a more fundamental model. It
reduces to Newton’s Law at zero relative velocity.
This equation is likely to explain jets emanating from Black Holes since it shows that as the Black Hole pulls
matter inwards it suffer a stronger pull than when it tries to slow down that same matter. This should be expected
since the maximum inward speed is the speed of light. This asymmetric pull makes the Black Hole capable of
propelling itself forward by asymmetric acceleration of the matter in front of it. In the case of a symmetric
distribution of matter, one would expect double jets.

PRECESSION OF MERCURY PERIHELION

Let’s consider equation (80) with V1=0, that is, body 1 is not rotating. The new potential is given by:
1 1
V2 ( R,V2 ) 6 Gm1m2 6 Gm1m2
K 2 2
S V .Rˆ P S 1 dR P (85)
Q
R 1: 2 N R Q 1 5 N
Q c N R c dt O
R O
This is the Gerber’s potential [5,6] which correctly predicts the precession of Mercury perihelion (42.3 arc
seconds per century).

GRAVITATIONAL LENSING

To calculate Gravitational Lensing one has to remember that Electromagnetic Waves are modeled as source-
position modulated dilaton fields, that is, EM are dilaton fields (extremely small wavelength = Compton wavelength
of a hydrogen atom) modulated by the motion of the dilators that create them. Of course, dilators slow motion
yields much larger wavelengths consistent with the electromagnetic waves they generate.
To obtain the predictions of the Hypergeometrical Model for the gravitational refraction of an electromagnetic
wave, one has to remember that a Force is represented as a Stress in this model. Acceleration is modeled as a local
deformation of the Fabric of Space. This is shown in the equation below:

23
 d tanh(1‰ ) dm0v d 8 hk 4 wk
F 6 m0c 2 6c 6c 6 hc
d‰ d‰ d‰ w‰ (86)
Where dɒ is equal to cdt, that is, it is a dimensionalized time. The momentum of an electromagnetic wave was
represented by hk and its mass by this equation:
hk
m6 (87)
c
Light always travels at 45 degrees with respect to the Fabric of Space. This means that Gravitation only affects
the direction of propagation within the Fabric of Space. That cross-section is shown below:
vin vout
Ro

x
FIGURE 14. Gravitational induced scattering due to Gravitational Force acting upon a photon.
At the position of scattering R=Ro, dR/dt=0 since one cannot increase the speed of light nor decrease it. One can
only change its direction within the 3D hypersphere.
The change in direction is shown in the diagram below:

FIGURE 15. Phasematching condition on Gravitational Lensing event.

2w‰ is the de Broglie step in the Hypergeometrical Expansion of the Universe. The angle is given by:
wkR0
16
k w‰ (88)
The Force can be written in terms of Gravitational fields as:
G Rˆ
F2 ( R ,V2 ) 65Gm1m2
R2 (89)
The equation of motion for an electromagnetic wave is given by:
wkRˆ Rˆ hk Rˆ
F 6 hc 6 5GMm 6 5GM
w‰ R2 c R2
(90)
From our equation of motion, we obtain:
wkR0 GM
16 6
k w‰ c 2 R0
(91)
Which is the observed Gravitational Lensing.

GRAND UNIFICATION SUPERSYMMETRY

As the dimensional age of the universe becomes smaller, the relative strength of gravitation interaction increases.
Conversely, one expects that as the universe expands gravity will become weaker and weaker. This and the four-
dimensional light speed expanding hyperspherical universe topology explain the acceleration of expansion without
the need of anti-gravitational dark matter.

For gravitation the spring coefficient is given by:

24
 2 31 mneutron c 2 14.57E431
2 r tan(; ) mneutron c
F 6 mneutron L ax 6 mneutron c 6 € 6 x 6 vg x
r3 3 21 R0 3 21 R0
(92)
Similarly for electrostatic interaction, one has:

2
r tan(; ) mneutron c
F 6 mneutron L a x 6 mneutron c 2 6 x 6 ve x
r3 3 21
(93)
Thus
vg 14.57 E 431
6
ve R0
(94)
4
Thus when R0 was smaller than 14.57 10 times 31 (at 6.40E-19s into the Universe life), gravitational and
electromagnetic interactions had equal strength. They were certainly indistinguishable when the radius of the
universe was one de Broglie wavelength long. This section is called Grand unification supersymmetry, because
condition in equation (94) plays the role of the envisioned group theoretical supersymmetry of the grand unification
force. Of course, it has a geometrical interpretation. At that exact radius, an elastic spring constant of the fabric of
space allows for a change in the local normal such that it is parallel to the redirection of k-vector of a freely moving
dilator.

CONCLUSIONS

The Hypergeometrical Universe Model provides alternative views on matter and forces by changing the
paradigm under which to describe events. The model provides an alternative Standard Model, Cosmology,
Cosmogenesys while maintaining compatibility with Relativity and Quantum Mechanics.
The Fundamental Dilator together with the LightSpeed Expanding Universe and the Quantum Lagrangian
Principle provides the basis for Quantum Mechanics.
New Cosmology provides simple explanation for Hubble Expansion, Stellar Candles, and Cosmic Microwave
Background. It also provides a new estimate for the age of the Universe (21.72 billion years old), Natural
Frequency of Gravitational Waves (37.02 KHz), a new estimate of the real velocity of light (ξʹc). The observed
velocity of light is c as usual.
Using the Quantum Lagrangian Principle to model dynamics naturally bring about the observed speed of light as
being the maximum speed in this Universe. It also explains the reason for increased inertial mass and the slowing
down of time with speed (increase twisting of local FS). The larger the speed (local FS twist), the smaller the effect
of subsequent interactions (accelerations) will be. The twin in a spacecraft would see its chemistry (aging) altered
from the external observer point of view because all the dynamics (interactions) would be creating smaller changes
at each de Broglie step. Smaller changes per de Broglie step means slower aging. Nuclear lifetimes [7] are also
affected by the local twisting. A more detailed analysis is outside the scope of this paper and will be presented
elsewhere.
The concept of the Fundamental Dilator brings about a view of a Stroboscopic Universe where interaction is
intermittent and where particle substructure is easily explained by the polymeric nature of dilator coherences. It also
brings about the possibility of thinking of matter in terms of metric deformations, thus capable of beating and
nonlinear hadronics processes. We proposed new experiments that might bring about Coherent Nuclear Fusion
along the lines of nonlinear optical interactions. Phase matching angle for coherent hadronic processes is tuned by
changing the relative interaction velocity, which is an angle or direction in the 4D spatial manifold.
The theory was applied to standard tests (Precession of Mercury Perihelion, Gravitational Lensing), was used to
explain the Stellar Candle paradox without the use of inflation, Hubble expansion without Dark Energy, Neutron
Decay without Electroweak Interaction, Particle Substructure without quark composition and Black Hole’s Double
Jets with the use of Gyrogravitation.

25
 The Fabric of Space Stress-Strain paradigm applied to the two cross-sections of the Universe (RXYZ and
XYZ) allowed for the derivation from first principles of natural laws (Gauss, Biot-Savart, Newton’s Gravitation)
and the derivation of a more general equation that applies to all forces.
This is a simple theory in terms of formalism, which provides new insights and testable predictions.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to express my eternal gratitude to my parents and family for the lifetime of friendship and support
they provided.

REFERENCES

1. Bertram Schwarzschild, “WMAP Spacecraft Maps the Entire Cosmic Microwave Sky With Unprecedented Precision.”
Physics Today. Vol. 56, No. 4 (April 2003): 21.
2. W Pauli, “Theory of Relativity”, 1958 London: Pergamon Press
3. L D Landau and E M Lifshitz, “The Classical Theory of Fields”, 1975 Oxford: Pergamon Press.
4. J.D. Jackson, “Classical Electrodynamics”, 1975-John Wiley & Sons).
5. P. Gerber, “Die räumliche und zeitliche Ausbreitung der Gravitation” (Space and temporary propagation of gravitation). Z.
Math. Phys. 43 (1898), 93–104.
6. P. Gerber, “Die Fortpflanzungsgeschwindigkeit der Gravitation” (The propagation-velocity of gravitation). Ann. Phys. 52
(1917), 415–444.
7. Joseph Lach “Hyperon Polarization and Magnetic Moments”, Fermilab-Conf-93/381

26
 Thermodynamics in 'Manifest Reality'
Alex Hankey
Meru Research Institute, Bucks, UK 1985

Abstract D'Espagnat's proof that the universe is not a 'strongly objective reality' demands that all physical
processes are reconsidered in that light. D'Espagnat suggests a 'Veiled Reality' as a suitable alternative. The most
economical way to achieve that is to demand that 'information production' at a quantum level creates the basis
for self-consistent perception of a world of macroscopic, 'manifest' entities, as opposed to self-existent objects.
Such a ‘manifest reality’ fulfils both Wheeler's attempt at an 'IT-from-BIT' programme, and Zeilinger's
suggestion that 'information is primary'.

INTRODUCTION

The context of 'information production at a quantum level' demands an integrated treatment of

thermodynamics with quantum theory. All statements about entropy then have to include contributions by
macroscopic quantum correlations. We suggest that, when these have been taken into account, four simple
statements result, forming new laws of thermodynamics.

1. Entropy changes in all closed systems are zero – the usual quantum law replacing the old second law,
because new contributions from macroscopic quantum correlations cancel out those from the usual
second law.

2. The entropy information theorem is realized as an equality: all information produced at the quantum
level to create and maintain the manifestation of macroscopic bodies is equal to the associated entropy
increases.

3. The overall quantum entropy of the universe is likewise constant.

4. During the inflationary process, the overall quantum entropy is constant, so that either the overall
quantum entropy of the universe is zero, or its mean entropy density is vanishingly small.

The fourth statement implies that we live in a sea of quantum coherence, the negative entropy density of
which is equal to the mean density of ordinary positive entropy. This sea of quantum coherence has many
observable consequences , each opening up a new area of scientific investigation previously thought to be
outside the domain of science, but for which considerable anecdotal evidence exists.

OVERVIEW: MANIFEST REALITY

In previous conference presentations, I have presented ‘Manifest Reality’ (1) as a way to resolve the
continuing problem of interpreting quantum theory. ‘Manifest reality’ offers a well-defined alternative to the
assumption that the macroscopic world is merely what sense perception suggests it to be – a purely objective
set of phenomena. In particular, it removes the straight-jacket imposed on quantum theory by the historical
unwillingness of scientists to consider that the macroscopic world is not what they have historically
assumed, and that some alternative should be considered. This can be identified as the main obstacle to
interpreting quantum theory, because quantum theory and atomic physics combine to deny measured values
of quantum variables continuing objective existence, while science has so far refused to countenance any
other possibility.
The need to ques tion the nature of reality, in particular the nature of perceived entities in the
macroscopic world, has now been forced on the world of science, however. The idea that atomic physics
suggests that the macroscopic world is not a ‘strongly objective reality’ has long been known, but science as
a whole has refused to consider it seriously. The French physicist, Bernard D’Espagnat, has written four
books on various aspects of the problem over a 30 year period, having first suggested it was the case in the
1960’s in his now classic, “The Conceptual Foundations of Quantum Mechanics”. In 2009, he was awarded
the Templeton Prize. The idea cannot be neglected. Indeed D’Espagnat suggests that the term ‘veiled reality’
should be applied to the microscopic world of atomic physics, since its nature is hidden, veiled by
macroscopic processes , and cognitive processes associated with sense perception.
In its attempt to treat the macroscopic world in accordance with the implications of atomic physics,
‘manifest reality’ suggests that the appearance of the macroscopic world can be self-consistently generated
by information produced at the atomic level. The world of sense perception is no longer the strongly-
objective reality of historical supposition, but a virtual reality, the appearance of which is generated by self-
consistent information production processes.
New though it may sound, this suggestion is not entirely foreign to the thinking of the physics
community. In considering the consequences of the proven phenomenon of quantum coherence at
macroscopic levels as demonstrated by quantum teleportation, Zeilinger has suggested that ‘information is
primary’ (2), while J.A. Wheeler, in his last years, strongly asserted that the appearance of apparently
objective entities can be generated from information within the context of quantum theory – his ‘IT from
BIT’ program (3). The new, information-based approach proposed in ‘manifest reality’ realizes both. It
constitutes a specific realization of the ‘IT from BIT’ program,
Completing the physics of ‘manifest reality’, requires showing how specific areas of classical physics
work in the new framework. This paper represents a step towards that goal. It extends a general approach to
mechanics suggested in a previous paper (4), and suggests a framework for treating thermodynamics.
On this basis, it resolves the entropy anomaly in the quantum theory of measurement, that entropy
decreases during measurement because information is generated (5). It suggests new statements that
constitute further laws of thermodynamics. These adjustments to mechanics and thermodynamics resulting
from the revised understanding of the macroscopic world, suggest that physical science implies a new and
very different metaphysics, particularly with regard to the second law of thermodynamics.
The manifest reality approach maintains the standard view that describing the perceived universe in
quantum terms requires two kinds of process, type 1, a discontinuous process, and type 2, a continuous
process. Of these, perceived change in the macroscopic world is brought about by type 1 discontinuous
processes which describe information production. The continuous, type 2, processes do not generate
information, and so do not produce ‘change’, although these include unobserved, free mechanical motion,
which counts as ‘change’ in the usual, mechanistic description of the universe.
The paper introduces two simple and basic ideas. First, despite information production occurring at the
quantum level to which thermodynamics is not necessarily applied, because all macroscopic entities are
defined by the information which originally made them manifest, and which is maintaining their
manifestation, thermodynamics is always the driving force behind all information production. The second is
an extension of the well known result that change in entropy Sqc of closed quantum systems is zero. It uses
the idea that manifest reality regards all systems as quantum systems: from the quantum perspective, entropy
changes in closed systems continue to be zero, even when the systems concerned include macroscopic bodies
made manifest by non-equilibrium thermodynamic processes within the closed system.
All the suggested new statements about thermodynamics, replacing and extending the second law follow
from these two ideas made possible by the ‘manifest reality’ concept.
 D’ESPAGNAT’S THEOREM

Having considered the problem of the reality of the macroscopic world over many years, D’Espagnat
presented increasingly sophisticated proofs of his theorem that atomic physics implies that it cannot be a
‘strongly objective reality’. In his book Veiled Reality, this depends complex properties of the intersection
of three different sets – i.e. applying the sentential calculus to limitations imposed on a system by three
different measurements, or definite statements about it.
Here I present a more intuitive ‘Quick and Dirty Proof’ depending only on the relationship between
strongly objective reality and reductionism, which science takes for granted. This relationship is summarized
by the statement that if all objects of sense perception have an existence that is independent of each other, so
that their variables assume values that can be independently measured, then this supposition must also apply
to all objects into which any one object can be decomposed. It is best illustrated by taking a piece of paper
and tearing it into two, and again tearing each piece into two, and so on.
The proof of D’Espagnat’s theorem then follows from the following reductio ad absurdum. Although the
statement seems obviously valid for initially visible pieces of paper, it is not true at the molecular level,
when a molecule is split by breaking an atomic bond: when an atomic bond between two atoms is split, the
two resulting components are correlated. This is because the energy gap that stabilizes atomic bonds is
created by correlations between the component electron states, and these correlations will survive of the
molecule into two. Because of the nature of quantum measurement, the two components into which the
system has been split cannot have an independent existence Q.E.D.
More generally, splitting any quantum bound state into component quanta will always result in correlated
states. In fact, tiny quantum correlations result even from tearing the first piece of paper and its subsequent
pieces, because the thermal phonons are distributed all over it, and create correlations between pieces into
which it is cut. Finally, the demonstration of the existence of macroscopic quantum correlations between
macroscopic entities by Zeilinger and others, clearly shows that the conditions for ‘strongly objective
reality’ to be valid are now known to be invalid even in the macroscopic world.
All such quantum properties violate the statement that the macroscopic world constitutes a ‘strongly
objective reality’. No reasonable person can now doubt that the traditional and historic assumption that the
world of sense perception consists of independently existing and objectively measurable macroscopic
objects i.e. that it constitutes a ‘strongly objective reality’ is false.
Since this assumption has imposed huge limitations on the historical ways that scientists have done
science, liberation from it promises to open new vistas to scientific thought in all directions. In the next
section, we explore new possibilities in thermodynamics that seem to follow from the proposal for a
‘manifest reality’, as a particular form of ‘veiled reality’.

THERMODYNAMICS IN MANIFEST REALITY

In the ‘Manifest Reality’ approach to describing macroscopic reality in terms of quantum theory, the overall
quantum entropy S of closed systems remains constant, even in the presence of macroscopic matter obeying
the second law, or when lack of thermodynamic equilibrium is driving entropy increasing processes at the
manifest, macroscopic level. This is because all such processes necessarily generate compensating increases
in quantum correlations between interacting components, which decrease the overall quantum entropy by an
equal amount.
The first aim of this paper is to suggest this counter-intuitive extension of the quantum result, and to
indicate the means by which it could be established. Its possibility arises simply because, in manifest reality,
microscopic quantum processes drive all changes in appearance at the macroscopic level, and macroscopic
entities cease to have any independent laws governing them.
On the basis of this result, the paper suggests four new statements about thermodynamics.

1. That when entropy due to quantum correlations is included, the second law can be replaced by a wider
and more expansive quantum law. Entropy changes in all closed systems can be divided into two parts:
 a. the entropy assigned to manifest macroscopic bodies, which always increases in accordance with the
old second law of thermodynamics, and b. the entropy due to quantum correlations between the
macroscopic bodies, which exactly cancels them out.

2. That this also constitutes a form of the information-entropy theorem realized as an equality: whenever
information is produced at the quantum level, the associated entropy change is equal and opposite; the
overall change in entropy + information is always zero.

3. To the extent that the universe as a whole may be considered a closed system, its overall entropy SU
must be constant, SU = constant.

4. That the overall entropy, or mean entropy density, of the universe is determined by the inflationary
process when most if not all the matter and energy are generated in the early universe, and are either zero
or approximately zero.

The proposed proof starts by considering the time evolution of manifest reality from the framework
adopted by Graham in his presentation of the Relative State Interpretation of quantum theory. However, in
‘manifest reality’, the splitting of the wave function into different universes does not occur. Instead, a choice
is made, as hypothesized by Heisenberg and adopted by Stapp. The choice generates the information that is
manifested as the definite macroscopic reality. There is nothing strange about this: choice and information
are well recognized to be equivalent: information is the basis for choice while choice generates information.
The two are just opposite sides of the same coin.
All such processes must be driven by lack of thermodynamic equilibrium on the macroscopic level i.e.
between a high potential ‘source’ and a low potential ‘sink’. Without such a thermodynamic driving
mechanism no information can be generated, and no process of change will occur. The question that arises
is: what measure of quantum correlations is generated when the system makes a choice? We analyze this
similarly to Graham.
Both source and sink as macroscopic objects are represented by quantum density matrices. Consider
what happens when the source emits a quantum that is absorbed by the sink. Such a process involves a
tremendous number of different possible alternatives. However, when the choice of alternative, or choice of
thermodynamically equivalent set of alternatives is made, the states of the emitter (source) and receiver
(sink) must agree with each other, in precisely the same way that Graham required agreement between
observing apparatus and observed.
This is the key observation: after the information has been generated i.e. choice has been made the two
sets of states, one in the high potential source and the other in the low potential sink must match each other.
It is easy to see that, in the same way that the states proposed by Graham evolve at constant entropy, the
thermodynamic states proposed here will also evolve at constant entropy. The difference is only that in the
Relative State interpretation, everything is treated on a mechanical basis, while here, thermodynamics is
included and sums have to be performed over the appropriate thermodynamically equivalent states.
The conclusion is simply that when systems out of equilibrium interact, their quantum nature guarantees
that they will emerge with the same overall entropy for the same reason that the entropy did not increase in
the relative state interpretation: the correlations between the ‘relative states’ guarantee constancy in entropy.
Once this fact is accepted all the other proposed results follow.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Many thanks to the Vigier chairman RL Amoroso, P Rowlands and S Jeffers for an inspiring
symposium.
 Nature of the Physical Observer
Drahcir S. Osoroma
Noetic Advanced Studies Institute, 608 Jean St, Oakland, CA 94610-1422 USA
Drahcir@noeticadvancedstudies.us

Abstract. The nature of the observer has long plagued physical science. Here we review the current status of
cognitive science in the context of a cosmology of mind in an Anthropic Multiverse. The concept of an élan vital
or life force has long been considered the elementary action principle driving the evolution of living-systems by
theologically minded scientists and individuals. Sufficiently extending Einstein’s original model of a Static
Universe, to a Holographic Anthropic Multiverse (HAM), provides a context for solving this centuries old
problem for introducing this type of teleological principle into Physics, Biology, Medicine and Psychology. This
means the contemporary framework of biological mechanism should no longer be considered the formal
philosophical basis for describing living systems and contemporary allopathic (scientific) medicine. The new
noetic action principle has far reaching implications for medicine and transpersonal psychology.

INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW NOETIC PARADIGM

We introduce a quantum-informational-unitary field noetic model of brain -consciousness-universe

interactions based on the holonomic neural networks of Karl Pribram, the holographic quantum theory of
David Bohm, the non-locality properties of the quantum theory and the unified field (tantamount to the élan
vital, prana, chi or spirit of God). We consider this model an extension of the interactive dualism of Sir John
Eccles. His ideas (stemming from Descartes) of an interconnection between brain and spirit by means of
quantum microsites (dendrons and psychons), has deeply influenced the development of our conception of
consciousness.
We propose a dynamic concept of consciousness, a new teleological action principle driving self-
organization, that generates a flux of the noetic field interconnecting quantum brain dynamics with the
unitary nature of the universe. This scale-invariant self-organizing flux is embedded in the holographic mode
of neuronal information can be optimized through practices of deep meditation, prayer, and others states of
higher consciousness underling the coherence of cerebral waves to improve health generally and totally
prevent conditions like influenza by blocking viral adhesion.
Brain mapping studies performed during the occurrence of these harmonic states have shown a spectral
array of brain waves highly synchronized and perfectly ordered like a unique harmonic wave, as if all
frequencies of all neurons from all cerebral centers played the same symphony. This highly coherent brain
state generates the non-local holographic informational cortical field of consciousness interconnecting the
brain and the holographic cosmos. Comprehending this holonomic quantum informational nature of brain-
mind-universe interconnectedness allows us to solve the old mind-matter Cartesian hard problem, unifying
science, philosophy, and spiritual traditions in a transdisciplinary, holistic, integrated paradigm.
The discovery of the interactive Noetic Theory represents a Copernican class discovery; one that comes
along only once in several hundred years. In sharing this occasion with you dear reader, it seems fitting to
enjoy an ancient verse by Lucretius:

“I am blazing a trail through pathless tracts of the Muses' Pierian realm, where no foot has ever trod
before. What joy it is to light upon virgin springs and drink their waters. What joy to pluck new flowers
and gather for my brow a glorious garland from fields whose blossoms were never yet wreathed by the
Muses round any head. This is my reward for teaching on these lofty topics, for struggling to loose men's
 minds from the tight knots of superstition and shedding on dark corners the bright beam of my song that
irradiates everything with the sparkle of the Muses” [1].

What would it take to make psychology a hard science like physics or chemistry? Hipparchus, a Greek
mathematician 2,000 years before Copernicus was first to make calculations revealing a heliocentric
cosmology in conflict with Aristotle’s principle of perfect circles or spheres. After some intellectual
struggling Hipparchus discarded his calculations as false because elliptical planetary orbits were considered
unphysical theologically. Hipparchus’ influence was so strong that his bias suppressed the truth for 2,000
years! A similar problem exists today. Scientists insist that consciousness is a product of brain only. Noetic
Science is in radical opposition to current thinking in six main fields of scientific endeavor: Psychology,
Philosophy, Biology, Physics, Cosmology and Computer science. Progress in medicine is driven by
advances in these disciplines. Progress in the evolution of human consciousness most often takes place in a
constant series of tiny steps; however on rare occasions like that of Galileo, Newton, Copernicus, or Pasteur
for example, a radical transforming event occurs. You dear readers are witness to such a historical moment.
The purpose of this chapter is to introduce the revolutionary concepts of noetic science precipitating a
revolution where mankind leaves the ‘modern Age’ enters the Age of Consciousness.
The current vogue – Biological Mechanism states that: ‘The laws of chemistry and physics are sufficient
to explain all life; no other principles are required’. Providing a physical basis for the action of the ‘life
force’ or élan vital would finally change this myopic naturalistic perspective. The empirical formalization of
such an action principle leads to a whole new class of consciousness based medical conditions and
associated ‘spirit’ or transpersonal based treatment modalities. When psychology is recast as a physical
science ‘Moral Psychology’ will also have a pragmatic basis because one will be able to experimentally
measure which types of behaviors or mental conditions promote life and health or disease and death.
This immense task is accomplished by first extending the standard model of cosmology from the current
Darwinian naturalistic (atheistic) ‘Bigbang’ theory to one that contains an inherent teleology or purpose.
Making this change creates a domino effect that runs through all the other standard models of science.
Evolution remains in the new model, not as a random Darwinian progression; but one considered to be
‘guided’ by the teleological action inherent in the Conscious Multiverse. Such a Noetic cosmology called the
Holographic Anthropic Multiverse (HAM) has now been developed in general form [2-4]. The associated
comprehensive theory of mind is now sufficiently mature; and is not only empirically testable, but also able
to rigorously define qualia 1 and begin categorizing the associated fundamental conscious elements in a
manner similar to that performed in developing the periodic table of the chemical elements in past centuries.
This will lead immediately to new ‘conscious technologies’ allowing dissolution of the 1st person 3rd person
barrier. Because of the teleology inherent in Noetic Cosmology, the HAM represents philosophically what is
called a form of Cartesian substance dualism / interactionism. This means that the brain is not of paramount
importance to consciousness; the brain is not the seat of awareness as cognitive psychologists currently
define it [5]. The brain plays only a secondary role with three main biological functions related to the
operation of the complex self-organized living system:
1. The brain couples awareness to temporal reality.
2. The brain acts as a transducer for processing sensory data and intentional action.
3. The brain represents a form of naturally occurring ‘conscious quantum computer’ that data
processes and operates the moment-to-moment homeostatic and metabolic functions of the body.
This important discovery has not been feasible earlier because the currently dominant model for
consciousness research (cognitive psychology) has rejected it by definition.

ALLOPATHIC MEDICINE – THE DEMISE OF VITALISM

Contemporary Western Medicine is comprised of Traditional and Alternative treatment forms.
Traditional scientific medicine is the orthodox style also known as Allopathic; a term derived from the
Greek allo – reversal and pathos – to suffer. Traditional medicine is characterized by four treatment modes:

1
Qualia – short for ‘quality of the feel’, the ‘what it feels like’ sensation of awareness.
1. Pharmaceutical drugs, 2. Surgery, 3. Radiation and 4. Psychotherapy, which sadly are all applied only
when a person’s life is threatened.
The development of organic chemistry began in the middle of the eighteenth century when alchemy
began to evolve into modern scientific chemistry. There were unexplained differences between substances in
minerals and those observed in living systems; compounds from living systems were difficult to isolate and
tended to decompose more readily than compounds from minerals. Swedish chemist Torbern Bergman [6]
was first to express this difference between organic and inorganic substances in 1770. Many chemists at that
time believed this difference was the result of a vital force which they believed precluded the ability to
prepare organic compounds in the laboratory. But in 1816 when French chemist Michel Chevreul discovered
that soap made from alkali and animal fat could be separated into glycerin and a number of pure organic
compounds he called fatty acids; Vitalism was dealt a severe blow. This was the first time organic
substances were converted into other substances without the influence of a vital force. About a decade later
in 1828 German chemist Friedrich Wöhler converted the inorganic salt ammonium cyanate into the organic
compound urea. By 1850 the scale had tipped heavily against Vitalism [6].
Not until the beginning of the twentieth century did standard scientific (allopathic) medicine become
totally dominant. Before that allopathic physicians prescribed harsh and distasteful cures based on mercury,
purgatives, emetics and blood letting which were not considered more effective than popular alternatives
such as phrenology, homeopathy, botanics, eclecticism or folk remedies. Allopathic theory was based on the
mechanical or material laws of physics and chemistry. The adherents of alternative medicine generally
believed that health was based on a vital force related to the soul or spirit. A combination of adherence to the
educational standards of state and local medical boards, the complete adoption of science (which history had
shown meant progress) and development of a strong professional identity by the class of allopathic
physicians led to the inevitable demise of Vitalism which became considered old fashioned by an
increasingly progressive science and technology based society [7]
Is it time for a rebirth of Energy Medicine? First to clear up any nomenclature conundrums, Although
there may be a loose association with contemporary discussions of Energy Medicine and Mind-body
Medicine; any of these modalities would be considered primitive in terms of the advances Noetic Medicine
will introduce. The standard models associated with the current state of medicine are 1. Darwinian
naturalism, 2.biological mechanism and 3. the cognitive brain model of psychology. To summarize briefly
this means: 1. evolution by natural selection, 2. the laws of physics and chemistry are sufficient to explain
life, and 3. the mind is state of brain processes. Obviously Noetic medicine would be considered a radical
heresy by these standards. Noetic medicine redefines the basis for living-systems based on a new cosmology
that is an advanced form of Einstein’s static universe model. This model includes what Bergson [8] and
others called the élan vital or vital force. Currently use of Energy Medicine and Mind-body Medicine uses
the vital force in only a superficial manner like the early history of electricity with only ‘amber and fur’ not
the highly advanced transistor based devices of modern technology.

STATUS OF COGNITIVE THEORY

The study of awareness has been recently classified as a ‘hard problem’; with the easy problems of
awareness being ones that are nearly impossible to research by scientists [5]. The nature of mind has been
called the oldest and most difficult problem facing human epistemology [9-11]. Wile people of faith have
always been complacent with theological doctrines stating that individuals have an immortal soul created by
God; it is only recently that a framework for posing the question of the nature of mind has reached sufficient
maturity that any real scientific progress has been able to be made [12]. Chalmers’ initial premise that
‘awareness is the fundamental principle from which to formulate a theory of mind’ [5] is a reasonable
assumption for studying consciousness; but he mistakenly goes on to ask: ‘what processes in the brain give
rise to awareness?’, which creates the very ‘hard problem’ he wants to solve because this manner of posing
the question represents a category error for philosophy of mind. While it is true that the brain is the most
complex structure known in the universe it is not the seat of awareness. If the mind is instead a whole
cosmology; then trying to save the problem in terms of the brain alone will be forever impossible.
Historically whenever there has been a ‘hard problem’ in science, it has turned out to be because the
underlying principles have been poorly understood. Although it has been postulated that the mind/body is a
naturally occurring form of conscious quantum computer; mind is more than brain or algorithm [13-15] and
it is impossible to formulate a correct or sufficient theory of awareness from the point of view of AI,
computer science or neurobiology alone. Mind, to be adequately described, must be represented by a
complete cosmology with mankind imbedded in it [2-4,12,13,16-18]. Currently about 93% of scientists
mistakenly believe the brain is sufficient to model the mind.

PHILOSOPHY OF MIND - VITALISM / TELEOLOGY

The noetic model of cosmology called The Continuous State Holographic Anthropic Multiverse (HAM)
requires reintroducing concepts like Vitalism and teleology that have been historically disdained by science.
Mechanistic models of the universe have allowed no place for these ‘philosophical constructs’ considered
non-scientific and non-physical even by their major proponents. In the HAM they finally become
physicalized and thus subject to falsification or study by empirical scientific methods. So in one sense we
cannot blame science, because by definition it only allows concepts that have been empirically tested even if
it is obvious to many that they exist.
Teleology is the philosophy based on the supposition that the universe has intelligent design and inherent
purpose beyond the mechanics of a Newtonian Big Bang universe driven acausally by a Darwinian type of
natural or random evolution. Evolution obviously exists, but it is not a random series of accidental events. It
is guided by a teleological quantum of action (God defined in the coldest scientific terms) inherent in the
higher dimensions of the HAM. In perennial philosophies, teleology represents a basic argument for the
existence of God, that the order and self-organization of the natural world are not accidental. If mind is
fundamental to existence, an ultimate designer or teleological principle exhibiting a quantum of action must
exist. Since God is unseen, he does not exist in our temporal locale but resides in a higher dimensional realm
that acts nonlocally on our three dimensional domain.
Modern teleologists like H. Driesch or H. Bergson proposed a principle of vitalism - the processes of life
result from a self-determining fundamental rule not explicable by currently observed physiochemical laws.
Bergson, proposed an élan vital or vital force [8] as the spontaneous energy of the evolutionary process and
defined mind as pure energy responsible for all organic evolution denying sciences claim to explain the
universe on purely mechanical principles. This vis vitae is shown to be physical when discussed in terms of
the noetic field [16-18].

CURRENT THEORIES OF MIND

Consciousness is not a brain state but a complex multi-factor cosmology. Often individual researchers
consider their component theory to be a complete fundamental model. The time has come when it is possible
to go beyond this "elephantness" consciousness to formulate a true comprehensive theory. The elephant
metaphor relates to six blind men trying to feel an elephant, each attempting to describe it: One thinks of the
tail as a rope, another the leg as a tree, the elephant’s trunk as a hose, the body as a wall, the tusks as swords
and the sixth thinks the ear is a large fan. Until now this has been a major problem for consciousness
researchers.

Figure 1. A) The Elephant of consciousness – see text. B) Another metaphor for current theories of mind illustrating
how they are integrated into one comprehensive model by noetic field theory. 1. AI and Computational models, 2.
Neural Networks, 3. Synaptic Tunneling, 4. Quantum Brain Dynamics, 5. Holonomic Brain Theory, 6. Orchestrated
Reduction (Orch-OR), 7. Dualist / Interactionist Mind-Body Theory, 8. New Physics, 9. Noetic Field Theory: The
cosmology for Quantization of Mind.
 A number of partial theories of merit at the forefront of consciousness research are outlined below and
then integrated into one comprehensive theory called Noetic Field Theory (NFT) representing The
Quantization of Mind in a Holographic Anthropic Multiverse (HAM). NFT is the first complete and
empirically testable theory of mind.

COMPUTATIONAL AND AI MODELS

The artificial Intelligence (AI) model states that the mind is merely a computer; and if the correct
algorithm was known it would be able to completely describe all the functions of human consciousness. This
view stretches from considering a thermostat as a conscious entity because it has two bi-stable states on one
hand to an advanced autonomous android on the other.
Current classical computers are much less complex than the human brain and do not have enough
degrees of freedom to handle consciousness. Furthermore they are pre-programmed and unable to change or
escape from this condition as a sentient being is [15,16] able to make choices based on spontaneous volition.

NEURAL NETWORKS AND CELLULAR AUTOMATA

The neural network model of mind states that the subjective process of awareness is a result of
computational information dynamics in various biophysical networks such as neural, quantum and sub-
cellular systems. Cognition is a problem of both processing and representation [19]. There is a wide
spectrum of belief among researchers regarding the nature of mental data processing in networks. Some
think the linear electrical pulses along neurons are sufficient. Others believe quantum processing with
nonlocal effects is required [20,21]. Or is it nonlinear, parallel processing or a more complex form of
distributed processing throughout the whole neural network as in the holonomic model of Pribram [22]? A
similar conundrum occurs among researchers of the neural model regarding representation. This is called the
problem of qualia - the nature and origin of qualitative subjective experience. Do qualia emerge into a mind
from the neural substrate? How does thought bind to the conscious system? This is called the binding
problem. These questions have been called the hard problem of consciousness [5]. For example, a 6D
hypercube with 64 nodes and 6 connections per node representing connectivity for computation in a neural
net or cellular automata. This is a form of computer modeling used to study the possible neural network
structure of the brain [23].

SYNAPTIC TUNNELING
The linear action potential along a nerve fiber is electrical; and is converted to nonlinear chemical
transmis sion at the synapse (See Fig. 4) which are ‘boutons’ at the end of nerve fibers that release various
neurotransmitters. There is always a low level continuous release of neurotransmitter acting as the baseline
of activity. Quantum tunneling is the charge transport of electrons through an otherwise impenetrable barrier
or insulator at the synapse. Acts of volition or other neurosensory inputs are believed to be the phase
regulators that trigger, through quantum tunneling, the release of neurotransmitter vesicles which is called
exocytosis at the synaptic grid [24,25] The most a neural impulse can evoke is a single exocytosis, probably
because of the paracrystaline nature of the material the vesicles are imbedded in. Exocytosis is the most
fundamental action of the cerebral cortex; and is an all-or-nothing response each of which results in a brief
excitatory postsynaptic depolarization [24].
The trigger model itself is still incomplete because it has only been developed at the classical level of the
electron transmission. What is still needed is a description of the coherent process that couples a mental
event by quantum probability selection to the actual biochemistry associated with action. At the synapse and
synaptic grid neurotransmitter vesicles are released by quantum tunneling of electron transmission. The
tunneling mechanism is believed to be the trigger action of intentional mental activity or the site of the
mind-body connection [24].
 6

QUANTUM BRAIN DYNAMICS

Quantum Field Theory has several branches, Quantum Electro Dynamics (QED) for electromagnetic
interactions, and Quantum Chromo Dynamics (QCD) for strong interactions. Quantum Brain Dynamics
(QBD) is a quantum field theory describing biological systems and the fundamental mechanics of the brain
[26]. QBD is mediated by an exchange field called the corticon [26], a quantum of the water rotational field
which interacts with electric dipole oscillations along neural proteins. When synchronization of the water
corticon and electromagnetic field occurs, nonlocal coherence is manifest giving rise to long-range order and
collective phenomena. Nonlocal coherence provides a much stronger correlation than a classical collective
mode could describe.
QBD of the water rotational field and interacting electromagnetic field although providing an excellent
model of neuromolecular computation is not sufficient to describe consciousness because free will or
intentionality is still left out of the picture and the founding fathers of quantum mechanics said it was not
capable of describing biological systems. The Schrödinger equation describes the evolution of a particle on a
manifold; so just because QBD describes action on a brain manifold it is not a sufficient extension of the
theory. For this we need an extension not only of the orthodox Copenhagen interpretation but also are
required to go beyond the quantum ontology of Bohm into a higher dimensional extension of Cramer’s
theory [27,28]. Bohm described the quantum potential as a nonlocal pilot wave effecting the probability
matrix of the Schrödinger equation.
As we will show Noetic Field Theory: The Quantization of Mind completes Bohm's work by introducing
a noetic effect [29]. Neurocomputing models of the brain are linear closed systems; Once a computer is
programmed there are no remaining degrees of freedom for rational input.
In summary water has been theorized to play two important roles in consciousness: 1. to provide a
storage buffer to amplify or attenuate the corticon field, and 2. to allow switching between sensory
comp utation and intentionality. Although the role of ordered water in the dynamics of consciousness
remains a qualitative model at this point in time; a growing body of literature from both experimental and
theoretical areas are converging to suggest an important role of water in the quantum physics and molecular
biology consciousness.

PRIBRAM’S HOLONOMIC BRAIN THEORY

The holonomic brain theory relying heavily on the Fourier relation and the holographic application of
Fourier’s theorem by Ga bor in 1946; has been expanded by Pribram [30] to include a phase space of
interaction in the brain; called the holoscape [22]. Integration of holonomic theory and the Bose-Einst6n
model provide a substrate for explaining recent work on quantum information processing represented as
conformational changes of alpha and. beta tubulin dimers in microtubule protein structure [31] providing a
stage for the first application of these concepts to tangible brain material However the brain, a Fermi
apparatus with Einstein-Bose interactions; is viewed here as only one of three key aspects of consciousness.
Integral to Pribram’s holonomic brain theory is the concept of the holoscape, a neuronal manifold which
embodies the polarization occurring in dendritic networks [22]. The holoscape is the active manifold of
entrained neural processing that couples phenomenal information to the phase space of what Pribram calls
the Heisenberg matrix which includes the raster of consciousness (TV screen) below it. Gabor and Fourier
relationships describe the activity of information processed in the neural ensembles as a raster of mental
functioning.
Freeman [32] relates that chaotic dynamics can create information in the Shannon-Weaver sense of
information. This is the relationship with the Gabor logon utilized by Pribram [22] in the holoscape. Pribram
has skillfully integrated his holographic model with quantum activity associated with QBD in what might be
thought of as a dualistic picture of consciousness. The question remains, does consciousness originate from
qualia at the level of holoscape dendritic microprocess or is it underpinned by the quantum domain? There
has been general. skepticism of quantum effects having any relevance to such a hot entropic matrix as the
brain. However there is a distinct difference in coherence at these levels. In the quantum realm there is
essentially thermodynamic equilibrium. Much could be written about the holoscape, where the major
philosophical issues are information coding and processing, the binding problem.
 7

Figure 2. Alpha and Beta configurations (Two quantum states) of tubulin protein dimers provide a bit state model for
information processing at the quantum level in cell structures.

Segment of a microtubule composed of tubulin rings. Shading represents conformational ordering as data
I/O patterns in active quantum states as a basis for brain level dynamics of consciousness. A tubulin dimer is
about 8 nanometers long. The quantum dipole shifts or conformational shape changes occur with transitions
of 10 −9 − 10 −11 seconds.

ORCHESTRATED REDUCTION (ORCH-OR) MODEL

The Hameroff & Penrose theory states that quantum events at the microtubule (MT) (Figure 6) and other
nanoscale objects are sufficient to process the necessary amount of information to satisfy the needs for
consciousness. The conformational states of the tubulin dimer are coupled to Van der Wall dipole moments.
Each conformational state could represent a bit for information exchange [33].
There are several types of microtubules in the cytoskeleton that seem to have complementary features
such as acidic and basic tubulin subunits. The tubulin polypeptide dimer has been found to have seven alpha
and over ten beta species. Other differences include dynamic or stable, more or less curly, and variance in
turnover rate. MT's are involved in a wide variety of cellular functions. They form the spindles during
mitosis and meiosis, the cytoskeleton plays a major role in cell morphology, MT's aid transport, and
maintain cell surface sites like receptor caps [34-36].
Microtubules don't handle all the information processing of mental states. There is an integrated system
of data processing that includes DNA, cell topology, microtubules, cAMP, and water [37], not only in the
brain, but also coupling the noetic field throughout the entire body modulated by muscle dynamics, thought,
and other psychosphere processes [17,18]. One problem with the Orch-OR model is that it attempts to utilize
a conservative model of gravitation asking: ‘what is the minimum gravitational mass required to collapse the
wave function’ which Orch-OR considers the process of mental action. This limits conscious systems to
creatures only as small as a planaria; but we know from noetic theory that even the prion responsible for
mad cow disease is a conscious system albeit a mechanical one [29,38,39].

DUALIST / INTERACTIONIST THEORY OF MIND-BODY

Over 400 years ago Rene Descartes claimed to receive a revelation from God that consciousness was
divided into mind stuff - res cogitans and body stuff - res extensa [40]. This dualism of mind and body has
endured until today because intuition dictates self as separate from world and until now there has never been
a comprehensive mind/body theory. The nature of rationality or free will, as opposed to Newtonian
determinism evidenced in a computer program or robot suggests that the basic theory of quantum mechanics
also is not equipped to describe consciousness. The violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics and entropy
flow by living systems , and the smoothness of our perception of reality versus the discreetness or
discontinuity of its origins at the microscopic brain level all show the inadequacy of our current thinking on
the nature of cognition. Dualism states that although the mind has an independent eternal existence from the
temporal body, it acts in concert with it [41]. Traditionally considered beyond physics because by definition
only measurable quantities are deemed to exist; the dualistic view has funneled most scientists into the
erroneous belief that brain equals mind. Since the brain is a physical object, scientists have believed this is
 8

the only basis for developing a physical theory of mind.

The complaint against the current thinking of Cognitive Psychologists regards the limits of inquiry
bounded by its myopic metaphysical foundation of considering the brain as equal to mind. Science fits the
basic definition of a theology by its rigid adherence to its principles. This heresy is not a call for science to
embrace an a priori philosophy. Since Galileo the profound value of empiricism has been well learned. But
the finite limitations surrounding the measurement problem in quantum theory and the need for a more
advanced approach strongly suggests that we have come full circle to the time for mandating another
evolutionary step to improve:

• The ability to pose foundational and empirical questions, and

• Data gathering and evaluation techniques that accept input in ontological terms , allow subjectively
or both.

There may be no alternative to integrating a noetic based science for progress to occur.
The Perennial Philosophy, attributed to Kant and others, states:

1. Deity exists
2. Is knowable
3. Provides a path to be found [42].

Benefits to utilizing the perennial philosophy include, insight into the nature of absolute truth [43], which
promises a more efficient compass for reality testing; and insight into the utility of subjectivity by
developing an acceptable methodology for instituting the radical empiricism of James [44].
Aspects of the following premises are based on noetic insight2 using elements of the Cartesian modality
(institution and verification by revelation or meditative insight), and presented axiomatically as a bold call
for testing this hypothesis. It must be stressed that utilizing the 'Cartesian modality' does not interfere with
the pragmatism of the empirical method. It is a time saver; if the correct model is 'divined' it may save
hundreds of years in finding it, but it must then still be experimentally verified. Descartes distinction
between res extensa and res cogitans has not been tested. If this turns out to be the correct model as is
presented here; is it any wonder little progress has been made - if no one has been looking where the answer
lies.

BEYOND THE BRAIN - ELEMENTAL INTELLIGENCE

While the brain services the temporal aspects of our Earthly existence; current thinking has ignored the
eternal aspects of mind and body. Elemental Intelligence is the fundamental eternal condition of
individuality and exists outside of time and the bounds of the phenomenological reality we observe in our
3D world view. This bound, although currently an ineffable domain not yet having an empirical foundation
waits for vacuum quantization and a deeper understanding of nonlocality to open the avenue to a more
empirical explanation, and is currently only known to exist by noetic insight. Simply stated if individual
intelligence has no domain, i.e. is not bounded in some manner; it cannot exist with any connotation of
individuality. Apparently there is as much to us behind the curtain of reality as we see in front of us. So at
this time only transcendent or philosophical arguments can be given for Elemental Intelligence as follows:
Firstly individuality must be separated from ‘The One’ at some level for absolute unity is again
nothingness, and nothing has no boundaries and cannot exist by its very definition. For even the demarcation
of nothing as such demands its qualification by something extant which gives it existence. This idea of
nothingness is not meant also as in the abstract sense of redness for example. For though redness is not
assigned "thingness", it still has existence in sentient apprehension and is therefore not nothing. This is the

2
Noetic Insight: Plato said Noetic Insight was the highest form of knowing (epistemology) because it was transcendent – beyond ones
intelligence and knowledge.
 9

abstract content of consciousness often deemed immaterial. However, according to the tenets of Noetic Field
Theory [17,18] thought is deemed a physically real unitary noetic field that is encoded with information;
thus a typical case of abstractness in this sense is now relegated to tangibility.
Secondly without some form of separation from absolute unity there can be no self identity. Without this
identity or boundary it would disappear into the ‘one’ or nothing as stated. Absolute unity is nothingness,
cannot exist and cannot be comprehended. Further this complement of elemental intelligence is fixed
nonlocally and promotes the separateness mandatory for individuality to exist.

CONSCIOUSNESS IS A UNIVERSAL COSMOLOGICAL PRINCIPLE

The second compliment of consciousness is a cosmo logical principle that fills and orders the immensity
of space. It could be said to be equivalent to the life principle, élan vital, chi, prana, or Holy Spirit. In
contrast to elemental intelligence above this aspect is not fixed but represents flux and promotes the unity of
mind and body. This is the root of the mind - brain problem – cognitive brain science versus Cartesian
dualism. We are complementary aspects of both unity and separation so monism by itself cannot be an
absolute.
The cosmological aspect of consciousness exists in all matter and is itself a pure material with the
properties of light. However as ordinary photons originate in atomic geometries coupled with properties
terminating in space, Photons of mind (p sychons as termed by Eccles) originate in complex higher
dimensional geometries. Noeons is the term given to the unitary field in Noetic Field Theory. They are
confined to the spacetime backcloth like quarks. This is why they haven't been measurable by standard
methods of Physics and why an extension of QT is required.
Consciousness pervades atoms, is the organizing power deeper than gravitation that controls the
universe, causes gravitation, and the flux of which gives life. Plant life does not appear to make direct use of
the component of elemental intelligence, only the cosmological ordering principle and the ‘body state’ of
matter. Sentience is caused by the autopoietic (self-organized) integration of elemental (eternal) and
cosmological (spiritual) intelligence. This basic holistic framework incorporates ‘the implicate and explicate
order’ described by Bohm.

ORIGIN OF COMPLEXITY IN BIOLOGICAL SYSTEMS:

A NEW MODEL FOR THE ORIGIN OF LIFE
Generally unicellular prokaryotes are considered the most fundamental form of living system. Many
researchers include viruses since they commandeer cellular machinery in their replication; while others
insist viruses are merely complex infective proteins. New biological principles are introduced suggesting
that even the prion, the infectious protein responsible for transmissible spongiform encephalopathies,
qualifies as the most fundamental form of life; and remains in general concordance with the six-point
definition of living systems put forth by Humberto Maturana and his colleagues in their original
characterization of living organisms as a class of complex self-organized autopoietic systems [45].
“What is the necessary and sufficient organization for a given system to be a living unity?” [45].
Maturana and his collaborators posed this question in their effort to formalize the general definition of a
living system. They further stated that all other functions are secondary to the task of establishing and
maintaining this unitary organization; defining this process as autopoiesis [45]. For review, the description
of an autopoietic living system is as follows: Autopoiesis from the Greek ‘self-production’ is a
fundamental expression of the basic complementarity of structure and phenomenology [46-48]. An
autopoietic system is self-organized, complex, open, dissipative, self-referential, auto-catalytic,
hierarchical, far from equilibrium and autonomous. A system is autopoietic when its primary function is
self-renewal through self-referential activity. This contrasts an allopoietic system like a robot deriving
 10

function from an external source. Stated another way autopoiesis is a network of production components
participating recursively as a globally stable structure operationally separable from the background
[45,46].
These properties operate in an ascending hierarchy:

• An autopoietic system is an open non-equilibrium system. If closed in equilibrium all processes die
down.
• The processes are cyclical.
• As a complex self-organized system, operations occur within multi-levels where higher levels
contain all lower levels.
• Function – the primary function of the system is autopoiesis as defined above [45].

SUMMARY OF MATURAMA’S SIX-POINT KEY

FOR THE DETERMINATION OF LIFE

1. Does the entity have identifiable boundaries?

2. Does the entity have unique constitutive elements?
3. Is the entity a mechanistic system possessing properties satisfying certain relations for its
interactions and transformations?
4. Do the components constituting the boundaries of the entity act through preferential relations and
interactions between the components?
5. Are the components constituting the boundaries of the entity produced by interactions of the
components either by transformation of previously produced components, or by transformations
and/or coupling of non-component elements that enter the entity through its boundaries.
6. If all the other components of the entity are produced by the interaction of the components as in 5,
the entity is an autopoietic entity in the space in which it exists [46].
7.

NON-AUTOPOIETIC ENTITIES THAT SEEM

TO SATISFY MATURANA’S CONDITIONS

• Automata - Superficially automata [49] seem to obey Maturana’s six points for autopoiesis,
especially in terms of self-reproduction and autonomy; but they are readily disqualified for two
salient reasons: Automata are generally nonphysical and cannot naturally escape or exist outside of
the computer system they are programmed in.
• Crystals - Crystalline structures conform to many of Maturana’s six key requirements. The
symmetry of the unit cell contains the geometric framework of the whole periodic structure, which
is repeated in translations of the unit cell. So although a crystal has open self-organized boundary
conditions, appears to be recursive and can reproduce; a crystals main failing is that it remains
mainly a chemical reaction because its ‘unique constitutive elements’ can only be reproduced and
remain structure preserving under precise conditions of chemical reactivity.
• Ribosomes - Although partially comprised of components produced by the ribosome, as entities
they are produced by processes beyond those comprising their operation and their function is not
completely self-referential [1]. Ribosomes have high level metabolic properties but they are
organelles not unique unities.
 11

• Belousov-Zhabotinsky Reaction - A key aspect of a self-organized autopoietic system is its

globally stable structure over an extended time. These are called dissipative structures because they
maintain a continuous production of entropy, which is then continually dissipated. The best known
dissipative structure is the Belousov-Zhabotinsky Reaction produced by the oxidation of malonic
acid by bromate where rotating concentric or spiral waves create interference patterns oscillating
with a periodicity maintaining itself for many hours [46,50]. Although self-organized with
environmental interplay, can this be more than a recursive chemical reaction?

Jantsch and Maturana both state that dissipative chemical reactions like the Belousov-Zhabotinsky
reaction and the glycolytic cycle qualify as primitive autopoietic systems [45,46]. Should these or any of the
entities in section 17 above be accepted as living systems? Maturana’s six-point key is not experimental; but
a set of logical premises, and in that sense arbitrary philosophical deduction. Even if these systems are
considered autopoietic by the claim of definition, the thesis developed here is to not accept these types of
entities as living-systems but to make a case for requiring additional physical principles added to Maturana’s
key to complete the requirements for properly defining a unique class of autopoietic systems qualifying as
true living-systems. Our conclusion is that Maturana’s autopoiesis at best only defines the mechanistic
components of self-organization.

MECHANISM IN BIOLOGY AS A SEMI-CLASSICAL LIMIT

Autopoietic systems as defined by Maturana are a special class of mechanistic system. This is a
challenging philosophical issue. It is generally considered an open question whether all biological process
can be described completely in terms of the ‘mechanisms’ of physics and chemistry. In the philosophy of
biology mechanism is defined as the view that every event described as a biological event is the same as
those exemplified in non-biological physical chemistry [51,52]. Beckner in a discussion of mechanism
states:

It is plausible to suppose that biology contains terms that could not be defined by reference to physics
and chemistry, particularly if we count psychological phenomena as special cases of the biological, but
perhaps even if we do not. Biological theory takes account of the circumstances of an event’s occurrence
in a way that the physical sciences do not. For example, it is a biological fact that lions hunt zebras. The
biological mechanist ought to insist merely that everything that happens in a given case of zebra hunting
is identical with a sequence of physicochemical events, not that the concept of hunting can be defined in
physicochemical terms. It may be the case that hunting can be defined only in intentional language [52].

This has left the final sense of reduction for the standard model of biology an open question; and until
recently this is where conceptual development had to remain. The philosophy of biological mechanism
reviewed here is akin to philosophical naturalism that states that ‘the natural world represents the whole of
reality without requiring any additional teleological parameters’. This suggests that the current limits of
scientific pragmatism provide sufficient explanation for all universal phenomena. Arguments on mechanism
and naturalism have probably not been quite beaten to death but let it suffice here to postulate that additional
scientific laws are yet to be discovered because ‘lion hunting’ as intentional action is not describable by the
laws of physics and chemistry.
One cannot in good conscience label the Be lousov-Zhabotinsky reaction [46,50] as a living system any
more than one can logically allocate consciousness with reasonable definition to the bi-level state of a
thermostat as is often done in Artificial Intelligence (AI) circles. The sophistication of self-organization in
autopoietic systems cannot be discounted. While this inherent complex order provides a highly efficient
substrate for living systems to be built on, like a little finger applied to the helm of a megaton ship,
mechanism alone provides an insufficient basis for describing living systems. A teleological principle,
inherent in a conscious universe [2-4], acting in concert with mechanism is required for life; providing
components of what cosmologists have recently called the holographic cosmological principle.
 12

NEW COSMOLOGY LEADS TO REDEFINITION OF THE OBSERVER

Until the advent of the Noetic cosmology [2-4] physical cosmologists generally believed that the
universe could not be ordered enough to have a symmetric spacetime with an inherent periodicity where
events are structured such that the future-past prepares the ‘nows’ evolution into the future [2-4]. These
spacetimes were considered non-physical and appeared to violate the causal principles of quantum theory
[53]. The semi-classical limit in physics refers to the boundary between classical mechanics and quantum
mechanics where an incomplete understanding of the dynamics of a system allows only statistical
predictions to be made on the behavior of a system rather than a precise determination [54]. Consciousness
is able to violate quantum causality. Quantum mechanics is known to be both incomplete and not able to
describe biological systems; therefore how can biological mechanism offer a complete framework for living-
systems!
Self-organization produces freedom and the degree of autonomy a system achieves in relation to its
environment provides one way to loosely define consciousness. Jantsch says “this autonomy appears as an
expression of the fundamental interdependence of structure and function which is one of the most profound
laws of dissipative self-organization” [46]. Drãgãnescu further adds “If a virus is alive it has a
phenomenological subconscious, if not, it cannot have any form of consciousness, because there is no
structural organization with sufficient complexity to process structural information significantly”[48]. This
is similar to Maturana’s idea that the autonomy obtained by autopoiesis relegates a primitive form of
consciousness, even to chemical dissipative structures, which he calls a cognitive domain in relation to the
systems environment [47]. This is where we will draw a line in the sand giving a definitive description of the
term cognitive domain that goes beyond mechanism.
Consciousness, and not necessarily that with self-awareness, requires a sufficient number of degrees of
freedom beyond those of an allopoietic mechanistic automaton. While one might reluctantly concede that the
Belousov-Zhabotinsky reaction [46,50] is autopoietic by Maturana’s original definition [45]; one cannot
proscribe a cognitive domain with the structural-phenomenology of intentional awareness to such an
autocatalytic pattern-producing chemical reaction. How is this ultimately different than programmed
automata? We believe that embracing biological mechanism leads one into the trap of ‘conscious
thermostats’. The autocatalytic chemistry of the Belousov-Zhabotinsky reaction has a cyclical self-
organization that keeps the cycle in motion recursively by a chaotic component in the symmetry of the
boundary conditions leading generally to a global stabilization of the reaction until a chance occurrence of
an ordered ground state occurs. One could argue the reaction is the result of the inherent activity in the
reactions so-called cognitive domain because it includes a self-referential multilevel hierarchy that maintains
the cycle of the reactions self-production. One could carry this argument further to lend correspondence with
Prigogine’s symmetry breaking factors in the thermodynamics of evolution [55,56]. But the driving force
described by these arguments is not an intrinsic intentional awareness; it is more like the incongruent
geometric symmetries driving the chain of unstable intermediaries in a radioactive decay series– an
automatic unraveling continues as long as a stable ground state with boundary conditions that preserve the
unity of the intermediate atom cannot be reached.

LIVING-SYSTEMS AND THE PHYSICAL OBSERVER

Recall Jantsch’s claim that the Beluzov-Zhabotinski reaction, as a result of its classification as an
autopoietic system by Maturana’s definition [47], has rudimentary consciousness [46,57]. For decades
researchers have believed that consciousness is merely a computer program, “a special software in the
hardware of the brain or just a matter of information processing” [58]. This isn’t seem acceptable; and is
more a reflection of the current state of bias in the field of consciousness studies where the dominant
cognitive model is aligned with the standard model of biology. This philosophy of biological mechanism
provides only half the story of mind. Our aim is to show that an addition to and clarification of Maturana’s
key allows classification of the prion [38,39] as the fundamental living system.
 13

The cognitive domain [47] of a prion3 does not create and dissipate entropy in its own right like higher
life forms . The prion is not even at the same level as the virus where this critical factor of far from
equilibrium complex processing is satisfied by proxy when the virus protein commanders the existing
cellular machinery of the host. The prion, as the zeroth case of a living system, does not ‘live’ at the viral
level. The factor that separates the prion from the non-autopoietic entities listed in section 17 (which utilize
only the mechanistic half of the complementarity required for a complex self-organized living system) is the
prions utilization of the coherent energy of the élan vital in its propagation. This is a prediction of the noetic
theory we intend to demonstrate empirically [29].

IS THERE MORE TO BIOLOGY THAN MECHANISM?

Returning to the analysis of the fundamental philosophy of biology we summa rize Brillouin’s [59]
categorization of the issues of mechanism versus teleology into three general positions:

• Knowledge of physics and chemistry is essentially complete and life could be explained without
introduction of any additional life principle.
• Considerable physics and chemistry is known, but not everything. A new law or principle needs to
be discovered to explain life; but this concept will not be outside the laws of physics and chemistry
already known. Whether or not this is considered a life principle or not is irrelevant.
• A life principle is mandatory for an understanding of life because living systems are much different
and more complex than inert matter. The laws of thermodynamics describe only inert and dead
matter to which life is an exception requiring a new principle to explain.

Theories of mind abound with great disparity between them [48]. It could be said to be like the early
days of electromagnetism when ‘for every 100 theorists there were 101 theories’. Simply stated, and
reducing from the top down, mind theory can be generally categorized as follows:

A. Classical Reductionism – Newtonian mechanics deemed sufficient to describe mental activity

• Neural action – Consciousness can be completely explained by brain processes
• Information processing in Neural Networks / Cellular Automata / Physics and Chemistry
B. Heisenberg Cut – Additional degrees of freedom, possibility of nonlinear & nonlocal interactions
• Quantum computation in brain microstructures like synapses, microtubules or ordered water
• Copenhagen phenomenology – collapse of wave function essential for mental activity
C. Cartesian Cut – requires additional ‘life’ and/or physical principles beyond mechanistic theory
• Dualism / Interactionism – ontological extension of quantum theory, collapse not required for
evolution
• Monism – all is mind, consciousness is ineffable

The first four types above fall under the domain called the philosophy of biological mechanism. Theories
in the Classical and Heisenberg arenas have defined consciousness as a hard problem too difficult to
research [60]. This provides significant motivation to explore below the Cartesian divide where additional
physical laws are anticipated. What evidence exists to justify such a search?
Continuing with the premise that quantum theory is incomplete, Schrödinger in relating the 2nd law of
thermodynamics and life says: “We cannot expect that the ‘laws of physics’ derived from it to suffice
straightway to explain the behavior of living matter…We must be prepared to find a new type of physical
law prevailing in it. Or are we to term it a non-physical, not to say a super-physical law [61]?”
But what can this new physical law be?

3
The prion propagates through conformational changes in the geometry of its protein structure [29,38,39].
 14

COMPLEX SYSTEMS THEORY: A NEW MODEL FOR THE ORIGIN OF LIFE

It appears unanimous that unicellular prokaryotes are considered the most fundamental form of living
system with the inclusion of viruses controversial. By defining awareness as a fundamental physical quantity
like the concept of charge in electrodynamics [29,63-66], it is possible to show how the prion recapitulates,
in the sense of its organization, the propagation of its infective state by maintaining the ‘charged’ form of its
conformation by merely being coupled to the Noetic Field. Prion propagation therefore represents the most
fundamental form of biological mechanism and provides the root of its redefinition. Although slightly more
complex, the self-organization pertinent to viral replication also falls under this new definition of biological
mechanism. Something else happens at the level of bacteria or perhaps any motive unicellular life form. The
cognitive domain has sufficient capacity for activity based on an interactive computational model [67]; the
evolution of the content (qualia) is driven by more than the mere presence of teleology as in the case of the
prion or virus, i.e. more degrees of freedom are available.
The continuous state of this new action principle, as already suggested, is a ‘force for coherence’ like the
well-known radiation pressure in the QED of light propagation. This symmetry enhancing force acts not
only on the topological states of prion conformation by constructive interference as the base state of
biological mechanism, but also by higher order conditions of self-organization. The structural-
phenomenology of the new noetic action principle [2-4] is a complementarity of mechanism and the noetic
field, together forming a teleology that is the general driving principle governing all aspects of complex self-
organized living systems [17,18]. Applying the concept of a unit cell from the nomenclature of crystal
structure to this fundamental teleology in the topology of spacetime, forms the scale-invariant hierarchical
basis of living-systems from the microscopic origins of mechanism to macroscopic intentional systems. The
complementarity of mechanism and teleology is a structural-phenomenology that is the primary
cosmological principle of the conscious universe; the fundamental least unit of which is defined as
awareness [29].
Defining awareness as a fundamental principle like charge in Electromagnetic Theory [57,60,62]
provides two paths to formulate a theory of life and consciousness. 1. The currently popular cognitive
avenue poses the question ‘what processes in the brain give rise to awareness?’ Unfortunately this creates a
hard problem, which at present is deemed imp ossible to study empirically [57,60] - an investigative dead
end! Charge has been considered fundamental physically and indivisible; but this definition appears to hold
only to the semi -classical limit. Physicists are finding out that the so-called unit of elementary charge arises
from a deeper wormhole structure in the higher dimensional topology of spacetime [34]. This is also true in
defining the fundamental unit of awareness. Charge, or in this case awareness, does not arise as a brain
process. 2. Only looking beyond the brain leads to a model of awareness (consciousness) that is both
definable and empirically testable. In brief, the fundamental basis for the least unit of awareness has three
complementary components [62-66]:

• Elemental Intelligence – A non-local atemporal HD domain or set of boundary conditions co-

eternal with God that define an individual entity.
• Noetic Ordering Principle – A new action principle synonymous with aspects of the unified field
and mediated by an exchange particle called the noeon that is synonymous with spirit or an élan
vital.
• Local Fermi and Bose brain/body States – Classical, semi-classical and quantum modes associated
with neural activity and other aspects of simpler autopoietic or complex self-organized living
systems.

Remaining problems center around the fundamental nature of space; suffice it to say that Einstein’s
superceding of Newton’s 3D absolute space with a 3(4)D relativistic space was a significant milestone, but
not a final answer. The triune complementarity above provides a sufficient structural-phenomenology of the
11(12) noetic space to define the psychosphere of an individuals mind and body.
 15

ACTION OF THE UNIFIED NOETIC FIELD

Fröhlich [68] proposed a new energy that produces coherent long-range order in biological systems.
Some authors have suggested this coherence is a type of Bose condensate. Einstein and Hagelin [69] further
postulate this coherent principle arises from the unified field, which is also proposed here by Noetic Field
Theory. The action of the unified field is the basis for a life principle governing the evolution of complex
self-organized living systems.
We will show generally how the continuous transformation of the topology of the 12D superspace of the
noetic least unit introduces by periodic holophote action evanescence of a life force from the HD energy
covering of each moment of the present [2-4,29,57,60,62]. First we illustrate one of a number of possible
models of how at the semi-classical limit from the stochastic background of the vacuum ze ro-point field, this
energy of the élan vital is harmonically injected into every point and atom in spacetime by a mechanism like
a ‘chaotic gun’ [70,71].

PHYSICAL SELF-ORGANIZED BASIS OF QUALIA

Qualia, plural of quale, is ‘the subjective quality of experience; a qualitative feel associated with an
experience’ [72,73]. The physical HAM cosmology of élan vital leads to a rigorous model for representing
qualia [74,75] allowing immediate application on the mind-side to psychology and on the body-side to
medicine. In ‘What’s it like to be a bat?’ Nagel [73] states that current reductionist attempts fail by filtering
out any basis for consciousness; becoming meaningless since they are logically compatible with its absence.
He assumes if an organism has conscious experience, “there is something it is like to be that organism”. This
is the subjective character of experience for any conscious entity whether bat or Martian. Every experience
has a specific subjective nature [73].
To Nagel “there are facts which could not ever be represented or comprehended by human beings,
simply because our structure does not permit us to operate with concepts of the requisite type”; because “to
even form a conception of what it is like to be a bat one must take up the bat’s point of view”. If one
removed the viewpoint of the subjective observer; what would be left? Nagel suggests the remaining
properties might be those detectable by other beings, the physical processes themselves or states intrinsic to
the experience of awareness. This changes the perspective of qualia to the form “there is something it is like
to undergo certain physical processes”. “If our idea of the physical ever expands to include mental
phenomena, it will have to assign them an objective character”. Nagel recognizes that:

Very little work has been done on the basic question (from which mention of the brain can be entirely
omitted) whether any sense can be made of experiences having an objective character at all. Does it
make sense ... to ask what our experiences are really like, as opposed to how they appear to me?...This
question also lies at the heart of the problem of other minds ... If one understood how subjective
experience could have an objective nature, one would understand the existence of subjects other than
oneself [73].

These are questions an integrative Noetic Science can answer. Standard definitions of qualia are an
inadequate philosophical construct describing only subjective character. In the physical sense of Noetic
Field Theory (NFT) components describing qualia from the objective sense are introduced - i.e.
distinguishing the phenomenology of qualia from the noumenon or physical existence of the thing in itself.
A comprehensive definition of qualia includes three forms considered physically real by NFT because
the noetic fields of HAM cosmology on which the noetic model is based are all physically real. See [74,75].

Type I. The Subjective - The what it feels like basis of awareness. Phenomenological states of the qualia
experience. (The current definition of qualia Q-1)
Type II. The Objective - Physical basis of qualia independent of the subjective feel that could be stored
or transferred to another entity breaking the 1st person 3rd person barrier. The noumenal elements of
qualia upon which the phenomenology is based.
 16

Type III. The Universal - Living systems represent a Qualia substrate of the conscious universe, acting as
a ‘blank slate’ carrier from within which Q-II are modulated into the Q-I of experience by a form of
superradiance or hyper-holographic evanescence.

A standard image requires a screen or other reflective surface to be resolved; but if the foci of two
parabolic mirrors (Casimir-like plates in our model) are made to coincide, the two images superpose into a
real 3D image that does not need a screen. See Fig. 7 above. A science toy called the ‘magic mirage’ is used
to demonstrate this effect of parabolic mirrors. Objects placed in the bottom appear like solid objects at the
top of the device.
The holophote action of élan vital energetics arises from the harmonic oscillation of least unit boundary
conditions tiles the spacetime backcloth and pervades all self-organized living systems. The inherent beat
frequency of this continuous action produces the Q-III carrier wave that is an empty slate modulating
cognitive data of Q-II physical parameters into Q-I awareness states as a superposition of the two (Q-III and
Q-II). This modulation of qualia occurs in the HD QED cavities of the cognitive domain. The QED cavities
are a close-packed tiling of least unit noetic hyperspheres; the Casimir surfaces of which are able to reflect
quaneme subelements. While the best reflectors of EM waves are polished metal mirrors, charged boundary
conditions also reflect EM waves in the same way radio signals bounce off the ionized gases of the
Kennelly-Heaviside layers in the Earth’s ionosphere. This reflective ‘sheath’ enclosing the cognitive domain
is charged by the Noeon radiation (exchange particle of the noetic field) [16] of the élan vital, the phases of
which are ‘regulated’ in the complex HD space of the least unit HAM cosmology.

Cosmological Origin and Production of the Three Types of Qualia

Figure 3. Metaphor for the emergence of qualia from the continuous action of the noetic least unit (1a), a microcosm of
the HAM where past oriented compactification periodically produces a classical spacetime point. The standing-wave
domain walls represent the lightcone singularities of Q-III propagation, the surfaces of which act structurally as Casimir-
like plates, and phenomenologically as a carrier wave base for Q-I qualia evanescence by Q-II modulation. 1b represents
two pairs of parabolic mirrors (the Q-III Casimir domain walls) whose foci overlap; this is the high frequency wave in
1c denoted as a. The longer wave b represents Q-II qualia which is modulated by the Q-III wave into the usual Q-I
qualia c. Thus a, b, and c in 1c represents the three forms of qualia and how they work together to form Q-I by
superradiance of the noetic field.

How does noetic theory describe more complex qualia than the simple qualia of a light pencil? (The
qualia-II of a light pencil is assumed to be the pencil of light [74,75] Light quanta are microscopic in
contrast to the macroscopic sphere of awareness. It thus seems reasonable to assume that scale invariant
properties of the HAM least unit of awareness would apply. Like phonemes as fundamental sound elements
for audible language there are qualia-nemes or quanemes for awareness all based on the physical modulation
of Q-II states by the geometric structural-phenomenology of the Q-III carrier base of living systems 74,76].
 17

COSMOLOGY OF NOETIC MEDICINE – AN INTRODUCTION TO

CATASTROPHE THEORY
Regarding homeostasis - living-systems and every component subsystem, especially those related to
health and well being, biophysically are forms of dynamical systems that generally operate in a framework
of stability and equilibrium – the maintenance of which is the charge of medical practice. Technically these
systems have a restrictive class called gradient systems which contain singularities or points of extrema.
Some causal action can institute a bifurcation of an extrema that can initiate a qualitative change in the
physical state of the system. Catastrophe theory4 describes the breakdown of stability of any equilibrium
system causing the system to jump to another state as the control parameters change. The changes in the
singularities associated with the bifurcation of extrema are called elementary catastrophes [76-78] and can
be described by real mathematical functions
f : RN → R . (1)
The equation describing an elementary catastrophe utilizes variables representing Control and State
parameters of the system and is a smooth real function of r and n where R represents the resultant singularity
or catastrophe

f : Rr × Rn → R . (2)

TABLE I

r (Control Factors) Number of Catastrophes Name Dimensions

r=1 1 A2 Fold Catastrophe 2D
r=2 1 A±3 Cusp Catastrophe 3D
r=3 3 A4 Swallowtail 4D
r=4 2 A±5 Butterfly 5D
r=5 4 A6 Wigwam 6D
r=3 - D−4 Elliptic Umbilic 5D
r=3 - D+ 4 Hyperbolic Umbilic 5D
r=4 - D5 Parabolic Umbilic 6D
r=5 - D−6 2nd Elliptic Umbilic 7D
r=5 - D+6 2nd Hyperbolic Umbilic 7D
r=5 - E ±6 Symbolic Umbilic 7D
r=6 ∞ X9 Double Cusp 9-11D

Table 1. The general forms of catastrophes showing how the dimensions increase as the number of control factors
increase. The names bear some resemblance to the geometric pattern of the catastrophe. The double cusp catastrophe is
utilized in development of Noetic Theory because it models most closely noetic superspace transitions and is compatible
with the fundamental equation of consciousness.

4
The groundwork for Catastrophe Theory began with Poincairé’s work in 1880 on the qualitative properties of solutions to differential
equations; and became formalized in the 1950’s by R. Thom’s work on mapping singularities in structural stability, which he called
catastrophes.
 18

The r variables are the control parameters of the state variables n. The function f is therefore an r-parameter
family of functions of n variables. If we let
⎛ ⎞
f ⎜ a i ,...a r ; x j ,..xn ⎟ (3)
⎝ ⎠
be a smooth real-valued function of r + n real variables we get equation (2).
The number of elementary catastrophes depends only on r and is finite for r≥5 totalling eleven (table
1) and infinite for r ≥ 6.

CATASTROPHE THEORY AND ANTICIPATORY EFFECTS

OF THE NOETIC FORMALISM

The structural-phenomenology of Double-Cusp Catas trophe (DCC) Theory in ≥ 9D appears

homeomorphic to the Riemannian manifold of both 10(11) dimensional M-Theory and the topological
geometry of the continuous state dimensional reduction spin exchange compactification process inherent in
the action of the corresponding scale invariant least unit of noetic superspace which because it is a complex
self-organized system has inherent anticipatory properties mediating the catastrophes . In this general
framework the double-cusp equilibrium surface is analyzed in terms of a hierarchy of jumps in state
providing a framework for expanding the basis of allopathic medicine and psychology. One can say FAPP
that the noetic least-unit tiling [66] of the Planck backcloth is a complex HD catastrophe manifo ld mediated
by the unitary noetic field .
The noetic action of consciousness F( N ) is not a 5th fundamental force but an integration of the
electromagnetic and gravitational force at the unitary level where it is confined to the Universal sea of
consciousness embodying an 11(12)D Noetic spacetime metric S ( N ) [2-4]. The well known Schrödinger
equations central to quantum theory make correspondence to Newton’s second law of motion F = ma which
is also the starting point for deriving the noetic formalism. Newton’s law of gravitation F = Gm1m2 / r 2
is not chosen because it is not the fundamental form of gravitation and also contains an undesirable constant
of dimensionality. Whereas F = ma is dimensionless. Likewise Einstein’s gravity is also not chosen.
Substituting Einstein’s mass-energy relation E = mc into Newton’s 2nd law we obtain:
2

F( n) = E / c 2 a where F( n ) is the noetic force and E becomes the self-organized autopoietic energy [45,46]
related toψ e of the cosmology of mind defined in the fundamental dualistic interactionist relationship of
noetic theory:
ΨM = Bψ b + ( ψ e + ψ c ) (4)
i.e. the mindΨM is not merely quantum brain dynamics Bψ b , but a classical → quantum → unitary
continuum of brain, élan vital ψ e and HD elemental intelligence ψ c . E is scale invariant through all levels
of the HAM beginning at the highest level in the supralocal Multiverse as a hyperdimensional Wheeler Geon
- a ball of photons of sufficient size to self cohere through gravity [80]. At the micro level the Geon becomes
synonymous with the de Broglie wave-like mental energy of a conscious entity. The Prion [29,81-83], the
infectious protein responsible for spongiform encephalopathies (mad cow disease) is designated the simplest
known life form, if correct that the prion protein is ‘animated’ by the self-organizing properties of the élan
vital of the noetic field [76]. The E unit is comprised of a factor of Einstein’s, the fundamental physical
23
quantity defined as a ‘mole - Avogadro number (10 ) of photons’.
Next the derivation of the noetic equation is generalized for the conscious universe by taking an
axiomatic approach to cosmological scaling fro m the work of Kafatos et al, [84] suggesting that all lengths
 19

 = L / t = c where R
in the universe are scale invariant. Beginning with the heuristic relation c ≡ R or R
represents the rate of change of scale in the universe. This corresponds to the Hubble relation for perceived
Doppler expansion of the universe where H 0 = R / R and a = R × H o . By substituting R 2 / R for a in
the original F( n) = E / c 2 a , for final substitution we have F( n) = E / c 2 × R 2 / R . Since c = R the
c 2 & R terms cancel and we are left with
F( N ) = E / R (5)
the unexpanded fundamental formalism for noetic action within a conscious entity in the HAM model. It
should be noted that R is a complex rotational length with standing wave properties and could be derived in
terms of angular momentum or spacetime spinors at HD levels in domains described by future developments
in M-Theory.
When applied in concert with the fundamental noetic equation of consciousness [63] and the model of
interactive computing [67,85] double-cusp catastrophe theory provides a mathematical basis for the noetic
basis for medicine and psychology. The processes of metabolic homeostasis and intentional action are
modulated by the ubiquitous flux of the unitary noetic field as described by the anticipatory effects of the
F( N ) formalism.
Equation (4) is a standard equation for the equilibrium surface of the DCC [77-79] as modeled in (Fig.
8); where B ± Q is the state variable and μ d and υ d are the control parameters.
(B + Q) 3 + ( B + Q)μ d + υ d = 0 (6)
The position of the two cusps is found at μ d = 0 and υ d = 0 .

Noetic Action on the Equilibrium Plane of a Double -Cusp Catastrophe

Figure 4. In 8a, the DCC is illustrated showing cusps at each end of the plane of equilibrium. The DCC is said to occur
in ≥ 9 dimensions and thought to be the catastrophe form most compatible with NFT symmetry . The plane of
equilibrium is a topological manifold tiled of noetic least units. The equilibrium manifold undergoes a ‘conscious’
quantum computation best described by interactive computation [67,85]. Fig. 4b graphically illustrates the fundamental
F( N ) = E / R of conscious action. Any internal or external stress or change in E is a
scale invariant noetic equation
nonlinear dynamic process producing stability or instability in the boundary conditions of R; an instability in E → stress
→ displacement → catastrophe → jump…whereas stable flux is homeostatic. 8b like noetic HAM cosmology is
also a form of hysteresis loop generalized in 8c.

If fig. 5a is considered as a present moment; 5b is a flag of temporal permutations as the noetic

catastrophe cycle evolves in time from future to past and higher to lower dimensions in the same manner as
the HAM cosmology for the spaces: R
12
⊇ ...R 4 ⊇ R 3 ⊇ R 2 ⊇ R1 ⊇ R 0 .
 20

Unit Circle and Associated Flag of Temporal Evolution for Noetic Catastrophe Cycle

Figure 5. [77,78] 5a represents a plane of the unit circle with corresponding cross sections in 5b: Section 16 for example
shows a cusp. A single point in 1 grows to the ‘lips’ in 2. In 3 to 4 the original cusp 16 penetrates the mouth becoming a
hyperbolic umbilic point at 5, turning into an elliptic umbilic at 6, shrinking to a point in 9. Growing again in 10 to
pierce the fold line in 11 and through it in 12. A ‘beak-to-beak singularity in 13 breaks in 14, collapsing to a swallowtail
15. The seven fundamental catastrophes contain ‘subcatastrophes according to the diagram in 3c.

Table 2. Geometry Of Zero To Twelve Dimensions Showing Points And Lines Contained

N Point Lines Squares Cubes Tesseracts 5T 6T 7T 8T 9T 10T 11T 12T

0 1
1 2 1
2 4 4 1
3 8 12 6 1
4 16 32 24 8 1
5 32 80 80 40 10 1
6 64 192 240 160 60 12 1
7 128 448 672 560 280 84 14 1
8 256 1,024 1,792 1,792 1,120 448 112 16 1
9 512 2,304 4,608 5,376 4,032 2,016 672 144 18 1
10 1,024 5,120 11,520 15,360 13,440 8,064 3,360 960 180 20 1
11 2,048 11,264 28,160 42,240 42,240 29,568 14,784 5,280 1,320 220 22 1
12 4,096 24,576 67,584 112,640 126,720 101,376 59,136 25,344 7,920 1,760 264 24 1

The putative significance of Tbl.2 for the application of double-cusp catastrophe theory to the noetic
HAM formalism is that the structure of possible boundary conditions and the number of control points is
revealed. For example, in this simplistic view, a 3D point in real spacetime might have 16 control photon-
gravitons (noeons) covering it. Carrying the analogy all the way up to the 12D holoscape of the Multiverse,
the same 3D point might be controlled or guided by a total of 8,176 photons. The number arrived at by
summing the points of D4 to D12. No point in the universe is isolated; so this metaphor does not include the
possible power factor by associated points in both the HD and LD HAM backcloth. Within the inherent
continuous-state dimensional reduction compactification process, the LD domain (dimensions less than 3)
might be coupled to orders of magnitude more photon-gravitons. This detail of Noetic Theory has not been
comp letely worked out yet.
 21

AN EXAMPLE OF NOETIC MEDICINE: THE MECHANISM OF PROTEIN

CONFORMATION IN PRION PROPAGATION

Fatal neurodegenerative disorders known as transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (TSE’S) have been
shown to spread by a proteinaceous infectious particle or prion [81-83]. According to Prusiner’s definition
these prion elements propagate conformational variation leading to replication by a mechanism not well
understood until now [81]. Two conversion hypotheses have been proposed:

• The template-assisted conversion model [86] where a putative cellular chaperone called protein X
assists conformational transition by altering the thermodynamic equilibrium of a kinetic barrier in
favor of transition state protein formation.
• The nucleation-polymerization model where highly ordered aggregates of the infectious element
form. This also shifts thermodynamic equilibrium allowing this nucleus to act as a seed for further
prion propagation. Protein folding thus appears in both cases to be the primary autocatalytic
mechanism propagating prion diseases.

According to Prusiner [83]:

Nascent prions are created either spontaneously by mutation of a host protein or by exposure to an
exogenous source. Prions are composed largely, if not entirely, of a modified form of the prion protein
(PrP) designated PrPSc. Like other infectious pathogens, they multiply but prions do not have a nucleic
acid genome to direct the synthesis of their progeny. A post-translational, conformational change
features in the conversion of cellular PrP (PrPC) into PrPSc during which alpha-helices are transformed
into beta-sheets. Since this structural transition in PrP underlies both the replication of prions and the
pathogenesis of the CNS degeneration, much of the effort in the laboratory is devoted to elucidating the
molecular events responsible for this process. Indeed, prion diseases seem to be disorders of protein
conformation.

And further relative to the theory of propagation proposed here:

During prion replication, an as yet to be identified factor that we have provisionally designated protein X
binds to PrPC. The PrPC/protein X complex then binds PrPSc; by an unknown process, PrPC is
transformed into a second molecule of PrPSc [83].

A Postulated 3D X-bundle structure of the PrPC was chosen by Prusiner from four penultimate PrPC
models reduced from ~300,000 possible configurations by both theoretical and experimental constraints.
These four choices correlated best with human prion mutations. A Conceptual model of the orientation of
the four helices of the X-bundle model looks like two X’s nearly superimposed on each other. Since prions
have no nucleic acid based genome to direct their propagation. Noetic theory proposes that prion replication
is directed by fundamental mechanisms of complexity theory and that the action principles driving this
complexity are a more fundamental form of mechanism than that perceived currently by the philosophical
basis of mechanism in biology.

IMPLICATIONS FOR TRANSPERSONAL PSYCHOLOGY

AND AUTOIMMUNITY

The immune system is comparable in the complexity of its functions to the nervous system. Both
systems are diffuse organs that are dispersed through most of the tissues of the body. In man the immune
system weighs about two pounds. It consists of about a trillion (1012 ) cells called lymphocytes and about
100 million trillion (1020 ) molecules called antibodies that are produced and secreted by the
lymphocytes. The special capability of the immune system is pattern recognition and its assignment is to
patrol the body and guard its identity…The immune system is subject to continuous decay and renewal.
 22

During the few moments it took you to read this far your body produced 10 million new lymphocytes
and a million billion new antibody molecules. This might not be so astonishing if all these antibody
molecules were identical. They are not. Millions of different molecules are required to cope with the task
of pattern recognition, just as millions of different keys are required to fit millions of different locks. -
Niels K. Jerne, 1973, Scientific American

Much biochemistry, biophysics and quantum dynamics has been developed in the study of the immune
response relating to the principles of allopathic medicine. But if one recalls that the founders of quantum
theory emphatically stated that quantum theory and the Schrödinger equation did not describe biological
systems; something must be missing in all this work. This is of course the ‘life principle’ that is introduced
by the Holoinformational principles of interactive dualism. First lets outline all the brilliant models that are
insufficient:

• F. Popp's biophotons – Sure all of human physiology is a thermodynamic heat-bath and radiates a
spectrum of radiation. But this is after the fact of any immune response and has nothing to do with
consciousness.
• K. Pribram’s holographic brain model utilizing Fourier and Gabor principles for a spectral holographic
domain throughout the brain – A fabulous advance in quantal brain function, but again devoid of
principles of consciousness.
• W. Schempp’s quantum holography and his discovery that all information about objects, including their
three-dimensional shape is carried in the quantum fluctuations of the Zero Point Field, the vast memory
store predicted by Puthoff. With this information Schempp calculated, recovered and reassembled three-
dimensional MRI images through Fourier transformation. – Again no conscious principles.
• Marcer and Schempp developed a mathematical map of how information is processed in the brain that is
a mathematical demonstration of Pribram's theory. – Still no consciousness.
• S. Hameroff's showed microtubules are an exceptional conductor of quantum pulses and these pulses
are transmitted through pockets of protein. Hameroff discovered a coherence among neighboring
tubulin dimers; calling them "light pipes" or "waveguides" for photons sending these waves from cell to
cell throughout the brain with Fröhlich coherence. – A model of consciousness, but insufficient.
• K. Yasue and M. Jibu also theorized that the quantum messaging must take place through vibrational
fields and quantum coherence along the microtubules.
• K. Pribram, K. Yasue, S. Hameroff and S. Hagan assembled a collective theory about human
consciousness in cytoskeletal microtubules in which microtubules and the membranes of dendrites
represent the Internet of the body. Theoretically every neuron could log on at the same time and speak
to every other neuron simultaneously via this quantum processes by quantum superposition,
'Superradiance' and 'Self-Induced Transparency'. – A logical step forward but still missing the conscious
action principle .
• Similarly physicists Del Giudice and Preparata suggested Hameroff's ‘pipes’ contained coherent energy
fields. They also suggested that water molecules in the brain extend coherence effects as far as 3
nanometers outside the cell's cytoskeleton suggesting water inside the microtubules is also ordered.
They showed that this focusing of waves would produce beams 15 nanometers in diameter - precisely
the size of the microtubule's inner core.
• All this led to the heretical thought already occurring to F. Popp that consciousness was aglobal
phenomenon occurring everywhere in the body, not simply in the brain. Perhaps consciousness is
fundamentally a coherent light within a unified theory of mind and matter like Bohm's "unbroken
wholeness", where the universe is a vast dynamic and intelligent Holoinformational web of information
exchange containing all possible versions of all possible forms of energy and matter. – Yes, but what
kind of light?

This is the crux of the problem because any place where there are atoms and molecules and spacetime
there are quantum fluctuations. This is all that is addressed by Copenhagen interpretation whether in
microtubule, synapse or neuron - there is no consciousness described here even though this is the currently
dominant cognitive model accepted by 90% of consciousness researchers today.
 23

A holoinformational cosmology of consciousness is required because consciousness is deeper than the

3D brain. The sphere of action must be taken to where the unified field - spirit of God lies, hidden behind
this virtual barrier, the regime described by the Copenhagen interpretation as outlined in the bullets above.
We must follow Einstein's view that quantum theory is incomplete: "God does not play dice".
Several hypotheses are considered by immunologists:

• Clonal Deletion theory, proposed by Burnet, according to which self-reactive lymphoid cells are
destroyed during the development of the immune system in an individual.
• Clonal Anergy theory, proposed by Nossal, in which self-reactive T- or B-cells become inactivated
in the normal individual and cannot amplify the immune response.
• Idiotype Network theory, proposed by Jerne, wherein a network of antibodies capable of
neutralizing self- reactive antibodies exists naturally within the body.
• The so-called "Clonal Ignorance" theory, according to which host immune responses are directed to
ignore self-antigens.
• The "Suppressor population" or "Regulatory T cell" theories, wherein regulatory T-lymphocytes
(commonly CD4+FoxP3+ cells, among others) function to prevent, downregulate, or limit
autoaggressive immune responses.

Autoimmune diseases can be broadly divided into 1) systemic and 2) organ-specific or localised
autoimmune disorders, depending on the principal clinico-pathologic features of each disease. An example
of a systemic syndrome is Rheumatoid Arthritis ; and Local syndromes include virtually any circumscribed
mass of body tissue like Addison's disease or multiple sclerosis . A comprehensive list of autoimmune
conditions can be found at [120]. Current treatments for autoimmune disease are usually
immunosuppressive, anti-inflammatory, or palliative. Non-immune therapies, such as hormone replacement
in Hashimoto's thyroiditis or DM Type 1 treat outcomes of the autoaggressive response. Dietary
manipulation limits the severity of celiac disease. Steroidal or NSAID treatment limits inflammatory
symptoms of many diseases. More specific immunomodulatory therapies have been shown to be useful in
treating rheumatoid arthritis . These immunotherapies may be associated with increased risk of adverse
effects, such as susceptibility to infection [121-126]. These therapies treat the ‘branch’ but not the ‘root’ of
the problem; and therefore provide no cure.

A NOETIC EFFECT ON AUTOIMMUNE SYSTEMS

Holoinformational-noetic-conscious medicine is far different than scientific -allopathic medicine; it is a

spiritual medicine relying on the élan vital. This is the gap we wish to bridge. We postulate that all
autoimmune etiologies are diseases on consciousness and therefore require a Holoinformational
cosmological perspective, rather than the current limitations to brain or biochemistry. Our starting point for
correspondence to current theory is the network immune theory of N.K. Jerne [127,128]. This means that
medical treatments must be found to regulate the flow of the unified Noetic Field. Complex self-organized
systems like living systems are driven by an action principle. This action principle is the teleological life
principle equated with the cosmology of unitary field. This is the missing component from Scientific or
allopathic medicine; this is the principle that must be added.
In allopathic-scientific medicine if a tumor exists we surgically remove it or give chemo -radiation. If a
deficiency we give a vitamin or any of the tens of thousands of pharmaceuticals discovered to control the
human biochemistry and its myriad etiologies. But this is the branch only and rarely the root of the problem
except for microbial causation. We want to address the root of the problem, the ~150 autoimmune
conditions [120] that allopathic medicine has little insight into especially at the root. These are the noetic
etiologies. Imagine a child with a magnifying glass focused by the sun on an ant that actually can catch them
on fire. Imagine those foci are not on an ant but ‘catastrophes’ focused on many energetic microsites of the
biochemistry or organ systems. Also imagine the converse – a cover is put over the lens blocking the flux of
life energy. This life energy arises from a deep regime in spacetime structure itself in a Holographic
Anthropic Multiiverse [129]. the entry point of the life force where deep catastrophes may occur in the
 24

hysteresis (energy) loop of the propagation of the noetic unitary field with a simple relation that coupled
with all the transpersonal-personality pre-disposition which forms a complex pattern specific to the ~150
different ways that lead to these conditions. I call it the noetic effect which is governed by the noetic field
equation. The noetic effect is the switch for all the quantum/classical places discussed – neural, synapse,
MT, maps etc. This deeper understanding is the fundamental key to all conscious medicine.

Figure 6. Conceptualization of Interactionist cosmology, a) showing injection of the noetic field or élan vital into
spacetime points, b) Planck scale least-units mediating the noetic field, c) an Eccles Psychon field coupled to a brain
dendron where autoimmune interactions may interrupt normal homeostasis.

In Fig. 10 we see a view of the Holoinformational cosmology of interactive dualism. T o clarify our
critique of allopathic medicine above, we point out that current medical treatment modalities and medical
theories related to the work on consciousness and quantum theory are only related to quantum parameters
associated with brain or physiological elements associated with Fig. 10c and are silent about 10 a & b that
relate to consciousness.

From sections 25 & 26 and Figs. 8 & 9 above we can understand that this sustained noetic effect
resulting in catastrophes in the Holoinformational noetic unitary field is responsible for all autoimmune
disorders. The hysteresis loop in the center of the Double Cusp Catastrophe (DCC) is the energy available
for this action. This can be applied to a Jungian type collective unconscious related to Transpersonal
Psychology if we metaphorically consider the absorption-emission spectra of complex molecules to be like
personality structure: We know already people are made of a web of molecules. We know a little of
personality types and wish to apply this as a model to the absorption emission spectra of atomic structure.
So in scale invariance people are like huge particles or atoms . The hysteresis loop in the middle of the DCC
represents energy, bioenergy and mental energy depending on the relation. We know in general about
extrovert, introvert, dependent personality, dominant, submissive, we know depression is like black hole and
from Selye - stress causes foci of negative energy that is destructive. From the relaxation response and
meditation we know of energy balance. For physics the future-past spacetime hysteresis loop can be applied
directly to the formula for absorption-emission spectra. What is next is to formally systemize this model to
generalize each foci of these noetic catastrophes. For Alzheimer’s negative foci are on the brain, for colitis
on the intestine Excessive anger in a certain way can cause a brain a tumor, another kind of dominance
causes necropsy in the knees or a weak spine for back problems. But this initial idea must be systemized for
the whole complex system. What are the precise entry points of the field; Which autoimmune mo lecules as
Jerne suggests are related?
This is a global view generalized for personality structure to focused deficits in energy. The model is
empirically testable and medical devices are being designed to implement conscious medicine for both
diagnosis and treatment. In the near future new medical technologies will be developed that are currently
considered science fiction. The popular US sci-fi TV-movie series Star Trek includes advanced medical
 25

techniques utilizing a device called the Medical Tricorder5 able to diagnose and heal. Most notable at the
fundamental level of triage is the tricorder’s ability to heal a variety of injuries in a few seconds that today
might take several months to heal. At the advanced level using combined features of replicator and
transporter6 technology as illustrated in the Hollywood movie “the Voyage Home” when Dr. McCoy utilizes
the tricorder to repair a ruptured cerebral artery inside Chekov’s head. The operation is accomplished by
beaming out the damaged section of the artery and beaming in a new section.
We may not see the advent of the advanced form of the tricorder until our children’s or grandchildren’s
day; but sufficient theory exists to construct the basic form of the tricorder now. In the interim noetic
Holoinfo rmational theory can be used to greatly expand the versatility of Transpersonal Psychology.

COMPLETING EPISTEMOLOGY: THE UTILITY OF TRANSCENDENCE

AS A TOOL IN TRANSPERSONAL PSYCHOLOGY
I want to know God's thoughts ... the rest are details - Albert Einstein

Human epistemology has steadily evolved from dark ages of superstition through enlightened periods of
logical reason to the current pragmatic age of empiricism. Now another Galilean class revolution completing
epistemology by integrating Science and Theology (S&T) utilizing transcendence seems immanent. S&T
represent opposite ends of a long continuum of schools of thought rather than mutually exclusive disciplines
as often believed. To implement the required paradigm shift an integrative noetic science must include an
adequate understanding of Transcendence. Over 2,000 years ago the Greek philosopher Plato considered this
type of noetic insight, paraphrased here as a corollary:

§ Noetic Insight: No matter how great ones intelligence or how vast ones wisdom, noetic insight is cosmic
insight transcending the capacity of the self [87].

Human epistemology has come full circle to a time not only for another evolutionary step, but the final
one completing the tools of epistemology through the use of transcendence.

For the first time since the Dark Ages, physicists Paul Ginsparg and Sheldon L. Glashow wrote 12 years
ago, we can see how our noble search may end, with faith replacing science once again [88].

This condition is not what is advocated here because it seems that no matter how advanced tools of
transcendence may become, empiricism leads directly to engineering which is an integral part of temporal
existence. In some arenas current science has already reached, at least in terms of experimental design, the
limits of empiricism; for example some experiments in particle physics require an accelerator the size of the
universe and some calculations require a computation cycle with a duration the age of the universe. Only
about 70 years ago Cosmology was not considered science. The universe was believed to be clock-like as
described by Newtonian mechanics. Since the advent of Quantum Theory the majority of scientists have
considered the universe to be quantum.
But recent studies extending the standard models have allowed a growing number of scientists to
embrace forms of an Anthropic Conscious Multiverse. The form utilized here in Noetic Theory has
continuous-state properties with temporal reality cast as a virtual subspace of a higher dimensional eternity
[2-4]. This new cosmology yields key elements pertinent to premises here (especially the periodic properties
enabling introduction of an inherent spirit-based action or life principle); some of which are:

• The fabric of reality continuously cycles between classical, quantum and unitarity (continuous-
state).
• Phenomenological reality is virtual; because of the arrow of time much of the underlying

5
The author has a US patent pending for such a tricorder in hopes that such a device will arise in next 10-15 years.
6
The Star Trek Transporter disassembles the individuals atomic and life energy information and broadcasts it to a remote site for
reassembly. The replicator is a similar technology for objects and tissue assembled from templat es stored in a computer.
 26

noumenon is ‘filtered’ out of perception.

• Dimensionality cycles continuously from spatial to temporal to energy.
Matter by Einstein’s E = mc is continuously created, annihilated and recreated (the well
2
•
known wave- particle duality) forming the holographic backcloth of perceptual reality.

Inherent in these periodic properties is the unitary field or spirit of God, acting in governance as a higher
dimensional de Broglie-Bohm super quantum potential [89,90]. Periodicity allows for the pervasive ubiquity
of this supernumerary action principle. Since a conscious universe is implied the field is one of information.
This is key to our idea of transcendence. In an Anthropic Holographic Conscious Multiiverse (HAM) human
beings are spiritual beings and a path to enlightenment is possible by following certain laws related to this
condition. Because of the nonlocal (and because of the additional dimensionality – supralocal) character of
the Holographic Principle individuals perceive themselves as separate entities in 3-space. But in Higher
Dimensionality (HD) we are unitarily imbedded in the holographic backcloth, which because of its spiritual
nature –

• Transcendence may occur and

• Information received in the process

The coming paradigm shift does not merely represent a significant intellectual breakthrough like
Copernicus’ transformation of egocentricity into heliocentricity, the advent of quantum theory or Einstein’s
theories of relativity; but a profound paradigm shift where Humanity will leave the so-called Modern Age
behind an enter an Age of Consciousness.
An ‘empirical metaphysics’ [91] is under development that will violate the uncertainty principle and
allow actualization of Plato’s noetic insights in a manner useful for scientific exploration. Noetics, the study
of the cosmology of mind, comes from the Greek word nous meaning intellect. Noetic insight when used
scientifically to complete epistemology is the highest form of knowing because it utilizes and integrates the
pure logic of philosophical reason, the rigors of scientific empiricism and the absolute truth of theology.
All scientific theory formation has at least low level metaphysical components. Without entering into a
technical discussion of the nature of creativity, we assume here that this is what any creative process entails.
The latter-day Mormon prophet Brigham Young went so far as to say “All scientific discovery comes as a
revelation from God” [92]; while this may indeed be considered true in an Anthropic Universe, one would
suspect the vast majority of scientists are currently neither generally interested in, consciously aware of its
occurrence, nor even consider this possibility, especially since statistics have demonstrated that only about
20 to 30% of scientist believe in some form of god in contrast to 95% of the general population.
Does this mean that only few might be initially prepared to take advantage of the premises of noetic
transcendence? An informal survey of my colleagues has revealed that some have already begun using
transcendent abilities in various ways in scientific endeavor and daily routine with reasonable success. I
know of no team efforts yet at this writing; although a five year budget for implementing bulk quantum
computing approved in March 2007 will be used to test the premises here. As principle investigator I have
chosen a question I believe, because of infinite possibilities, can only be answered by transcendence. Should
we be successful certainly “the game will be afoot” as Sherlock Holmes would say at the beginning of a
case. Hopefully preliminary results will be available before this volume appears in 2008. I think a result like
this is required to create sufficient pause for engendering a Galilean class paradigm shift in epistemology.
Since inception in the 1980’s all attempts have failed at implementing bulk quantum computing. By utilizing
transcendence I have been provided a unique approach by the Zeitgeist; that approach demands the
development of what I have called “the Noetic Transform” [93].
The value of the high level addition of Transcendence as a tool of science in theory formation would be
to accelerate progress by saving considerable time, energy and funds by optimizing both avenues for
empirical research and efficiency in contemplating and defining fundamental new tenets of a model. For
example, early in my career I sat in on a round table discussion by an august body of great thinkers of the
age. They divided up a challenging problem into every logical possibility like spokes of a wheel. Each
agreed to take a spoke or two, intending to spend the remainder of their careers working on their arena of
interest of the problem. The utility of transcendence in cases like this would be to narrow the field to a spoke
or two.
 27

Currently all the standard models of science are Darwinian or naturalistic excluding any place for God or
Spirit. For example Biological Mechanism, the basis for allopathic or scientific medicine and psychology
states: The laws of chemistry and physics are sufficient to describe all life; no additional life principle is
required [50-52]. The founding fathers of quantum theory stated it could not describe biological systems,
Bigbang cosmology is also naturalistic; therefore something most assuredly must be missing in physical
theory.
The noetic model for the integration of S&T is based on three premises:

§1. That transcendence is a universal Anthropic Principle able to provide an interface or common ground
between S&T.
§2. Rigorous application of The Golden Rule (see below) spontaneously leads to transcendent abilities under
certain optimal conditions because
§3. Man is inherently a spiritual being (The spirit and the body are the soul of man [94]) imbedded in a
conscious universe guided by a unitary field tantamount to this spirit.

A common ground [76,95] uniting S&T is required because traditionally scientific princip les are not
accepted by faith based theology; and religious dogma is generally considered an unacceptable anti-
intellectual mode of epistemological inquiry by the common definition of scientific pragmatism in place
since Galileo showed that reason, in the case of heavier objects falling faster, failed. Similarly today Hubble
discovered redshift, not a Doppler expansion of the universe. Other interpretations are available [2-4]
supporting HAM cosmology.
To achieve this integrative result a model of an Anthropic Continuous-state Holographic Conscious
Multiverse (HAM) [2-4] (and this volume) is utilized that includes an inherent basis for defining complex
self-organized living systems in a manner that includes the physical basis of spirituality and therefore
transcendence [17].
According to the Perennial Philosophy: God exists and has revealed a path to find him [96]. This perennial
philosophy is not only universal to all theology but ultimately to all truth whether theological or scientific as
we make the case for here. The HAM [2-4] an extension of Einstein's Static Universe model, is shown to
naturally include a new action principle governing complex self-organized living systems. This HAM
elucidates the physical basis of spirituality. All legitimate religions or life paths in principle provide avenues
to transcendence. Achieving transcendence is not based on the superficial icons of the world's theologies.
Superficial artifacts like phylacteries, crosses, rosaries or rituals like bowing east or genuflecting are not
relevant.
Because human beings are inherently spiritual [17,94], transcendence can be achieved universally by
practicing principles of love, service and charity; or adhering ‘perfectly’ to what is called the Golden Rule -
Do unto others, as you would have them do unto you [97-104]. The Golden Rule is the most fundamental
moral or ethical principle; it is the basis for the theology of virtually all world religions, the basis of social
order, interpersonal relations, sound business practices and international diplomacy. The Golden Rule has
many similarities to the Hindu belief in karma.

THE GOLDEN RULE SUBSIDIARY TO LOVE FOR GOD

THE GREAT COMMANDMENT

For simplicity we will argue our case only form the point of view of Judeo-Christianity but the reader is
asked to keep in mind that as illustrated in fig. 11 the premises here are postulated to apply to all legitimate
theologies. The monotheistic religions Judaism and Christianity teach that the Golden Rule and other moral
commands for human relations are subsidiary to the Great Commandment relating to God, e.g., Jehovah,
Emmanuel or Jesus The Christ explicitly identified the Great Commandment as supreme love for God, as
affirmed in the Hebrew Torah and Christian Bible [105]. In contrast to the ancient ‘an eye for an eye’, Jesus
gave a new command - "Love one another as I have loved you" [106]. By categorizing ‘Love your neighbor
as yourself’ as the Second command like unto the first, Jesus placed the Golden Rule and human
relationships as not subsidiary but tantamount to one's ideal relationship with God the father.
 28

Figure 7. Pyramid of Transcendence / enlightenment. Individuals ‘Living’ operationally at the top of this ‘karmic
pyramid’ spontaneously develop transcendent abilities. ‘Sin’ or violation of ethical principles, commandments or
Karmic law can be classified into three weighted categories of decreasing severity: 1. Actions, 2. Speech, 3. Thoughts.

The paramount statement relating to our purpose here is Christ’s teaching regarding the two great
commands, specifically as stated in the last sentence:
Master, which is the great commandment in the law? Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy
God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great
commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. On these two
commandments hang all the law and the prophets [107].

Prophets are seers and revelators – users of transcendent abilities. The requirements for transcendence
may be further clarified in terms of a three-level pyramid (Fig. 11). The base represents crimes or sins of
action like murder, theft or adultery for example. The middle of the hierarchy is represented by sins of word
like lies or insults, which under extreme conditions could lead to another's harm or death. Goethe’s 1774
classic Sorrows of Young Werther [108] is purported to have produced a rash of suicides on its publication;
whereas a statement like ‘where’d you get that stupid shirt’ may or may not only hurt ones feelings. The top
of the pyramid represents sins of thought. Thought by nature is fleeting. As long as an evil thought is not
dwelt on; it can be forgiven as quickly as contemplated. At this level of living the limitations of being
human come into play. Deity can expect no more of a mortal being than trying to manage ones thoughts.
According to metaphysical law of the perennial philosophy as applied to HAM cosmology, one is
virtually guaranteed attainment of a degree of transcendence when ones ‘moral crimes’ hover at the apex of
the pyramid (Fig. 10); provided one has sufficiently good karma or repaired any karmic debt or made
restitution for negative conditions of the past.
Noetic Cosmology suggests that by routinely living at this apex a universal Anthropic Principle of
Transcendence comes into play whereby anyone maintaining this mode will spontaneously achieve a state of
transcendence. If the premise for this noetic Principle of Transcendence is correct, any team of scientists
whether comprised of any combination of Jew, Christian or Shinto for example will be able to utilize
Transcendence as a tool in scientific theory formation (Fig. 11). Likewise any dialogue between scientists
and theologians could achieve similar fruition. Based on the fundamental premise that Men are spiritual
beings [17,94] living in an Anthropic Multiverse; the following postulate is said to hold true:

Postulate 1: Any individual or group of individuals living by the Golden Rule, to the extent where those
individual’s moral offenses7 occur generally only at the level of thought, will spontaneously develop
transcendent abilities.

Two conditions apply. The past history of the individual must be relatively free of serious offense. The
postulate may not apply to those guilty of unpardonable offenses like murder or blasphemy against God8 .

7
Moral offense – We wish to skip for the most part a detailed delineation of what constitutes moral offense. For our purpose here we
chose to simply state that good has a tendency to bring people together and moral offense has a tendency to separate or harm.
8
Unpardonable Blasphemy – This is not a condition of swearing or cursing of the general kind; but a rare occurrence of a fully
transfigured person who has beheld God like a Moses who then turn against God.
 29

The activity of thought is at the limit of human control. Human beings cannot be expected to have perfect
control of their thoughts. The karmic rule is satisfied if one does not dwell on negative thoughts.
A power factor exists. Christian doctrine states: Charity covereth a multitude of sins [109,110]. This
charity or good works, (of time or substance) provides a power factor for eliminating residual or negative
Karma enabling the time to be shortened in reaching the apex of the pyramid or the transcendent state.
The basic needs of all life on Earth is optimized by ‘The Golden Rule’- treating other entities and the
environment holistically in the same manner as we would like to be treated. This perennial philosophy is an
absolute truth that relates to all sentient consciousness universally throughout the Holographic Multiiverse
where intelligent life is the rule not the exception. Transcendence can be achieved by a high level adherence
to the universal tenets of the Golden Rule. Empiricism has been an impossible challenge for theology; and
scientists have historically denigrated any dialogue utilizing religious dogma based on faith-based logic put
forth by theologians as merely a product of pre-Galilean imagination. Therefore only by developing a
common basis for utilizing transcendence as a universal epistemological tool can S&T be united
pragmatically. Producing a universal framework for transcendence seems of grave import because such a
completion of human epistemology could have broad impact ultimately leading to world peace, higher
quality of life and amelioration of environmental concerns.

Figure 8. Because of the inherent spiritual nature of mankind as part of an Anthropic Cosmology with an inherent
teleological life principle and the concomitant existence of ‘Absolute Truth’ in regard to spiritual matters, the Golden
Rule, as a universal principle of the Perennial Philosophy provides a path to both find God and sp ontaneously develop
transcendence.

TRANSCENDENCE AS A TOOL IN SCIENTIFIC

THEORY FORMATION

Since there are about 10,000 religious sects or spiritual paths in the world today, most of which have
conflicting teachings or dogmas; how could developing an empirical metaphysics be possible? Whatever
ones spiritual path - the dance of a twirling Dervish, fasting, meditation, charity, chanting, prayer or peyote,
it is achieving the resulting pure transcendental state that is of paramount importance.
As done here for Noetic Cosmology a team of investigators or an individual therapist attempting to
utilize transcendence might also utilize historical tracts or scriptures pertinent to their individual path as a
starting point to help guide the questions posed to the universe or for the therapy. We realize the extent of
this challenge; one must have sufficient faith in the veracity of a scriptural tract to use it as a starting point.
The spirit of truth gained from entering the state of transcendence is then used in the Platonic sense [87] for
verification. Noetic insight is received through diligent study after sufficiently following ones individual
path to perfection (fig. 11) in conjunction with prayerful meditation. Alternatively when one comfortably
‘hovers’ at the apex of the pyramid if ones is studying a physics manuscript a passage on the Bessel function
may leap out while reading or later while pondering as a transcendent suggestion that the Bessel function is
pertinent to the engineering or other theory at hand.
We wish to make it clear that receiving such ‘revelations from God’ need not interfere with experimental
verification; because as we mentioned earlier all theory formation has a metaphysical element when initially
formulated in the creative mind(s) of its inventor(s). Therefore the metaphysical act of theory formation is
independent of the pragmatic demands of hard science which is the second step or companion step in theory
testing. There is already a growing movement for integrating science and theology.
 30

Examples of noetic insight from history are Friedrich Kekule’s dream of a snake joining head to tail in
the discovery of the benzene ring, or perhaps more pertinent to our interest in the nature of consciousness
here, Descartes claim of receiving a revelation from God designating to the distinction between mind and
body [111]. Descartes 'vision' has remained controversial for over 400 years and is only now about to be
tested by the methods of noetic theory. Science, if my work here has been successful, has finally progressed
to the point where this is possible.
The great value of developing an integrative discipline of science and spirituality is that potentially 10's,
100's, or even 1,000's of years could be saved, along with the resources expended on spurious research paths
that could alternatively be used to alleviate human suffering or maintain the environment etc. The timing in
the Zeitgeist seems on target as history already suggests an asymptotic increase of technical information; so
to keep pace transcendence seems timely.
As an example of a test question, for example noetic theory considers the Bigbang an erroneous
interpretation of astrophysical data (Hubble discovered redshift not a Doppler expansion); more horrific at
the time of this writing when a Nobel Prize has just been given out for the Bigbang’s discovery touted as one
of the most profound discoveries of the last century. If this noetic premise is proven true, some of the best
minds in astrophysics could have more efficiently expended hundreds of thousands of man-hours over the
last 75 years. Science by definition is satisfied only by empirical evidence and theology by quietly
submitting to faith. Francis Crick believes that the concept of a soul is a myth and that modern
neurobiologists (except notably the late sir John Eccles [112] see no need for a religious concept to explain
the interaction of nerve cells [113]. He calls this an astonishing hypothesis since over ninety percent of the
earth's population believes in the soul.

ABSOLUTE TRUTH IN THEOLOGY AND SCIENCE

The philosophical or theological concept of absolute truth is something has been argued for centuries;
whether there is such a thing, what form it takes, can it be proven, and what are the implications if any. A
very simple perspective is taken here: Absolute truth indeed exists, it is independent of opinion or even what
some kinds of empirical tests might show; because sometimes interpretation can be ambiguous. Absolute
Truth can only be verified through transcendence. For example in near history the Earth was considered flat
(as can be seen from any mountain top or the seashore) and the center of the universe.
Although we might be interested in forms of theological Absolute Truth like 'the Gods organized the
Earth and gave life to man' [114]; some theological elements will not easily lend themselves to standard
experiential-experimental forms of ‘empirical metaphysics’ and will have to be ‘confirmed’ by mutual
verification by teams of noeticists experiencing the same transcendent “facts” or remain faith-based until a
viable experimental protocol can be designed. Critics might consider the “divinations” of a particular group
a form of group hysteria, which might be dispelled if disparate groups are causally separated.
If we consider God to be the Great Physicist, it is physical truths that science would be most interested in
and also most readily verified by standard empiricism after transcendent discovery. It is difficult to predict
what the world might do when it realizes that the path to transcendence is formulaic and while not
necessarily a cake -walk so to speak but certainly no more difficult than learning to play the piano
proficiently. And the earlier one began the easier the journey. This is not unreasonable considering that most
scientists undergo an average of 22 years of study in preparing for an academic life, plus the lifelong study
to keep abreast of developments in ones field(s).
Interestingly there also exists a concept of absolute or immutable truth in science:

A truth that represents a permanent and final grasp of some limited aspect of nature. Most people would
say this is incompatible with the expectation that our theories will be falsified. I adhere to the expectation
that our theories will be falsified, and look for the immutable truth only in those theories that have
already been falsified. Newtonian mechanics...is an example of the most certain and permanent truth
man has ever achieved. Its only failing is its scope; it does not cover everything [115].

Now that it has been falsified it is an 'absolute truth' in the domain it describes.
 31

THE PATH TO TRANSCENDENCE

Consciousness is an ubiquitous cosmological principle of the universe; and the human mind is a complex
system imbedded in this universe. Inherent in the nature of the human mind is a fundamental spiritual
component; that allows absolute truth to be perceived from any valid perennial path. Transcendent abilities
seem to derive from three main avenues:

1. A specific type of innate personality structure, which comprises our psychological makeup, level of
intelligence, knowledge and wisdom, all of which occupies the spacetime structure of the individual
psychosphere [16].
2. Special gifts that the universe bestows upon us for its own purposes, or more likely through
modification of number 1 above or that we have developed by certain forms of psychological stress
or earned as in 3 below.
3. Personal preparedness; which seems to equate in direct proportion to living life by the golden rule and
any other ethical principles.

There are exceptions to the ascension of the basic karmic pyramid and more details beyond the scope of
the discussion here, but as a simple generalization as one climbs the Karmic pyramid of perfection the
threshold of spiritual enlightenment or reaching the transcendent state occurs when our imperfections
become limited to misdeeds of thought only. There is a motivational factor also, and wisdom can also relate
to mastery of the principles related to the chosen path that might enhance or vary this threshold. It helps to
be actively engaged in a worthy cause or service to humanity. Idleness would be a detractor to spiritual
awareness. One must at least be involved in meditation or prayer.
One must also choose a viable spiritual path. It does not seem reasonable that one could pay singular
homage to a stone, currency, psychotropic pharmacopoeia, or ‘legal’ forms of passion and expect a
significant degree of success while mentally occupying the top of the pyramid. Of the 10,000 spiritual paths
existing on Earth today, one must use one that works. Ones stage of personal growth limits the choice of
perceived path. Some paths are significantly better; and it seems that there are relatively few that enable true
enlightenment in a reasonable length of time. The path must therefore be chosen carefully. "It takes nearly a
quarter century to become a great physician. Why, oh, why do people think they can fathom the most
spiritual depths without the necessary experimental and laboratory work accompanied by compliance with
the laws that govern it?" [114]. Kimball further states this expertise comes from personal righteousness
followed by revelatory experience precept upon precept.

THE LAW OF HIERARCHIES AND NOETIC EPISTEMOLOGY

In applying Noetic Field Theory [12,65,116,117] to the quantization of the soul [118,119] and “The spirit
and the body is the soul of man” [17,94]; how does the metaphor of the Karmic pyramid relate physically as
a law of hierarchies as the means for reaching the transcendental state? Following the work of Plato we have
defined noetic insight [87] as the highest form of knowing; and stated that transcendent communion operates
because ‘the spirit and the body is the soul of man’ [17,94] and ‘all spirit is matter’ [94].
All matter is not spirit but can become so by perfection. But in the meantime in our temporal existence
the human soul is comprised of earthy matter and spiritual matter in a complementarity of temporality and
eternity. Our consciousness is imb edded in temporality and this is where our sensory apparatus is coupled to.
It is a misconception that there is a ‘sixth sense’. What actually happens is that the senses couple to higher
dimensionality instead which is in closer proximity to the flux of the vital noetic field. This is what occurs
when one achieves the transcendental state. In a crude metaphor this could be likened to an electron going to
a higher orbit in an atom when it is energized. The confinement of the electron to the higher orbit is similar
to the senses being coupled to a higher plane of spacetime.
 32

Figure 9. There are many more than the 5 common senses; all of which are connected to awareness. The term ‘6th
sense’ is a misconception. All of the senses are normally coupled to receive input from external sources but through a
different orientation the mind can be coupled to higher dimensional spacetime to receive nonlocal input which is how
‘paranormal’ effects occur.

Newtonian mechanics was cast in 3 dimensions. Einstein showed us that we live in 4 dimensions, which
is the limit of our normal perceptual phenomenology; but God dwells in the complete hyperstructure of at
least 12 dimensions because this is the minimum number to describe eternity – meaning being causally free
of temp oral reality. Sins of deed and thought maintain a gulf from the 12D of perfection separating us from
the full unity of the spirit and confining our matter to the 4D subspace.
Our goal should be to separate our being from the dross matter of imperfection and precept-by-precept
climb the ladder of dimensions to the full 12D complement of light. Like the light in a laser reverberating
between the mirrors of coherent reflection, a light explosion in all the 12 directions, not attenuated by any
darkness that stops the light or makes it tarry into dissipation.

REFERENCES
1. Lucretius, 55 BC (1957) On The Nature of the Universe, R.E. Latham, (trans.) Baltimore: Penguin.
2. Amoroso, RL (2002) Developing the cosmology of a continuous state universe, in RL Amoroso, G Hunter, M Kafatos
& J-P Vigier (eds.), Gravitation & Cosmology: From the Hubble Radius to the Planck Scale, Dordrecht: Kluwer.
3. Amoroso, R.L. (2005) Paradigm for a continuous-state holographic conscious Multiiverse, in R.L. Amoroso & B.
Lehnert (eds.) Extending the Standard Model: Searching for Unity in Physics, Oakland: Noetic Press.
4. Amoroso, R.L. (2010) Defining a Context for the Cosmology of Awareness, in R.L. Amoroso (ed.) The
Complementarity of Mind and Body: Realizing the Dream of Descartes, Einstein and Eccles, NY: Nova Science.
5. Chalmers, D.J. (1996) The Conscious Mind, Oxford: Oxford University Press; Chalmers, D.J., 2002, The puzzle of
conscious experience, Scientific American special edition, 12:1, 90-100.
6. McMurry, J. (1992) Organic Chemistry, 3rd edition, Pacific Grove: Brooks/Cole Publishers.
7. Haller, J.S. (1997) Kindly Medicine: Physio-Medicalism in America, 1836-1911. Kent: Kent State Univ. Press.
8. Bergson, H. (1977) The two Sources of Morality and Religion, Notre Dame, Univ. Notre Dame Press.
9. Flanagan, O. (1992) Consciousness Reconsidered. Cambridge: MIT Univ. Press.
10. Freedman, D.H. (1994) Quantum consciousness. Discover, June, pp. 89-98.
11. Horgan, J. (1994) Can science explain consciousness? Scientific American, July, pp. 88-94.
12. Amoroso, R.L. (1997) Consciousness a radical definition: The hard problem made easy, Noetic J 1:1 pp. 19-27.
13. Amoroso, R.L. (1997) The theoretical foundations for engineering a conscious quantum computer, in M. Gams and
M. Paprzycki, (eds.) Mind <> Computer, Amsterdam: IOS Press.
14. Amoroso, R.L. (1995) The extracellular containment of natural intelligence: A new direction for strong AI.
Informatica, 19, pp. 585-590.
15. Amoroso, R.L. (1996) Engineering a conscious computer, in T. Toffoli & M. Biafore (eds.) Proc. Fourth Workshop
on Physics & Computation, Physcomp 96, pp. 12-16, New England Complex Systems Institute..
16. Amoroso, R.L. & Martin, B. (1995) Modeling the Heisenberg matrix: quantum coherence and thought at the
holoscape manifold and deeper complementarity, in K.H. Pribram & J. King (eds.) Scale in Conscious Experience: Is the
Brain too Important to be Left to Biologists to Study, Hillsdale: Lawrence Earlbaum.
17. Amoroso, R.L. & Amoroso, Paul J. (2004) The Fundamental Limit and Origin of Complexity in Biological Systems:
A New Model for the Origin of Life, in D.M. Dubois (ed.) CP718, Computing Anticipatory Systems: CASYS03-6th Intl.
Conference, Liege, Belgium August 11-16 2003, New York: American Institute of Physics.
18. Amoroso, R.L. (2010) The Physical Origin of the Principle of Self-Organization Driving Living Systems, in R.L.
Amoroso (ed.) The Complementarity of Mind and Body: Realizing the Dream of Descartes, Einstein and Eccles, New
York: Nova Science Publishers.
19. Perus, M. (1997) Consciousness: network-dynamics, informational and phenomenal aspects, Noetic J, 1:2:183-197.
20. Stapp, H.P. (2000) Why classical mechanics cannot naturally accommodate consciousness but quantum mechanics
can, in R. Amoroso et al (eds.) Science and The Primacy of Consciousness, pp. 134-149, Oakland: The Noetic Press.
21. Amoroso, R. L. (2000) Call for a model of deep ontology – A commentary on Stapp: “Why classical mechanics
cannot naturally accommodate consciousness but quantum mechanics can”, in R. Amoroso et al eds. Science and The
Primacy of Consciousness, pp. 150-153, Oakland: The Noetic Press.
22. Pribram, K.H. (1991) Brain and Perception, Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.
23. Hameroff, S.R., Rasmussen, S., Karampurwala, H., Vaidyanath, R., and Jensen, K.S. (1990) Computational
connectionism within neurons: A model of cytoskeletal automata. Physica D 42:428- 449.
24. Beck. F., and Eccles, J.C. (1992) Quantum aspects of brain activity and the role Consciousness, Proc. Natl. Acad.
Sci. USA 89: 11357- 11361.
25. Walker, E.H. (1997) The quantum theory of consciousness, Noetic Journal, 1:1, pp. 100-107.
26. Jibu, M. & Yasue, K. (1995) Quantum Brain Dynamics & Consciousness, Amsterdam: Benjamins.
27. Bohm, D. (1952) A suggested interpretation of the quantum theory in terms of hidden variables, I & II. Physical
Review 85, pp. 166-179 and 180-193.
28. Cramer, J.G. (1986) The transactional interpretation of quantum mechanics, Revs. Mod Physics 58, pp. 647-87.
29. Sun, Y., Rauscher, E.A., Giandinoto, S., Chu, J. & Amoroso, R.L. (2008) Empirical Mediation of the Primary
Mechanism Initiating Protein Conformation in Prion Propagation, in D. Dubois (ed.) Proc. CASYS07, Liege, Belgium.
30. Pribram, K. H., Nuwer, M. & Baron, R. (1974) The holographic hypothesis of memory structure in brain function
and perception, in R.C. Atkinson, D.G. Krantz, R. C. Luce & P. Suppes (eds.) Contemporary Developments in
Mathematical Psychology, San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.
31. Hameroff, S.R. & Watt, R.C. (1982) Information processing in microtubules, J Theor. Biol. 98:4;549-61.
32. Freeman, W. (1993) The emergence of chaotic dynamics as a basis for comprehending intentionality in experimental
subjects, in K.H. Pribram (ed.) Origins: Brain and Self Organization, HillsdaIe: Lawrence Erlbaum.
33. Hameroff, S.R. (1990) Computational connectionism within neurons: a model of cytoskeletal automata, Physica D.
42: 428-449.
34. Schutz, E. (1987) Posttranslational modification and microtubule stability, Journal of Cell Biology, Vol 105, pp.
2167-2177
35. Webster, D.R., Gundersen, G.G., Bulinski, J.C. & Borisy, G.G. (1987) Differential Turnover of Tyrosinated and
Detyrosinated Microtubules, Proc Nat. Acad. Sci, USA, 84:24; 9040-9044.
36. Clevland, D.W. & Sullivan, K.F. (1985) Molecular Biology & Genetics of Tubulin, Ann. Rev. Biochem. 54: 331-
365.
37. Koruga, D. (1992) Neuromolecular computing, Nanobiology 1:5-24.
38. Prusiner, S.B. (1982) Science, 216, p.136-144.
39. Prusiner, S.B. (1998) Proc Nat. Acad. Sci, USA, 95, p. 13363-13383.
40. DesCartes, R. (1960) Discourse on Method and Meditations, L.J. Lafleur (trans.) Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill.
41. Eccles, J.C. (1986) Do mental events cause neural events analogously to the probability fields of quantum
mechanics?, Proc. Royal Soc. London B227, pp. 411-428.
42. Smith, H. (1991) The World’s Religions, San Francisco: Harper Collins.
43. Kimball, S.W. (1978) Absolute Truth, Ensign, September, pp. 3-8, Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-day Saints.
44. James, W. (1912) Essays in Radical Empiricism, F.H. Burkhardt et al (eds.) 1976, Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press.
45. Varela, F.G., Maturana, H.R. & Uribe, R. (1974) Autopoiesis: The organization of living systems, its
characterization and a model, BioSystems, 5, 187-196.
46. Jantsch, E. (1984) The Self-Organizing Universe, New York: Pergamon.
47. Maturana, H. R. (1970) Biology of cognition, Report BCL 9.0 Urbana: Biological Computer Lab, Univ. of Il.
48. Drãgãnescu, M. (1997) On the structural phenomenological theories of consciousness, Noetic J., 1:1, 28-33.
49. von Neumann, J. (1966) The theory of self-reproducing automata, in A. Burks (ed.) Urbana: Univ. of Il. Press.
50. Zhabotinsky, A.M. (1974) Self-oscillating Concentrations, Moscow: Nauka
51. Haldane, J.S. (1923) Mechanism, Life and Personality, New York: Dutton.
52. Beckner, M.O. (1972) Mechanism in biology, in P. Edwards (ed.) The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Vol. 5, pp. 250-
2, New York: Collier Macmillan.
53. Goldberg, J.N. (1981) Spacetime, in Encyc. of Physics, R.L. Lerner & G.L. Trigg (eds.) Reading: Addison-Wesley.
54. Messiah, A. (1999) Quantum Mechanics, Mineola: Dover.
55. Prigogine, I. (1973) Irreveresability as a symmetry breaking factor, Nature, 248: 67-71.
56. Prigogine, I., Nicolis, G. & Babloyantz, A. (1972) Thermodynamics of evolution, Physics Today, 25: 23-28; 38-44.
57. Chalmers, D.J. (2002) The puzzle of conscious experience, Scientific American Special, 12:1, 90-100.
58. Searle, J. R. (2002) Consciousness, Review Roumaine de Philosophie, Tome 46:1-2, pp.87-108.
59. Brillouin, L. (1949) Life, thermodynamics and cybernetics, American Scientist, 37: 554-568.
60. Chalmers, D. (1996) The Conscious Mind, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
61. Schrödinger, E. (1945) What is Life? London: Cambridge University Press.
62. Amoroso, R.L. (2002) The Physical Basis of Consciousness: A Fundamental Formalism, Part 1 Noesis, XXVI,
Romanian Academy.
63. Amoroso, R.L. (2000) Derivation of the fundamental equation of consciousness, Part I, Boundary conditions, Noetic
Journal 3:1, pp. 91-99.
64. Amoroso, R.L. (2000) Consciousness, a radical definition: Substance dualism solves the hard problem, in Amoroso,
R.L., Antunes, R., Coelho, C., Farias, M., Leite, A., & Soares, P. (eds.) Science and the Primacy of Consciousness,
Orinda: The Noetic Press.
65. Amoroso, R.L. (1999) An introduction to noetic field theory: The quantization of mind, Noetic J 2:1, pp. 28-37.
66. Amoroso R.L. (2003) Awareness: physical cosmology of the fundamental least unit, Noetic Journal 4:1, 1-15.
67. Wegner, P. (1998) Interactive foundations of computing, Theoretical Computer Science, 192, 315-351.
68. Fröhlich, H. (1968) Long-range coherence and energy storage in biological systems, Int. J. Quant. Chem. 2:641-649.
69. Hagelin, J.S. (1988) Is consciousness the unified field? A field theorist’s perspective. Preprint.
70. Ciubotariu, C & Ciubotariu, C. (2002) A chaotic-stochastic model of an atom, in R.L. Amoroso, G. Hunter, M.
Kafatos & J-P Vigier (eds.), Gravitation and Cosmology: From the Hubble Radius to the Planck Scale, Dordrecht:
Kluwer Academic.
71. Argyris, J. & Ciubotariu, C. (1999) A new physical effect modeled by an Ikeda map depending on a monotonically
time-varying parameter, Int. J. Bif. Chaos, 9:1111-1120.
72. Chalmers, D. (1996) The Conscious Mind, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
73. Nagel, T. (1974) What’s it like to be a bat?, Philosophical Review, 83, pp. 435-450.
74. Amoroso, R.L. (2003c) The physical basis of qualia: Overcoming the 1st person 3rd person barrier, Noetic Journal
4:3, pp. 212-230.
75. Amoroso, R.L. (2007) Ce Este Constiinta? Trepte Intru Cosmologia Mintii (What is Consciousness: Introducing the
Cosmology of Being, N. Bulz et al (trans.) Bucharesti: Editura Academiei Romane, in press.
76. R.L. Amoroso (ed.) (2008) The Complementarity of Mind and Body: Realizing the Dream of Descartes, Einstein and
Eccles, New York: Nova Science Publishers.
77. Poston T. & Stewart, I. (1978) Catastrophe Theory & Its Applications, New York: Dover.
78. Gilmore, R. (1981) Catastrophe Theory for Scientists & Engineers, New York: Dover.
79. Qin, S. et al. (2001) International J of Solids & Structures, 38, pp. 8093-8109.
80. Wheeler, J.A. (1955) Geons, Physical Review, 97:2, 511-536.
81. Pruisiner, S.B. (2002) Research Summary, www.ucsf.edu/neurosc/faculty/neuro-prusiner.html.
82. Huang, Z., Gabriel, J-M, Baldwin, M.A., Fletterick, R.J., Prusiner, S.B., & Cohen, F.E. (1994) Proposed three-
dimensional structure for the cellular prion protein, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci, USA, 91, pp. 7139-7143.
83. Kurschner, C. & Morgan, J.I. (1996) Mol. Brain Res. 37, pp. 249-258.
84. Kafatos, M., Roy, S. & Amoroso, R. (2000) Scaling in Cosmology & the Arrow of Time, in Buccheri, di Gesu &
Saniga, (eds.) Studies on Time, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
85. Milner, R. (1993) Elements of interaction, Comm. of the ACM, 36:1, 78-89.
86. Prusiner, S. (1982) Science, 216, pp. 136-144.
87. Mitchell, E.D. (1976) Psychic Exploration: A Challenge for Science, J. W. White (ed.) New York: Putnam.
88. Musser, G. (1998) String Instruments, Scientific American, V.10, pp. 17-19.
89. Holland, P.R. (2000) The Quantum Theory of Motion: An Account of the de Broglie- Bohm Causal Interpretation of
Quantum Mechanics, Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.
90. Bohm, D. & Hiley, B.J. (1993) The Undivided Universe: An Ontological Interpretation of Quantum Theory,
London: Routledge.
91. Meehl, P.E. (1966) The compleat autocerebroscopist: A thought-experiment on Professor Feigl’s mind-body identity
thesis, in P.K. Feyerabend & G. Maxwell (eds.) Mind, Matter and Method: Essays in Philosophy and Science in Honor
of Herbert Feigl, Minneapolis: Univ. of Minnesota Press.
92. Teachings of the Presidents of the Church - Brigham Young, (2002) Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-day Saints.
93. R.L. Amoroso, S. Giandinoto, G. Hunter, G. Nibart & E. A. Rauscher (2008) Universal Quantum Computing:
Anticipatory Parameters Predicting Bulk Implementation, Part I – Philosophical Foundations of the Formalism, in D.
Dubois (ed.) Proceedings of CASYS07, Liege, Belgium.
94. Smith, J. (1989) Doctrine & Covenants, 88:11, Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
95. Burns, J.E. (1994) Spaciousness: The common ground between science and spirituality, in R.I. Heinze (ed.)
Proceedings of the 11th Intl. Conf. On the Study of Shamanism and Alternative Modes of Healing, Berkeley:
Independent Scholars of Asia.
96. Smith, H. (1991) The World’s Religions, New York: Harper Collins.
97. Wattles, J. (1996) The Golden Rule, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
98. Terry, Q.C. (2005) Golden Rules and Silver Rules of Humanity, Bloomington: Authorhouse.
99. Holoviak, S.J. (1993) Golden Rule Management, Reading: Addison-Wesley.
100. Bigelow, J. (1927) Toleration, and other essays and studies, New Church Board of Publication; or
http://newearth.org/frontier/grmain.html.
101. Hare, R.M. (1963) Freedom and Reason, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
102. Gensler, H.J. (1996) Formal Ethics, New York: Routledge.
103. Gensler, H.J. (1998) Ethics: A Contemporary Introduction, New York: Routledge.
104. Citations for The Golden Rule: The Holy Bible: King James Version (1989) Leviticus 19:18; Mathew 7:12, 19:19,
22:39; Mark 12:31; Luke 6:31, 10:27; Romans 13:9; Galations 5:4, Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-
day Saints; Doctrine & Covenants of the Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter-day Saints, 59:6, Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints; Confucius (500 BC)
Analects of Confucius (1998) D. C. Lau (trans.) Ch. 15, Verse 3, New York: Penguin Classics; also
http://classics.mit.edu/Confucius/analects.html.
105. The Holy Bible: King James Version (1989) Mark 12:30; Deuteronomy 6:5, Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter-day Saints.
106. The Holy Bible: King James Version (1989) John 13:34-35 Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-
day Saints.
107. The Holy Bible: King James Version (1989) Matthew 22:36-40, Salt Lake City: The Church of Latter-day Saints.
108. Goethe, J.W. von (2005) The Sorrows of Young Werther (Die Lieden des Jungen Werther) B. Pike (trans.) Mre
York: Random House.
109. The Holy Bible: King James Version (1989) James 1:26, 3:5-6,8; 1 Peter 3:10, Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter-day Saints.
110. The Holy Bible: King James Version (1989), New Testament, 1 Peter 4:8, Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter-day Saints.
111. Descartes, R. (1641) Meditations on First Philosophy , in The Philosophical Writings of René Descartes (1984) J.
Cottingham, R. Stoothoff & D. Murdoch (trans.) vol. 2, 1-62., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
112. Eccles, J.C. (1992) Evolution of Consciousness, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci., 89:7320-7324.
113. Crick, F. (1994) The Astonishing Hypothesis: The Scientific Search for the Soul, New York: Scribner’s Sons.
114. Kimball, S.W. (1978) Absolute Truth, The Ensign, Sept, pp. 3-8, Salt Lake City: The Church of Latter-day Saints.
115. Misner, C.W. (1974) Cosmology and theology, in W. Yourgrau & A.D. Breck (eds.) Cosmology, History
Theology, New York: Plenum.
116. Amoroso, R.L. (1996) The production of Fröhlich and Bose-Einstein coherent states in in vitro paracrystaline
oligomers using phase control laser Interferometry, Bioelectrochemistry and Bioenergetics 41, 39-42.
117. Amoroso, R.L. (1999) An intro to Noetic Field Theory: The quantization of mind, In R. Amoroso & M. Farias et.
al. (eds.) Science and the Primacy of Consciousness: Intimation of a 21st Century Revolution, Oakland: Noetic Press.
118. Wolf, F.A. (1999) The quantum physical communication between the self and the soul, The Noetic Journal, 2:2,
149-158; also (2000) pp. 404-414, R. Amoroso & M. Farias et. al. (eds.) Science and the Primacy of Consciousness:
Intimation of a 21st Century Revolution, Oakland: The Noetic Press.
119. Amoroso, R.L. (2010) The Geometry, Topology and Structural-Phenomenology of the Soul, book in progress.
120. The Autoimmune Disease Group (Noetic or Spirit-Based Psyconeuroimmunological Medical Etiologies);
http://www.mindspring.com/~l.o.v.e.r/autoimmune.pdf
121. Amoroso, R.L., and Di Biase, F., (eds.) (2005) A Revolução da Consciência. Novas Descobertas sobre a Mente no
Século XXI, Rio de Janeiro: Editura Vozes.
122. Di Biase, F. (1981) Auto-organização nos sistemas biológicos, Ciência e Cult., 339: 1155-1159, Sociedade
Brasileira para o Progresso da Ciência, Brazil.
123. Di Biase, F. (1995) O Homem Holístico, a Unidade Mente-Natureza, Rio de Janeiro: Editora Vozes.
124. Di Biase, F. & Rocha, M.S. (1998) Caminhos da Cura, Petrópolis, Rio de Janeiro:Editora Vozes.
125. Di Biase, F. & Rocha, M.S. (2004) Ciência Espiritualidade e Cura, Psicologia Transpessoal e Ciências Holísticas,
Rio de Janeiro: Editora Qualitymark.
126. Vaz, N. M. & Varela, F.J. (1978) Self and non-sense: an organism-centered approach to immunology , Medical.
Hypotheses 4: 231-267.
127. Jerne, N. K. (1974) Toward a network theory of the immune system, Ann. Immunol. Inst. Pasteur, 125c:373-389.
128. Jerne, N. K. (1984) Idiotypic networks and other preconceived ideas, Immunological Review, 79: 5-24.
129. Amoroso, R.L. & Rauscher, E.A. (2009) The Holographic Anthropic Multiiverse: Formalizing the Complex
Geometry of Ultimate Reality, Singapore: World Scientific.
 Physics of Non-Inertial Reference Frames
Timur F. Kamalov
Physics Department, Moscow State Open University
Korchagina, 22, Moscow, 107996, Russia
E-mail: TimKamalov@gmail.com

Abstract. Physics of non-inertial reference frames is a generalizing of Newton’s laws to any reference frames. It is the system of
general axioms for classical and quantum mechanics. The first, Kinematics Principle reads: the kinematic state of a body free of
forces conserves and equal in absolute value to an invariant of the observer’s reference frame. The second, Dynamics Principle
extended Newton’s second law to non-inertial reference frames and also contains additional variables there are higher derivatives
of coordinates. Dynamics Principle reads: a force induces a change in the kinematic state of the body and is proportional to the
rate of its change. It is mean that if the kinematic invariant of the reference frame is n-th derivative with respect the time, then the
dynamics of a body being affected by the force F is described by the 2n-th differential equation. The third, Statics Principle reads:
the sum of all forces acting a body at rest is equal to zero.

INTRODUCTION
Newton’s laws [1] are valid in inertial reference frames, with the Lagrangian being dependent on coordinates and
their first derivatives (i.e. velocities). A mathematician would call three Newton’s laws an axiomatic of physical
theory. However there exists Ostrogradski’s Canonical Formalism [2]. This mathematical description, in which we
shall try to find a physical meaning, will be called Ostrogradski’s physics. For this we formulate two postulates. The
Lagrangian depends not only on coordinates and their first derivatives (i.e. velocities) [3] but also on higher
derivatives of coordinates, with higher derivatives being considered independent variables
L 6 L(t , r, r,r,..., r (n ) ) (1)
Really, if the first derivative of coordinates can be independent of coordinates, why cannot the higher derivatives?
Repeating the well known procedure of obtaining Euler-Lagrange’s equation for such a Lagrangian, we shall obtain
Euler-Lagrange’s equation with additional variables depending on the higher derivatives of coordinates.
Ostrogradski’s physics is a physics of non-inertial reference frames. This is the theory with a different axiomatic,
and hence it gives different results. What axiomatic of non-inertial reference frames physics should be? The first
axiom reads: free particles conserves its kinematical states in any reference frame including an inertial one. The
second axiom generalized Newton’s second law to any reference frames and also contains additional variables there
are higher derivatives of coordinates and inertial forces, since Ostrogradski’s physics considers any reference frames
including an inertial one. Newton’s physics is a particular case of Ostrogradski’s Canonical Formalism for inertial
reference frames.

GENERAL MECHANICS

Newton’s Laws were created for the absolutely static space and further they were extended to manifold of an
inertial reference frames and constituting, from the mathematical viewpoint, the axiomatic of classical physics
actually postulate that the equations describing the dynamics of bodies in inertial reference frames are second-order
differential equations. However, the real time-space is almost without exception non-inertial and stochastic because
it exists (at least weak) fields, waves, or forces perturbing an ideal inertial reference frames. It corresponds to
Mach's principle [4] with a general statement "Local physical laws are determined by the large-scale structure of the
Universe". The dynamics of the body in such vibration reference frames can’t be founded by Newton Laws and
should be described by changing this axiomatic. If Newtonian dynamics postulates the description of body's
dynamic by second-order differential equation then the dynamics of the body in vibration reference frames should
be described by high-order derivative equation.
Repeatedly various authors attempted to modify the quantum mechanics without changing anything in classical
physics. We shall proceed otherwise. Can we modify and expand the axioms of classical Newtonian dynamics so
that the quantum mechanics equations will follow from it?
Classical physics usually considers the motion of bodies in inertial reference frames. This is a simplified and
approximate description of the real pattern of the motion, as it is practically impossible to get an ideal inertial
reference frame. Actually in the any particular reference frame there always exist minor influences due to any
random fields. A simplified consideration of the actual reference frame as an inertial one enables derivation of
motion equations, which are usually solved by means of the traditional methods of mathematical physics. Then the
uncertainty principle is induced by the non-inertial character of the reference frame and constitutes the expression of
the error of measurement of coordinate and momentum of the object under consideration and is a consequence of the
idealization of the problem being considered to an inertial reference frame. In this case, one can assess the effect of
inertial force in a non-inertial reference frame through the Plank constant.
Let us consider the precise description of the dynamics of the motion of bodies taking into account complex non-
inertial nature of reference frames. For this end, let us consider a body in a any reference frame, denoting the actual
position of the body as r and time as t. The kinematical state of the particle is define, expanding into Taylor
convergence series,
1 2 1 3 1
r 6 r0 : rt : rt : rt : ... : r ( n ) t n : ...
2! 3! n! (2)
( n 51)
when the derivative of coordinates on time r a 0, r a const .
(n)

Let us consider in more detail this precise description of the dynamics of body motion, taking into account of real
reference systems.
To describe the extended dynamics of a body in an arbitrary coordinate system (corresponding to any reference
system) let us introduce concepts of kinematic state and kinematic invariant of an arbitrary (for the example, the
vibration reference frame) reference frame.
Definition: The kinematic state of a body determinates if exist the convergence decomposition (2) of the function
coordinate of the time q 6 q (t ). It is mean that the kinematic state of a body determinates not only by coordinates,
velocities and accelerations but by high order derivatives the coordinate with respect to time too.
General mechanics based on three postulates.
Kinematics Principle
The kinematic state of a body free of forces is constant. The kinematic state of a body free of forces conserves and
equal to the module of the kinematics invariants of the observer's reference frame. Or, the kinematic state of the free
particle depending of kinematics characteristic of observer. It is mean that the kinematic state of a body free of
forces is observer-depended.
The acceleration for a body free of forces is a constant for the observer in the constant-accelerated reference frame.
In this case the acceleration is defining the kinematic state of the body.
The velocity for a body free of forces is a constant for the observer in the uniformed (constant velocity) reference
frame. In this case the velocity is defining the kinematic state of the body. And so on.
Dynamics Principle
If the kinematic invariant of an observed reference frame is n-th time derivative of body coordinate, then the body
dynamics with influence of the force F is described with the differential equation of the order 2n:

1 n :1q ( 2 n ) : ... : 1 3q : 1 2 q : 11q : 1 0 q 6 F (t , q, q , q,q,..., q ( n ) ) (3)

Here — - some constants.

Statics Principle
The sum of forces which action to the statics particle is equal to zero.
Here (3) is the modification of the Newton's Second Law [1] for the general case of non-inertial reference frames.
Odd derivatives correspond to losses (friction or radiation) and describe irreversible cases for open systems not
satisfying variation principles of mechanics. Odd derivatives correspond to the open systems.
In our case, the discrepancy between descriptions of the two models is the difference between the description of

test particles in the model of extended Newtonian dynamics with Lagrangian L 6 L(t , r, r,r,..., r (n ) ) and
Newtonian dynamics in inertial reference frames with the Lagrangian L 6 L (t , r , r )


³ ( L(t , r, r, r,..., r ) 5 L(t , r , r))dt 6 S (t , r , r, r,..., r ) 5 S (t , r , r) 6 h

(n) ( n)
(4)
In the classical mechanics, in inertial reference systems, the Lagrangian depends only on the coordinates and their
first time derivatives. In the extended models, in real reference systems, the Lagrangian depends not only on the
coordinates and their first time derivatives, but also on their higher derivatives. Applying the least action principle,
we obtain the generalized Euler-Lagrange equation:
N
d n rL
`S 6 ` ³ L(r , r, r,..., r ( n ) )dt 6 ³ i (51) n 6 0. (5)
n60 dt n rr ( n )
Or,
N
d n rL
i (51)n
n60 dt n rr ( n )
6 0. (6)

Or,
n 51
rL d rL d 2 rL d 3 rL n d rL
5 ­
: ­­
5 ­­­
: ... : ( 51) n 51
: ... 6 0. (7)
rr dt r r dt r r dt r r
2 3
dt rr( n )
In the particular case the Lagrangian will be expressed through quadratic functions of variables
¢
L 6 5kr 2 : k1r 2 5 k2 r2 : k3r2 : ... : (51)1 k1 r (1 ) : ... 6 i (51)1 k1 r (1 ) .
2 2
(8)
1 60
For the covariant derivative of the vector A
rA k
‚ i Ak 6 : tijk A j
rx i
(9)
with the operator
dx i D
D (1) 6 ‚i 6
d‰ D‰ ,
the second covariant derivative
rD (1) A i dx k
D ( 2 ) A i 6 : t ijk D (1) A j
r‰ d‰ (10)
and n-th covariant derivative
rD ( N 51) A i dx k
D ( N ) A i 6 : t ijk D ( N 51) A j
r‰ d‰ . (11)
The generalized Euler-Lagrange equation with the covariant derivative
n 51
rL d rL d 2 rL d 3 rL n d rL
5 : 5 : ... : ( 5 1) : ... 6 0
rr d‰ rD r d‰ rD r d‰ rD r
(1) 2 ( 2 ) 3 ( 3 )
d‰ n 51
rD ( n ) r (12)

QUANTUM MECHANICS FROM GENERAL MECHANICS

Denoting the addition energy brought about by the non-inertial reference frame as Q and the constant coefficients
as —, we get for the total energy E, potential energy V and kinetic energy W the following expressions:
E 6 V : W : Q,
V 6 1 1r 2 ,
W 6 1 2 r 2 ,
2
Q 6 1 3 r2 : ... : 1 n r ( n ) : ...
Generalized Jacobi-Hamilton equation in the non-inertial reference frame for the action function takes on the form:
rS (‚S ) 2
5 6 :V : Q
rt 2m
 ‚2S i!m
In the first approximation Q a 13 2
(the constant is chosen as 1 3 6 ) is Bohm's quantum potential [5].
m 2
i
S

Hence, we get the Schrëdinger equation in the first approximation for the function J 6e !
.

CONCLUDION
Our case corresponds to the Lagrangian (1), depending on coordinates, velocities and higher time derivatives,
which we call additional variables, extra addends, or hidden variables. In arbitrary reference systems (including non-
inertial ones) additional or hidden variables (addends) appear in the form of higher time derivatives of coordinates,
which complement both classical and quantum physics. We call these additional addends, or variables, constituting
the higher time derivatives of coordinates, hidden variables or hidden variables, complementing the description of
particles [6].

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I thank Yu.P. Rybakov, M.L. Filchenkov S.V. Kopylov for useful discussions.

REFERENCES
[1] Newton I., Philosophiae naturalis principia mathematica, 1687.
[2] Ostrogradskii M., Met. De l'Acad. De St.-Peterburg, v. 6, p. 385, 1850.
[3] Lagrange J.I., Mecanique analitique. Paris, De Saint, 1788.
[4] Mach Ernst, Die Mechanik in ihrer Entwickelung: Historisch-Kritisch Dargestellt, 3rd revised & enlarged edition, F. A.
Brockhaus, Leipzig (1897) [First published 1883].
[5] Bohm D., Phys. Rev. 85, 166 (1952); Phys. Rev. 85, 180 (1952); Phys. Rev., 87, 389 (1952).
[6] Kamalov T.F., Journal of Russian Laser Research, v. 30, n. 5, pp. 465- 470, 2009.
 Accelerating Universe in Higher Dimensional Space Time
D. Panigrahi
Sree Chaitanya College, Habra, 743268, India,
and also Relativity and Cosmology Research Centre, Jadavpur University, Kolkata - 700032, India
e-mail: dibyendupanigrahi@yahoo.co.in

Abstract. We discuss the quintessential phenomena in higher dimensional spacetime with the help of a Chaplygin type
of matter field. The dimensional reduction is possible in this case. It is shown that flip is delayed with dimensions which
is encouraging from the observational point because all the evidences from different cosmic probes point to a very late
acceleration. Fixing the initial conditions we get QCDM, ΛCDM and also Phantom like cosmology in a single frame work.
This is, however, a consequences of the presence of extra dimensions. Moreover, our solutions reduce to the 4D models when
extra dimensions are absent.
Keywords: cosmology; higher dimensions; accelerating universe
PACS: 04.20, 04.50 +h

1. INTRODUCTION
Recent observational evidences suggest that the present universe is accelerating. To explain the above phenomenon,
scientists attempt to give some plausible explanations. Briefly stated - introduction of a constant or an evolving
cosmological parameter [1] in the field equations, the presence of a quintessential type of scalar field giving rise
to a large negative pressure (dark energy) [2], Brans-Dicke scalar field, oscillations of axions [3], modification of
Einstein-Hilbert action via the additional curvature terms in the Lagrangian [4], the role of inhomogeneity to cause
acceleration [5], a Chaplygin type of gas [6].
But people have tried to understand why Cosmological parameter (Λ) is at least 10 120 times smaller than what is
expected from the field theory, but it evades any plausible theoretical explanations. To remedy this defect one invokes
the concept of an evolving cosmological parameter (Λ). But it suffers from what is call Coincidence Problem. The
acceleration may be explained by a new type of fluid with a large negative pressure which might account for 70% of
the matter content ( dark energy) of the Universe. To construct a viable model for dark energy is to associate it with
a slowly evolving and spatially homogeneous scalar field, called Quintessence field. Here the coincidence and the
fine tuning problems do not arise. But one has to assume the existence of a hypothetical scalar field with mysterious
properties of matter ( e.g., Negative Pressure, Violation of energy conditions etc.). Chaplygin gas model can explain
both early and late evolution of our accelerating phase of the Universe. Actually it behaves as dust-like matter at
early stage and as a Cosmological Constant at late stage of accelerating phase. To explain the total evolution of our
cosmology, one introduces a modified Chaplygin gas [7].
In this work we have taken a Chaplygin type of matter field in Higher dimensional spacetime [8, 9]. Actually here
we make an attempt to see if Higher Dimensional (HD) spacetime has any role to help the acceleration. The desirable
dimensional reduction is possible in this case. While literature abounds with quintessential models with Chaplygin
type of gas in 4D we are not aware of results of similar kind in HD spacetime. However we have not been able to
find solutions in a closed form with the system of equations finally reducing to a hypergeometric series. In any case
certain inferences can always be drawn in the extreme cases and our analysis shows that an initially decelerating model
transits to an accelerating one as in 4D. An interesting result in this section is the fact that the effective equation of
state at the late stage of evolution contains some additional term coming from extra dimensions. Fixing some initial
conditions the cosmology evolves as QCDM, ΛCDM or Phantom type.

Accelerating Universe in Higher Dimensional Space Time September 21, 2010 1

 2. ACCELERATING UNIVERSE
We have taken (d+4) dimensional homogeneous spacetime with two scale factors and a perfect fluid as a source field
along with a chaplygin type of matter field. We consider the line element of (d+4)-dimensional spacetime


dr2
ds2 = dt 2 − R2 + r 2
d θ 2
+ r 2
sin 2
θ d φ 2
− A2 γab dya dyb (1)
1 − r2

where ya ( a, b = 4, ...., 3 + d) are the extra dimensional spatial coordinates. The 3D and extra dimensional scale factors
R and A depend on time only. For the energy momentum tensor we take [10]

T00 = ρ , Ti j = −p, Tab = −pd (2)

where the rest of the components vanish. Here p is the isotropic 3-pressure and p d , that in the extra dimensions.

We know that in Higher Dimensional cosmology, the 3D space expands indefinitely, but the extra dimensions should
shrink to Plankian length. To determine the dimensional reduction, we consider the following relation.

A(t) = R(t)−m (3)

where m is any positive number so that dimensional reduction is possible. Here we assume an equation of state of a
generalised Chaplygin type of gas for the matter field in 3D space only

p = (γ − 1)ρ − Bρ −α (4)
where 0 ≤ α ≤ 1 along with a higher dimensional isotropic pressure pd existing in the extra space such the the field
equations reduce to

k Ṙ2
ρ= (5)
2 R2
R̈ 1 Ṙ2
−p = (2 − dm) + [m2 d(d + 1) + 2(1 − dm)] 2 (6)
R 2 R
R̈ 1 Ṙ2
−pd = (3 − dm + m) + [m(d − 1)(dm − 4) + 6] 2 (7)
R 2 R
where k = dm2 (d − 1) + 6(1 − dm) √ √
3d− 3d(d+2) 3d+ 3d(d+2)
For positive energy density, k must be greater than zero which gives m < d(d−1) or, m > d(d−1) .

Again Bianchi identity will be in our case

Ṙ Ȧ
ρ̇ + 3 (ρ + p) + d (ρ + pd ) = 0 (8)
R A
Now using equations (4), (6), (7) & (8) we get

 
k Ṙ 2dm(m + 1)
ρ̇ + γ+ ρ − Bρ −α = 0 (9)
(2 − dm) R k

Solving equation (9) we get

  1
1+α
Bk c
ρ= + (1+α )M
(10)
M
R (2−dm)

Accelerating Universe in Higher Dimensional Space Time September 21, 2010 2

 where
M = γ k + 2dm(m + 1) (11)
and c is the integration constant. Again (i) ρ should be positive and (ii) ρ decreases with R then (2 − dm) > 0
which follows
√ from equation (10); so from these physical considerations we can finally put the restriction on m as
3d− 3d(d+2)
m< d(d−1) for d = 1 and m < 1 for d = 1.
The term 2dm(m + 1) of equation (11) is a typical higher dimensional effect, absent in 4D (i.e., d = 0). Now we see
that some possibilities arise for different values of m.
(i) m = −1: Here A = R and the desirable feature of dimensional reduction is not possible for extra dimensions. An
isotropic expansion in all dimensions. Moreover the isotropy of the metric dictates that p = p d and so we end up with
an isotropic pressure in all dimensions. The solutions closely resemble the earlier work of Debnath et al [11] in 4D.
(ii) m = 0: Here we get flat extra space although the total number of dimensions continues to be (d + 4). But the
cosmology is exactly similar to the 4D case referred to earlier [11].
(iii) d = 0: Here we simply recover the 4D metric and all the known solutions of 4D follow. Now with the help of
equations (5) & (10), we get

  1
1+α
Ṙ2 2 Bk c
= + (12)
R2 k M (1+α )M
R (2−dm)
We have not been able, so far, to find a solution of equation (12) in a closed form. Rather a Hypergeometric series
solution results given by

⎡ M
⎤ √
2s(2−dm) st
BkR ⎦ R 2(2−dm) = 2Mc
M
2(2 − dm) 2 F1 ⎣s, s, 1 + s, − √ +C (13)
cM k

1
where s = 2(1+ α ) and 2 F1 is the hypergeometric function. Now we can choose the values of different parameters
such that the temporal behaviour of the scale factors are shown in figure-1. From this figure we see that at a certain
stage of evolution the cosmology starts accelerating. Interestingly, extra dimensions compactify at very early stage of
evolution in conformity with both theoretical and observational requirements.

8
R t
A t
R  t , A t  

0
0 1 2 3 4
t

FIGURE 1. The variation of R(t) and A(t) vs t is shown in this figure. Here we see that R (t) expands indefinitely and dimensional
reduction is possible for extra dimensions. We have taken α = 0.5, m = 0.5, d = 1 and γ = 1. This graph is drawn with the help of
’Mathematica’ using equations (3) & (12).
Now for small value of scale factor R(t) (A(t) should be large in this situation),
1 M
− (2−dm)
ρ ≈ c 1+α R (14)

Accelerating Universe in Higher Dimensional Space Time September 21, 2010 3

 which is very large and corresponds to the universe dominated by an equation of state, p = (γ − 1)ρ as is evident
from equation (4). At the late stage of evolution (when R(t) is large and A(t) small) the expressions for ρ and p are
given below.

 1
 1    
Bk 1+α Bk 1+α M M
ρ≈ and p ≈ − − (γ − 1) = − − (γ − 1) ρ
M M k k
 
2dm(m + 1)
= − 1+ ρ =Wρ (15)
k

where
 
2dm(m + 1)
W = − 1+ (16)
k

The last equation (16) is very interesting because it introduces some new physics in our analysis in the context of
multidimensional cosmology. Here W = −1. Obviously this is due to the presence of extra dimensions in the above
equation. The expression (16) points to the fact - how extra dimensions help the inflationary process.
In 4D case (d = 0): In this case W = −1 and we get ΛCDM model. Otherwise the magnitude of W is parameter
dependent. When m = 0, i.e. A(t) is a constant we again get back the 4D case.
When m > 0, W < −1; we get phantom like cosmology with ‘big rip’ etc. But the cosmology becomes physically
interesting when −1 < m < 0 such that 0 > W > −1 and we get a quiessence type of model [12].
Now, if we calculate (3+d)-dimensional volume

V = R3 Ad = R(3−dm) (17)
√
3d− 3d(d+2)
Since m < d(d−1) for d = 1 and m < 1 for d = 1, therefore the value of (3 − dm) should be positive.
Now for accelerating universe, R̈ > 0, implying
M(1+α ) c M(M + 2dm − 4)
R (2−dm) > (18)
2B k(2 − dm)

The above expression shows that the universe will be decelerating for small values of scale factor while for large
values we get accelerating universe and the flip occurs at t = tc such that

  2−dm
c M(M + 2dm − 4) M(1+α )
R(tc ) = (19)
2B k(2 − dm)

1.00
1
0.98 m
18
0.96
1
R  tc  

0.94 m
12
0.92
0.90
0.88
0.86
0 2 4 6 8 10
d

FIGURE 2. The variation of R(tc ) and d is shown in this figure for different values of m. Here we have taken α = 0.5 and γ = 1.

Accelerating Universe in Higher Dimensional Space Time September 21, 2010 4

 Given the fact that in Friedmannian cosmology R(t) is a monotonic function, R(t) may be taken as a measure of
the flipping instant. From the figure-2 it follows that it does not change much with d but this fact should not be given
much importance as it may be due to the initial value of α , m etc. But the flip is always delayed with dimensions in
line with current observational results.
The whole dynamics can be simulated in a field theoretic approach with the help of an equivalent scalar field
[13]. For a scalar field φ having self-interacting potential U(φ ), the Lagranian of the scalar field will be L =
1 μ
2 ∂ φ ∂μ φ −U(φ ), the equivalent energy density ρφ and pressure pφ for the scalar field will be

  1
1+α
1 2 Bk c
ρφ = φ̇ +U(φ ) = + (1+α )M
(20)
2 M
R (2−dm)

1
pφ = φ̇ 2 −U(φ ) = (γ − 1)ρ − Bρ −α (21)
2
  1   α
1+α 1+α
Bk c Bk c
= (γ − 1) + (1+α )M −B + (1+α )M (22)
M M
R (2−dm) R (2−dm)

such that we get

 − α 
 
1+α
2 Bk c Bk cγ
φ̇ = + (1+α )M
γ −B + (1+α )M
(23)
M M
R (2−dm) R (2−dm)

  − 1 

2  1
2
 1 k Bk c k cγ
φ =± + (1+α )M
B γ −1 + (1+α )M
(24)
R 2 M (2−dm)
M (2−dm)
R R

and
 − 1  − α
1+α 1+α
1 Bk c B Bk c
U(φ ) = (2 − γ ) + (1+α )M
+ + (1+α )M
(25)
2 M 2 M
R (2−dm) R (2−dm)
Integrating equation (24)

⎡ ⎧   ⎫ 12 ⎤
cγ
 ⎢  ⎪ B γ Mk − 1 + ⎪
1 k⎨ ⎬ ⎥
(1+α )M

φ − φ0 = ± ⎢ R (2−dm) ⎥ dR (26)
⎣R 2⎪ Bk
+ c ⎪ ⎦
⎩ M (1+α )M ⎭
R (2−dm)

where φ0 is an arbitrary constant of integration. It is very difficult to integrate the equation (26) in a closed form.
However if at this stage we take the m = −1 i.e., γMk = 1 then we are able to integrate and get the following solution.


2 2+d cγ − (1+ α )kγ
φ= sinh−1 R 2(2+d) (27)
kγ 1 + α B

and

Accelerating Universe in Higher Dimensional Space Time September 21, 2010 5

 350
300 d0
250 d  10
200 d  20

Φ
150
100
50
0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
R

FIGURE 3. The variation of φ and R is shown in this figure. The scalar field decays with time more sharply in lower dimensions.
(Taking α = 0.6, k = 6 and γ = 1).

1.010 0.7
Γ1 Γ2
d0 0.6
1.008
d  10 0.5 d0
UΦ

UΦ
1.006 d  20 d  10
0.4
0.3 d  20
1.004
0.2
1.002
0.1
1.000 0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0 5 10 15 20 25
Φ Φ

FIGURE 4. The variation of U(φ ) and φ is shown. It suggests critical γ dependance. With dimensions U(φ ) becomes flatter. (α
= 0.6, k = 6).

 1 ! "
2 − γ B 1+α 2 kγ 1 + α
U(φ ) = cosh 1+α φ (28)
2 γ 2 d +2

 α ! "
B B − 1+α 2α
− 1+ kγ 1 + α
+ cosh α φ
2 γ 2 d +2

If we put d = 0, i.e., in 4-Dimensional spacetime we get solutions of the above equations (27) & (28) which are
identical with 4D case [11]. For d = 0, γ = 1 and α = 1 , we get the identical expression of Scale factor and Potential
with the work of A. Kamenshchik et al [6].

3. DISCUSSION
We have here studied higher dimensional cosmological model to explain the present acceleration with a generalised
chaplygin type of gas. Actually here we make an attempt to see if Higher Dimensional (HD) spacetime has any role to
help the acceleration. We get the following important results:
(i) Dimensional Reduction is possible in this case.
(ii) The most important thing that depending on some initial conditions, the effective equation of state during late
evolution interpolates among Quiessence, ΛCDM and Phantom type of expansion.
(iii) Interestingly our model closely mimics the work of Guo where the extra dimensions takes the role of a variable
B(R) In this respect our work recovers the effective equation of state (for large scale factor) for a recent work of Guo
et al [14] where a very generalised Chaplygin type of gas is taken.

Accelerating Universe in Higher Dimensional Space Time September 21, 2010 6

 (iv) For d = 0, γ = 1 and α = 1, we get the identical expression of Scale factor and Potential with the work of A.
Kamenshchik et al [6]. Again for d = 0, we get back the results of 4D cosmology. So our solutions are general in
nature.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The helpful suggestions of S. Chatterjee and the financial support of UGC for mrp are acknowledged.

REFERENCES
1. D. Panigrahi and S. Chatterjee, Gen.Rel.Grav., 40, 833-851 (2008).
2. T. Padmanabhan - ‘Understanding our Universe : Current status and open issues’ and references therein, gr- qc/ 0503107
3. C. Csaba, N. Kaloper, and J. Terning, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 161302 (2002)
4. Ujjaini Alam, Varun Sahni and A. A. Starobinsky, JCAP 06, 008 (2004)
5. H. Alnes, M. Amarzguioui, and Ø. Grøn, JCAP 01, 007 (2007)
6. A. Kamenshchik, U. Moschella, and V. Pasquier, Phys. Lett. B511, 265 – 268 (2001)
7. H. B. Benasum,’Accelerated Universe from Modified Chaplygin Gas and Tachyonic Fluid’, hep-th/ 0205140
8. D. Panigrahi, S. Chatterjee, and Y. Z. Zhang, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A21, 6491 – 6512 (2006)
9. D. Panigrahi, and S. Chatterjee, ’Quintessential Phenomena in Higher Dimensional Space Time’, arxiv : 1006:0476
10. S. Randjber-Daemi, A. Salam, and J. Strathdee, Phys. Lett. 135B, 388 – 392 (1984)
11. U. Debnath, A. Banerjee, and S. Chakraborty, Class. Quant. Grav. 21, 5609 – 5618 (2004)
12. S. Hannestad, and E. Mortsell, Phys. Rev. D66, 063508 (2002); Z. K. Guo, N. Ohta, and Y. Z. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D72, 023504
(2005)
13. J. D. Barrow, Nucl. Phys. B310, 743 – 763 (1988)
14. Zong-Kuan Guo, and Yuan-Zhong Zhang, Phys. Lett.B645, 326 – 329 (2007)
15. V. Gorini, A. Yu. Kamenshchik, U. Moschella, O. F. Piattella, and A. A. Starobinsky, Phys. Rev. D80, 104038(2009); arXiv:
0909.0866

Accelerating Universe in Higher Dimensional Space Time September 21, 2010 7

 Gauge Fixing in the Maxwell Like Gravitational Theory in
Minkowski Spacetime and in the Equivalent Lorentzian
Spacetime
Roldão da Rocha∗ and Waldyr A. Rodrigues Jr.†
∗
Centro de Matemática, Computação e Cognição
Universidade Federal do ABC, 09210-170, Santo André, SP, Brazil
†
Institute of Mathematics, Statistics and Scientific Computation, IMECC-UNICAMP CP 6065, 13083-859
Campinas, SP, Brazil

Abstract. In a previous paper we investigate a Lagrangian field theory for the gravitational field, which is there represented
◦
by a section {gα } of the coframe bundle over Minkowski spacetime (M  R4 , g, D̊, τ ◦g , ↑). Such theory, under appropriate
conditions, has been proved to be equivalent to a Lorentzian spacetime structure (M  R4 , g, D, τg , ↑) where the metric tensor
g satisfies the Einstein field equation. Here, we first recall that according to quantum field theory ideas gravitation is described
by a Lagrangian theory of a possible massive graviton field (generated by matter fields and coupling also to itself) living
in Minkowski spacetime. The massive graviton field is moreover supposed to be represented by a symmetric tensor field h
carrying the representations of spin two and zero of the Lorentz group. Such a field, then (as it is well known) must necessarily
satisfy the gauge condition given by Eq.(10) below. Next, we introduce an ansatz relating h with the 1-form fields {gα }.
Then, using the Clifford bundle formalism we derive from our Lagrangian theory the exact wave equation for the graviton
and investigate the role of the gauge condition given by Eq.(10) by asking the question: does Eq.(10) fix any gauge condition
for the field g of the effective Lorentzian spacetime structure (M  R4 , g, D, τg , ↑) that represents the field h in our theory?
We show that no gauge condition is√fixed a priory, as it is the case in General Relativity. Moreover we prove that if we use
Logunov gauge condition, i.e., D̊γ − det ggγκ = 0 then only a restricted class of coordinate systems (including harmonic
ones) are allowed by the theory.
Keywords: Maxwell Like Gravitational Theory, Clifford Bundles, Einstein Equation
PACS: 02.40.Hw, 04.20.Fy

INTRODUCTION
In a previous paper1 , using the Clifford bundle formalism, a Lagrangian theory of the gravitational field as field in
the Faraday sense, i.e., an object of the same ontology as the electromagnetic field living on a Minkowski spacetime
◦
structure M = (M  R4 , g, D̊, τ ◦g , ↑) has been formulated2 . The theory has been constructed on two assumptions. The
#
first one is that the gravitational field is represented by a coframe {gα }, with gα ∈ sec 1 T ∗ M → sec C (M, g̊) whose
dynamics is encoded in a Lagrangian density Lg (see Eq.(14) below) which is of the Yang-Mills type (containing
moreover a gauge fixing term and an auto interaction term related to the “vorticity” of the fields). The theory is
invariant under diffeomorphisms and under local Lorentz transformations of the coframe {gα }. The gravitational field
couples universally with the matter fields and in such a way that the coupling resulting from the presence of energy-
momentum due to matter fields in some region of Minkowski spacetime distorts the Lorentz vacuum3 in much the
same way that stresses in an elastic body produces plastic deformations in it [17]. To present some additional details

1 Please, consult the arXiv version of [7] which corrects an error of the printed version. See also [2].
◦ ◦
2 Minkowski spacetime will be called Lorentz vacuum, in what follows. Moreover in the 5-uple (M  R4 , g, D̊, τ ◦g , ↑), g is a Minkowski metric, D̊
is its Levi-Civita connection, τ◦g is the volume element defining a global orientation and ↑ refers to a time orientation. The objects in the Lorentzian
spacetime structure L = (M  R4 , g, D, τg , ↑) have similar meanings. In what follows g̊ denotes the metric of the cotangent bundle relative to the
◦
structure M. If g̊ = g̊κι ∂κ ⊗ ∂ι and g = g̊κι dxκ ⊗ dxι then g̊κι g̊ιξ = δξκ . Also g denotes the metric of the cotangent bundle relative to the structure
L and if g = g ∂κ ⊗ ∂ι and g = gκι dxκ ⊗ dxι , then gκι gιξ = δξκ More details, if needed are given, e.g., in [6].
κι
3 A region of Minkowski spacetime void of matter fields will be called Lorentz vacuum [2].
we need to introduce some notation. So, let {xμ } be a set of global coordinates4 for M in the Einstein-Lorentz-Poincaré
gauge associated to arbitrary inertial reference frame5 I = ∂ /∂ x0 ∈ sec T M. Let#{∂ /∂ xμ } be orthonormal basis for
T M and {γ μ = dxμ } the corresponding dual basis for T ∗ M. We take6 γ μ ∈ sec 1 T ∗ M → sec C (M, g̊). Of course,
we have
◦ ∂ ∂
g = ηαβ γ a ⊗ γ β , g̊ = η αβ α ⊗ β , (1)
∂x ∂x
and we recall that to each (non degenerated) metric tensor, say g̊ ∈ sec T02 M there corresponds an unique invertible
$1 $1 ◦
metric extensor field g̊ : sec T ∗ M → sec T ∗ M, while the metric tensor g ∈ sec T20 M is represented by the extensor
$1 $1
field g̊−1 : sec T ∗ M → sec T ∗ M. Our second assumption is that there is a plastic distortion field described by an
$1 $1
extensor field h : sec T ∗ M → sec T ∗ M that distorts the cosmic lattice represented by the γ a producing the fields
gα such that
gα := h(γ α ). (2)
The extensor field h may be used to introduce on T ∗ M the following extensor fields

g = h−1† h−1 , ...g−1 = hh† . (3)

Of course, we have7
g(gα ) · (gβ ) = h−1 (gα ) · h−1 (gβ ) = γ α · γ β = η αβ . (4)
g̊ g̊ g̊

We can think of g as the associated extensor field a tensor field g ∈ sec T20 M

g := ηαβ gα ⊗ gβ . (5)
Moreover, the extensor field g−1 is associated to the field g ∈ sec T02 M such that

g = η αβ eα ⊗ eβ ,
with {eα }, eα ∈ sec T M, the dual basis of {gα }, i.e., gα (eβ ) = δβα .
Moreover, in our theory each nontrivial gravitational field configuration, i.e., one from which not all the gα are
exact differentials can be interpreted as generating an effective Lorentzian spacetime8 (M  R4 , g, D, τg , ↑) where D
is the Levi-Civita connection of g interpreted as a Lorentzian metric on M and such that the gα satisfy Maxwell like
field equations (which follows from the variational principle [2]). and which are equivalent to Einstein equation for
the gravitational field in General Relativity (GR).

Remark 1 Before proceeding we recall that given g ∈ sec T02 M we can construct the Clifford bundle C (M, g). The
Clifford product, the left and right contractions and the Hodge star operators defined by g can be easily expressed
in the Clifford bundle C (M, g̊) through the Golden formula (see, e.g., [2]). Indeed, if ∗ denotes either the exterior
g
product (∧), or the g−scalar product, or the g−contracted products (, ) or the g−Clifford product and analogously
g g
#
for ∗ we have for any X,Y ∈ sec T ∗ M that
g̊

h−1 (X ∗ Y ) = h−1 (X) ∗ h−1 (Y ). (6)

g g̊

4 If {xμ } and {xμ } are global coordinate functions in the Einstein-Lorentz-Poincaré gauge, the coordinates of e ∈ M in are {xμ } := {xμ (e)},
μ μ
{xμ } := {xμ (e)} and xμ = Λν xν , with Λν a proper and orthochronous Lorentz transformation.
5 An inertial reference frame satisfies D̊I = 0. See [6] for details.
6 # p T ∗ M denotes the bundle of p-forms, # T ∗ M = %4 #p ∗
T M is the bundle of multiform fields, C (M, g̊) denotes the Clifford bundle of
p=0
differential forms. The symbol sec means section. All ‘tricks of the trade’ necessary for performing the calculations of the present paper are
described in [6].
7 We have for A, B ∈ #1 T ∗ M → sec C (M, g̊) that A · B := g̊(A, B).
g̊
8 Or by an effective teleparallel spacetime, see [7], the arXiv version.
Moreover the relation between the Hodge star operators  and  is
g g̊

 = h−1†  h, (7)
g g̊

where in the above formulas h means the exterior power extension of h.

Recall next that it is a physicist dream to construct a quantum theory for the gravitational field, where the quanta
of the field are the so called gravitons. In such (yet to be constructed) theory the gravitational field is supposed to be
represented by a distribution valued symmetric field operator acting on the Hilbert space of the system. Classically
that field is represented by a symmetric tensor (distribution)

h = hαβ ϑ a ⊗ ϑ β ∈ sec T02 M, (8)

#
where9 ϑ μ := dxμ ∈ sec 1 T ∗ M → sec C (M, g̊), with {xμ } arbitrary coordinates covering U ⊂ M. Such a general
field, as it is well known [1, 11] carries a direct sum of irreducible representations of the Lorentz group, one carrying
spin two, one carrying spin one and two carrying spin zero. Now, consider the tensor field h ∈ sec T11 M

∂
h = φβα ⊗ dxβ (9)
∂ xα
If we impose that divh = 0, i.e., the restriction10

D̊α φβα = 0, (10)

◦
(where φβα := g̊ακ φκβ , g = g̊αβ ϑ a ⊗ ϑ β ) then the field h carries only the irreducible representations with spin two
and one with spin zero of the Lorentz group. This restriction is the one appropriate for the description of gravitons
with non null mass m.
Next we introduce the main purpose of this paper, which is to investigate (using the Clifford bundle formalism) the
consequences of the ansatz

∂ ∂
h = h = φβα ⊗ dxβ = hαβ α ⊗ dxβ
∂ xα ∂x
gα := hαβ γ β . (11)

We then show how to derive from our Lagrangian theory the exact wave equation for the graviton field and we obtain
a reliable conservation law for the energy-momentum tensor of the gravitational plus the matter fields in Minkowski
spacetime.
We also ask the question: does Eq.(10) fix any gauge condition for the field g of the effective Lorentzian spacetime
structure (M  R4 , g, D, τg , ↑) that is a well defined functional of the field h in our theory? We show that no gauge
condition is fixed a priory, as it is the case in GR. Thus, writing g = gαβ ∂ ∂xα ⊗ ∂∂xβ we do not need, e.g., to fix in our
theory Logunov gauge condition & '
D̊γ − det ggγκ = 0, (12)

which, is indeed a result of a postulate in Logunov’s theory [3, 4]. Since Logunov thinks that Eq.(12) is very important,
since according to him it fixes a unique solution of Einstein equations11 once a matter distribution and a coordinate
chart are given, thus eliminating (possible) ambiguities in predictions of experiments, we discuss briefly this issue.

9 Given arbitrary coordinate functions {xμ } covering U ⊂ M with coordinates {xμ } such that xμ (e) = xμ , we write, as usual, { ∂ } for the
∂ xμ
coordinate tangent vector fields and {dxμ } for the coordinate cotangent covectors.
10 In [7] we show explicitly how to determine the extensor field h once g is known in a given basis.
11 Even for the case of a zero mass graviton.
 THE WAVE EQUATION FOR THE gα
We recall that the dynamics of the fields gα in a region of M is given by

L = L g + Lm , (13)

where Lm is the Lagrangian density of the matter fields and

1 1 1 1
Lg = − dgα ∧ dgα + δ gα ∧ δ gα + dgα ∧ gα ∧ (dgα ∧ gα ) + m2 gα ∧ gα , (14)
2 g 2g gg 4 g 4 g

is invariant ( modulo an exact form.) under local Lorentz transformations12 , which is a kind of gauge freedom, a crucial
ingredient of our theory, as showed in [7].
The gα couple universally to the matter fields in such a way that the energy momentum 1-form of the matter fields
are given by
∂ Lg
Tα = . (15)
g ∂ gα

Each one of the fields gα in Eq.(14) resembles a potential of an electromagnetic field. Indeed, the first term is of
the Yang-Mills type, the second term is a kind of gauge fixing term (analogous to the Lorenz condition for the gauge
potential of the electromagnetic potential), and more important, the condition given by Eq.(10) is equivalent to

δ gα = 0. (16)
◦
g

◦
Indeed, given the coordinates functions {xμ } for U ⊂ M, xμ (e) = xμ (gα = hαβ γ β and g = ηαβ γ α ⊗ γ β ) it is13
& '
δ gα = − ∂| gα = −γ κ (D̊ ∂ hαβ γ β )
g̊ g̊ g̊ ∂ xκ
& '
= − D̊κ hβ η = ∂κ hκλ = 0
α κβ
(17)

Moreover, take notice that in general

δ gα = −∂ gα = 0, (18)
g g̊
#p ∗
where for any A p ∈ sec T M → sec C (M, g̊), it is δ A p = ϑ κ D̊ ∂ A p and δ A p := −ϑ κ D ∂ Ap.
◦ ◦ ∂ xκ g g ∂ xκ
g g
Also, the third term in the Lagrangian density is a self-interacting term, which is proportional to the square of the
total ‘vorticity’ Ω = dgα ∧ gα associated to the 1-form fields gα . This shows that in the Lagrangian density the gα
does not couple with the energy-momentum tensor of the gravitational field14 , which according to the Lagrangian
∂L
formalism is given by ∂ gαg . We finally recall that as showed in details in [7] Lg differs (when the graviton mass is
null) from the Einstein-Hilbert Lagrangian by an exact ( differential.
Also, as showed in details. e.g., in [2] variation of Lg produces the following equations of motion

1
d  S α +  tα + m2  gα = −  Tα , (19)
g g 2 g g

12 We observe that the various coefficients in Eq.(14) have been selected in order for LgM to be invariant under arbitrary local Lorentz transforma-
tions. This means, as the reader may verify that under the transformation ga → uga u−1 , u ∈ sec Spine1,3 (M, g) → sec C (M, g), LgM is invariant
modulo an exact form. & ' #
13 As usual we put D̊
∂ hαβ dxβ ⊗ ∂ ∂xα := (D̊κ hαβ )dxβ ⊗ ∂ ∂xα . Moreover, we have for any A p ∈ sec 1 T ∗ M → sec C  (T ∗ M, g̊) that the action of
∂ xκ
the Dirac like operators ∂| and ∂ are: ∂| A p := ϑ α (Deα A p ) + ϑ α ∧ (Deα A p ) and ∂ A p := ϑ α (Deα A p ) + ϑ α ∧ (Deα A p ). For more details see [9, 14].
g̊ g
14 On this respect see the discussion of [13].
 #3 ∗ #
with tκ ∈ sec T M → C  (T ∗ M, g̊) and S κ ∈ sec 2 T ∗ M → C  (T ∗ M, g̊) given by
g g

∂ Lg 1
tκ = = [(gκ dgα ) ∧ dgα − dgα ∧ (gκ   dgα )]
g ∂ gκ 2 g g gg
   
1 α 1 1
+ d gκ   g ∧ d  gα + gκ d  g ∧ d  gα + dgκ ∧  (dgα ∧ gα )
α
2 gg g g 2 g g g g 2 g
  & '
1 1 ι
− dgα ∧ gα ∧ gκ   (dgι ∧ gι ) − gκ  dg ∧ gι ∧  (dgα ∧ gα ) , (20)
4 gg 4 g g

∂ Lg 1
S κ = = −gα ∧ (dgα ∧ gκ ) + gκ ∧ (dgα ∧ gα ). (21)
g ∂ dgκ g 2 g

For what follows we need also the following equivalent expression for the S κ obtained, e.g., in [8],
g

κ 1 α κ α κ κ α κ
S =  −(gα dg ) ∧ g − (g dgα ) ∧ g + (g dg ) ∧ gα − dg . (22)
g 2g g g g

We write moreover
1
S κ = −  dgκ + Kκ (23)
g 2g g

and insert this result in Eq.(19) obtaining:

 
1 1
− d  dgκ + m2  gκ = −  tκ + Tκ + −1 d  Kκ (24)
2 g 2 g g g g

Before proceeding we recall that we have the conservation law

 
κ κ −1 κ 1 2 κ
d  t + T +  d  K − m  g = 0, (25)
g g g 2 g

We now add the term − 12 dδ gκ to both members Eq.(24) and next apply the operator −1 to both sides of that
g g
equation, thus obtaining the equivalent equation:
 
1 1 1 1
− δ dgκ − dδ gκ + m2 gκ = − tκ + Tκ + δ Kκ + dδ gκ (26)
2g 2 g 2 g 2 g

We now recall the definition of the Hodge D’Alembertian, which in the Clifford bundle formalism is the square of the
Dirac operator ∂ := ϑ α Deα acting on sections of the Clifford bundle C  (T ∗ M, g̊) [6], i.e.,
g
♦gκ := (−δ d − dδ )gκ = ∂ 2 gκ (27)
g g

2
and recall moreover the following nontrivial decomposition [6] of ∂| ,

∂ 2 gκ = ∂ · ∂ gκ + ∂ ∧ ∂ gκ , (28)
g

g
where  := ∂ · ∂ is the covariant D’Alembertian and ∂ ∧ ∂ is the Ricci operator associated to the Levi-Civita
g
connection D of g . Moreover, we have
∂ ∧ ∂ gκ = Rκ = Rκι ϑ ι , (29)
#
where Rκ ∈ sec 1 T ∗ M → C  (T ∗ M, g̊) are the Ricci 1-form fields and Rκι are the components of the Ricci tensor.
This permits us to rewrite Eq.(26) as
1g κ 1 2 κ 1
g + m g = −Tκ − tκ − δ Kκ − dδ gκ − R κ = −Tκ . (30)
2 2 g 2 g
Thus, writing (recall Eq.(11))
∂ xμ
φικ := hκμ , (31)
∂ xι
gκ = φικ dxι , Tκ = Tκι dxι , (32)
and taking into account that [6]
g
gκ = (gαβ Dα Dβ φικ )dxι (33)
we get from Eq.(30)
β
φκα g̊κι φι Dα Dβ φικ + m2 φικ = −2Tκι , (34)
which is in our theory a possible form for the (covariant) equation for the (nonlinear) graviton field on Minkowski
spacetime. The last statement follows because Dα can be easily be expressed in terms of the D̊α using the formulas of
the Appendix.
Remark 2 We can immediately write from Eq.(24) that

 
1
δ tκ + Tκ + δ Kκ − m2 gκ = 0, (35)
g g 2
Remark 3 Eq.(35) express as we already anticipated a reliable conservation law for the total energy-momentum of
the matter plus the gravitational field. However, take notice that in GR this result depends on the fixing of a cotetrad
basis and changing it by a local Lorentz transformation changes accordingly the energy-momentum tensor of the
gravitational field. In fact this last result has already been known since the work15 of Møller [12].
Remark 4 Moreover, we see that imposing the Lorenz type gauge δ gκ = 0 to the dynamic gravitational fields amounts
g
to exclude the graviton energy density from the conservation law.

WHICH GAUGE TO USE FOR g IN THE EFFECTIVE LORENTZIAN SPACETIME?

We already recalled that our Lagrangian density differs for the Einstein-Hilbert Lagrangian by an exact form. But it
can also be written as:
1 1
Lg = − (dgα ∧ gβ ) ∧ (dgβ ∧ gα ) + dgα ∧ gα ∧ (dgβ ∧ gβ ) (36)
2 g 4 g

which can be shown [6, 2] to be equivalent (modulus an exact differential) to

1 1
Lg = − (dϑα ∧ ϑ β ) ∧ (dϑβ ∧ ϑ α ) + dϑα ∧ ϑ α ∧ (dϑβ ∧ ϑ β ) (37)
2 g 4 g

where {ϑ α } is an an arbitrary coframe basis, not necessarily g orthonormal, and where ϑα := gαβ ϑ β
This permit us [2] to obtain an equation analogous to Eq.(19), i.e.,
1
d  Sα + t α + m2  ϑ α = −  T α . (38)
g g 2 g g

So, let us examine the structure of Eq.(38) in a coordinate basis {ϑ μ = dxμ }. We immediately see that a conservation
law (distinct from the previous one established above) 16 in the effective Lorentzian spacetime structure (excluding the
energy associated with the graviton mass) exists for (T μ + t μ ) if
g

δ ϑ μ = 0. (39)
g

15 Which however did not use the present crystal clear formalism.
16 Recall that in GR Eq.(38) implies in a pseudo conservation law because in that theory (without a Minkowski spacetime interpretation, as here)
Sα are expressed in terms of connection -forms of the Levi-Civita connection of g and thus are not indexed forms. Details may be found in [8].
This of course, implies that
♦xμ = −dδ xμ − δ dxμ = 0, (40)
g g

i.e., the coordinates must be harmonic.

Now, if
∂ ρ ∂ μ
D ∂ = Γν μ ρ , D ∂ ϑ μ = −Γνρ ϑ ρ (41)
∂ xν ∂ xμ ∂x ∂ xν

we have
 μ  μ
δ ϑ μ = −ϑ ν D ∂ ϑ μ = ϑ ν  Γνα ϑ α = Γνα gνα = 0, (42)
g g ∂ xν g
μ
♦xμ = 0 ⇒ Γνα gνα = 0 (43)
μ
Now, if Γνα gνα = 0 we have
 ∂  
Dμ ( − det ggμν ) = μ ( − det ggμν ) + Γνμα − det ggμα
∂x
∂ 
= μ ( − det ggμν )
∂x
∂   
= μ ( − det ggμν ) + Γ̊νμα − det ggμα − Γ̊νμα − det ggμα
∂x  
= D̊μ ( − det ggμν ) − Γ̊νμα − det ggμα
√
and since Dμ ( − det ggμν ) = 0 we get that
 
♦xμ = 0 ⇒ D̊μ ( − det ggμν ) = Γ̊νμα − det ggμα (44)
In particular in a coordinate basis = {γ μ where dxμ }, {xμ }
are global coordinates for M in Einstein-Lorentz-
Poincaré gauge17 where the connection coefficients are null we have
 ∂ 
♦xμ = 0 ⇒ D̊μ ( − det ggμν ) = μ ( − det ggμν ) = 0.
∂x
 #
But since − det(g)gμν are the components of the tensor density G ∈ sec T02 M ⊗ 4 T ∗ M, which on an arbitrary basis
is written as
 ∂ ∂
G = − det ggμν μ ⊗ ν ⊗ dx0 ∧ dx1 ∧ dx2 ∧ dx3 (45)
∂x ∂x
we arrive at the conclusion that 
D̊μ ( − det ggμν ) = 0, (46)
which is Logunov gauge condition! Note that this also implies that on any arbitrary basis we must have
Γ̊νμα gμα = 0.
∂
Also, for arbitrary non harmonic coordinates functions {xμ } we get (D̊ ∂ ∂ xμ = Γ̊κμν ∂∂xκ , D ∂
∂
∂ xμ = Γκμν ∂∂xκ ) that
∂ xν ∂ xν

μ μ μ
♦xμ = −Γαν gαν = −Γ̊αν gαν − Kαν gαν = 0. (47)
Remark 5 Now, given the Logunov gauge condition, it does not imply that the coordinates are harmonic ones, for we
have (using the formulas in the Appendix) that
  
D̊μ ( − det ggμν ) = Dμ ( − det ggμν ) + Kμκ
ν
− det ggμκ
)
ν
= Kμκ − det(gμν )gμκ (48)

17 Recall that the energy-momentum conservation law of any Lorentz invariant field theory is unambiguously formulated global coordinates in
Einstein-Lorentz-Poincaré gauge.
and thus  
D̊μ ( − det ggμν ) = 0 ⇒ Kμκ
ν
− det ggμκ = 0, (49)
and we see that under those conditions18 the allowed coordinate functions of Logunov theory must always satisfy the
constraint:
μ μ
♦xμ = −Γαν gαν = −Γ̊αν gαν . (50)

Remark 6 As an additional remark we comment that Logunov [3, 4] imposed Eq.(12) as a gauge condition in his
theory because he postulated (differently from what is the case here, see below)) that the relation between gαβ and the
L
gravitational field hαβ is given by
κ gαβ := g̊αβ + hαβ . (51)
LL

Now, the second member of Eq.(51) implies immediately taking into account Eq.(10) that D̊α (κ gαβ ) = 0 and thus
LL
 
) αβ
from the second line in Eq.(77) (in Appendix) we get that D̊α − det gg = 0.
LL

Remark 7 In our theory, defining {ϑμ } as the reciprocal basis of {ϑ μ } relative to g, i.e., g(ϑμ , ϑ ν ) = δμν we can
write directly from Eq.(2) that

Remark 8

g = ηαβ h(γα ) ⊗ h(γβ )

= gκι ϑκ ⊗ ϑι , (52)

and clearly, differently from Logunov’s theory we have:

κgκι = κ gαβ (53)

LL

from where it follows that there is no need to impose a priory any gauge condition (as it is the case in GR) for the
"metric" field g of the effective Lorentzian spacetime.

CONCLUSIONS
We showed that if gravitation is to be described by a massive graviton field living in Minkowski spacetime which is
represented by a symmetric tensor field h carrying the representations of spin two and zero of the Lorentz group and
thus satisfying the gauge condition given by Eq.(10) then the effective Lorentzian spacetime structure that represents
the gravitational field (under the ansatz given by Eq.(11)) of a given energy-momentum distribution is such that the
field g solving the effective Einstein-Hilbert equation (with cosmological constant)—as it is the case√
in GR— does  not
need to satisfy a priory any fixed gauge. We showed moreover that the Logunov gauge condition D̊γ − det ggγκ = 0
( which in his theory is indeed a postulate) does not hold in general in our theory without ad hoc hypothesis. If such
a gauge is postulated it implies that the allowed coordinate functions to be the ones satisfying Eq.(50), i.e., the theory
is not covariant. Moreover, we proved that the imposition of the Lorenz type gauge gauge δ gκ = 0 to the dynamic
g
gravitational fields amounts to exclude the graviton energy density from the energy-momentum conservation law,
something that eventually may shed some light on the problem √ of the dark
 energy.
Logunov thought that the importance of the condition D̊γ − det ggγκ = 0 in determining the effective Lorentzian
spacetime generated by an energy-momentum distribution can be seem from the following example [3, 4]. Let
{t, r, θ , ϕ} be the usual spherical coordinates in Minkowski spacetime.

18 The ones in Logunov theory.

 If we try to solve the (effective) Einstein-Hilbert equations (in the zero mass graviton case) for the field generated by
a point mass at the origin of the coordinate system we get immediately that the following “metric” fields are solutions
of those equations,
   
2m 2m −1
gs = 1 − dt ⊗ dt − 1 − dr ⊗ dr − r2 (dθ ⊗ dθ + sin2 θ dϕ ⊗ dϕ), (54)
r r
and
   
r+λ −m r+λ +m
gi = dt ⊗ dt − dr ⊗ dr
r+λ +m r+λ −m
− (r + λ + m)2 (dθ ⊗ dθ + sin2 θ dϕ ⊗ dϕ), (55)

with λ an arbitrary real parameter. Now, both solutions have the same asymptotic behavior when r → ∞. Which
one should we use for the descriptions of physical processes? It is important to emphasize that both metrics even
if expressed in the same coordinates are diffeomorphically equivalent since it is possible to perform a coordinate
transformation in Eq.(54) which makes it in the new variables to have the appearance of Eq.(55). Now, take into
account that the meaning of the coordinates in each one are different since we can know what the spacetime labels
mean only after we fix a metric on it. Specifically this statement means that those labels are associated with physical
distances and time lapses measured by ideal rods and clocks in different ways.
But Logunov thinks that gs and gi given in the same coordinate basis even if diffeomorphically equivalent are
physically distinguished through experiments and so fixing one of them as the correct one implies in the existence of
√and suchγκacriterion does not exists in GR. He claims that the metric gi when λ = 0
an additional theoretical criterion
that satisfies the condition D̊γ − det gg = 0 is the only one that fits correctly all known data on solar system
experiments. Does the method used by astronomers methods for determining the coordinates of their probes always
fix those coordinates as being the spherical coordinates of Minkowski spacetime and fix the metric to be gi ? It is hard
to believe in that possibility...
A last comment is in order. We start our considerations by postulating that the distortion field h is symmetric since
it has been constructed from the symmetric tensor field h. However, from the general theory of plastic deformations
of the Lorentz vacuum presented in [2] it is quite clear that we can construct symmetric metric tensor fields associated
to non symmetric h extensor fields19 . This observation shows that the quantum theory of the gravitational field must
be more complex than one where the g field is supposed to arise from the existence of a symmetric graviton field. We
will return to this issue in another publication.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
R. da Rocha thanks CNPq 304862/2009-6 for financial support.

APPENDIX
◦
Let (M, g, D̊) and (M, g, D) be the two Lorentzian structures20 on the same manifold M such that
◦
D̊g = 0, Dg = 0, (56)
◦
with the nonmetricity of D relative to g being given by:
◦
Q := −Dg.

Let moreover the connection coefficients of D̊ and D in arbitrary coordinates {xμ } covering U ⊂ M be:

19 In [2] it is directly derived from the variational principle and an appropriate Lagrangian the field equations for the plastic extensor field h.
20 More general formulas relating two arbitrary general connections may be found, e.g., in [6, 14].
 ρ ρ
D̊∂α dxρ = −Γ̊αβ dxβ , D∂α dxρ = −Γαβ dxβ , (57)
and
Qαβ σ = −Dα g̊β σ , (58)
Define the components of the strain tensor of the connection D by:
ρ ρ ρ
Sαβ = 2Γαβ − 2Γ̊αβ . (59)

Then
1 μ μ
Qαβ σ = (g̊μσ Sαβ + g̊β μ Sασ ), (60)
2
ρ
Sαβ = g̊ρσ (Qαβ σ + Qβ σ α − Qσ αβ ). (61)

Also,
Qαβ σ + Qσ αβ + Qβ σ α = Sαβ σ + Sσ αβ + Sβ σ α , (62)
ρ
where Sαβ σ = g̊ρσ Sαβ .
Putting
ρ 1 ρ
Kαβ = Sαβ . (63)
2
we have
ρ 1
Kαβ = − g̊ρσ (Dα g̊β σ + Dβ g̊σ α − Dσ g̊αβ ) (64)
2
The relation between the curvature tensor Rμ ραβ associated with the connection D and the Riemann curvature tensor
◦
R̊μ ραβ of the Levi-Civita connection D̊ associated with the metric g are given by:

Rμ ραβ = R̊μ ραβ + Jμ ρ[αβ ] , (65)

where:
ρ ρ ρ ρ ρ
Jμ ραβ = D̊α Kβ μ − Kβ σ Kσα μ = Dα Kβ μ − Kασ Kσβ μ + Kσαβ Kσ μ . (66)

Multiplying both sides of Eq.(65) by 12 θ α ∧ θ β we get for the curvature 2-forms of the two connections D and D̊:
ρ ρ ρ
Rμ = R̊μ + Jμ , (67)

where we have written:

ρ 1
Jμ = Jμ ρ[αβ ] θ α ∧ θ β . (68)
2
The relation between the Ricci tensors21 of the connections D and D̊ is:

Rμα = R̊μα + Jμα , (69)

with
ρ ρ ρ ρ
Jμα = D̊α Kρ μ − D̊ρ Kα μ + Kασ Kσρ μ − Kρσ Kσα μ
ρ ρ ρ ρ
= Dα Kρ μ − Dρ Kα μ − Kσ α Kσρ μ + Kρσ Kσα μ . (70)

Recall that the connection D̊ plays with respect to the tensor field g a role analogous to that played by the connection
◦
D with respect to the metric tensor g and in consequence we shall have similar equations relating these two pairs of

21 For the Ricci tensor Ricci = Rμα dxμ ⊗ dxν , we use the convention Rμα := Rμ ρ αρ .
 ◦
objects. In particular, the strain of D̊ with respect to g equals the negative of the strain of D with respect to g, since we
have:
ρ ρ ρ ρ ρ ρ ρ
Sαβ = Γαβ + Γβ α − b̊αβ = −(Γ̊αβ + Γ̊β α − bαβ ),
ρ ρ ρ ρ ρ ρ
where bαβ = Γ̊αβ + Γ̊β α and bαβ = Γαβ + Γβ α . Furthermore, we have that:

ρ 1
Kαβ = − g̊ρσ (Dα g̊β σ + Dβ g̊ασ − Dσ g̊αβ )
2
1 ρσ
= g (D̊α gβ σ + D̊β gασ − D̊σ gαβ ). (71)
2
Now, recall that given arbitrary coordinates {xα } covering U ⊂ M and {xα } covering #
covering V ⊂ M (U ∩V = ∅) a
relative tensor A of type (r, s) and weight22 w is a section of the bundle23 Tqp M ⊗ ( 4 T ∗ M)⊗w . We have on an arbitrary
coordinate basis that
We have
μ ...μ
A = Aν11...νsr (xα )∂μ1 ⊗ · · · ⊗ ∂μr ⊗ dxν1 ⊗ · · · ⊗ dxνs ⊗ (τ)⊗w ,
μ ...μ √ w μ ...μ
with τ := dx0 ∧ · · · ∧ dx3 . The set of functions Aν11...νsr (xα ) = − det g Aν11...νsr (xα ) is said to be the components
#4 ∗ w α β
'tensor field A ∈ sec(Ts M ⊗ ( T M) ) and under a coordinate transformation x → x with Jacobian
of the relative r
&
∂ xα
J = det ∂ xβ
these functions transform as [5, 15]

∂ xλ1 ∂ xλ1 ∂ xν1 ∂ xνs μ1 ...μr α

Aλ 1 ...λr β
κ1 ...κs (x ) = J
w
... ... A (x ). (72)
∂ xμ1 ∂ xμ1 ∂ xκ1 ∂ xκs ν1 ...νs
μ ...μ √ w μ ...μ
On a manifold M equipped with a metric tensor field g we can write Aν11...νsr (xα ) = − det g Aν11...νsr (xα ) where the
μ ...μ
Aν11...νsr (xα ) are the components of a tensor field A ∈ sec Tsr M.
The covariant derivative of a relative tensor field relative to a given arbitrary connection ∇ defined on M such that
μ
∇ ∂ dxμ = −Lνα dxα is given (as the reader may easily find) by
xν

μ ...μ
∇∂κ A := (∇κ Aν11...νsr )∂μ1 ⊗ · · · ⊗ ∂μr ⊗ dxν1 ⊗ · · · ⊗ dxνs ⊗ (τ)⊗w , (73)

where

μ ...μ ∂ μ1 ...μr μ μ ...μ p−1 ι μ p+1 ...μr

∇κ Aν11...νsr = A + Lικp Aν11....................ν
∂ xκ ν1 ...νs s

ι μ1 ....................μr σ μ1 ...μr
− Lνq κ Aν1 ...νq−1 ινq+1 ...νs − wLκσ Aν1 ...νs . (74)
)
◦ ◦
In particular for the Levi-Civita connection D̊ of g and D of g we have for the relative tensors − det g⊗dx0 ∧· · ·∧dx3
√
and − det g ⊗ dx0 ∧ · · · ∧ dx3 that:
)  & '
◦ ◦ ρ ◦
D̊α − det g = ∂γ − det g − Γ̊γρ − det g = 0,
⎛ ⎞ ⎛ ⎞
1 ⎠ = ∂γ ⎝ ) 1 ⎠ + Γ̊ργρ 1 = 0,
D̊α ⎝ ) ◦
◦ ◦ − det g
− det g − det g
& ' & ' 
ρ
Dα − det g = ∂γ det g − Γγρ det g = 0,
   
1 1 ρ 1
Dα √ = ∂γ √ + Γγρ √ = 0. (75)
− det g − det g − det g

22 The number w is an integer. Of course, if w = 0 we are back to tensor fields.

# #
23 The notation ( 4 T ∗ M)⊗w means the w-fold tensor product of 4 T ∗ M with itself.
 Now, if we define
det g
κ := ◦, (76)
det g
we can easily prove the the following relations:

ρ 1 1 1
Kρσ = − g̊αβ Dσ g̊αβ = gαβ D̊σ gαβ = ∂σ (κ)
2 2 κ
ρ 1 1 
gαβ Kαβ = − D̊σ (κgρσ ) = − √ D̊σ ( − det ggρσ ) (77)
κ − det g
ρ 1
g̊αβ Kαβ = −1 Dσ (κ −1 g̊ρσ ).
κ

Another useful formulas valid for our particular connections D̊ and D are:
ρ ρ
D̊α Kρβ = D̊β Kρα
ρ ρ (78)
Dα Kρβ = Dβ Kρα .

REFERENCES
1. Barnes, K. J., Lagrangian Theory for the Second-Rank Tensor Field, J. Math. Phys. 6, 788-794 (1965).
2. Fernández, V.V., and Rodrigues, W. A. Jr., Gravitation as a Plastic Distortion of the Lorentz Vacuum, Fundamental Theories
of Physics 168, Springer, Heidelberg, 2010.
3. Logunov, A. A., Mestvirishvili, M., The Relativistic Theory of Gravitation, Mir Publ., Moscow, 1989.
4. Logunov, A. A., Relativistic Theory of Gravity, Nova Science Publ., New York, 1999.
5. Lovelok, D., and Rund, H., Tensors, Differential Forms, and Variational Principles, J. Wiley & Sons, New York, 1975.
6. Rodrigues, W. A. Jr., and Oliveira, E. Capelas, The Many Faces of Maxwell, Dirac and Einstein Equations. A Clifford Bundle
Approach. Lecture Notes in Physics 722, Springer, Heidelberg, 2007.
7. Notte-Cuello, E. A., and Rodrigues, W. A. Jr., A Maxwell Like Formulation of the Gravitational Theory in Minkowski
Spacetime, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 16, 1027-1041 (2007). [arXiv:gr-qc/0612098v3]
8. Notte-Cuello, E. A., and Rodrigues, W. A. Jr., Freud’s Identity of Differential Geometry, the Einstein-Hilbert Equations and
the Vexatious Problem of the Energy-Momentum Conservation in GR, Adv. Appl. Clifford Algebras 19, 113-145 (2009).
[arXiv:0801.2559v4[math-phys]]
9. Notte-Cuello, E., Rodrigues, W. A. Jr., and Souza, Q. A. G., The Square of the Dirac and spin-Dirac Operators on a
Riemann-Cartan Space(time), Rep. Math. Phys. 60, 135-157 (2007).
10. Frankel T., The Geometry of Physics, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1997.
11. Fronsdal, C., Massless Fields with Integer Spin, Phys. Rev. D 18, 3624-3629 (1978).
12. Møller, C., Further Remarks on the Localization of the Energy in the General Theory of Relativity,Ann. Phys. 12, 118-133
(1961).
13. Padmanabhan T., From Gravitons to Gravity: Myths and Reality, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 17, 367-398
(2008).[arXiv:gr-qc/0409089v1]
14. Souza, Q. A. G. and Rodrigues, W. A. Jr., The Dirac Operator and the Structure of Riemann-Cartan-Weyl Spaces, in Letelier,
P. A. , and Rodrigues. W. A. Jr. (eds.), Gravitation: The Spacetime Structure, Proc. of the 8th Latin American Symposium on
Relativity and Gravitation, Aguas de Lindóia, July 1993, World Sci., Singapore (1994).
15. Tiee, C., Contravariance, Covariance, Densities, and all That: An Informal Discussion on Tensor Calculus, 2006.
[http://math.ucsd.edu/~ctiee/tensors.pdf]
16. Thirring, W., A Course in Mathematical Physics, vol.2, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1979.
17. Zorawski, M., Theorie Mathematiques des Dislocations, Dunod, Paris, 1967.