RELATIVITY WITH A QUANTUM FIELD
David W. Talmage
dtalmage@earthnet.net
Abstract. A sharp distinction has been made
between the confirmed observations that were
predicted and form the essential core of the
theory of relativity and the untestable
explanations that have become the lore of the
theory and its vision of reality. The possibility
is explored that it is these explanations, not the
observations, that are incompatible with
quantum mechanics. The explanation of the
gravitational red shift, that photons lose energy
as they climb out of a gravitational gradient, is
the keystone to this lore. Once this keystone is
removed the remaining explanations lose their
coherence.
Alternate explanations are
presented that are not only compatible with
quantum mechanics but require the existence
of a quantum field.
The two greatest discoveries in physics in the 20th
century were relativity (SR and GR) and quantum
mechanics (QM). The predictions of both theories have
been confirmed by many observations. But despite
repeated attempts by Einstein and other relativists and by
quantum physicists, two of the theories (GR and QM) have
never been unified with a single view of reality(1,2). These
attempts at unification have been largely mathematical.
The present paper explores the possibility that the failure to
unify the theories is the result of a mistaken view of the
reality that explains the observations of relativity.
The most important confirmed predictions of
relativity (SR and GR) are that (1) mass increases with
motion and is interchangeable with energy; (2) there is an
exact equivalence between the gravitational and inertial
masses of all matter, (3) clock rate decreases with motion
and with a decrease in gravitational potential (altitude); (4)
the measured speed of light is the same in every inertial
and gravitational frame of reference; (5) light coming from
a source with a lower gravitational potential is shifted
toward the red; and (6) a star observed near the rim of the
sun during an eclipse is displaced away from the sun by
1.75 arcseconds. It seems likely that the relativity theories
were developed when Einstein was under the influence of
Mach’s positivism and were not intended to be more than a
description of what would be observed. Thus, two
observers moving relative to each other could both observe
the other’s clock running slower than their own without
producing a logical inconsistency.
Problems with the unification of QM and relativity
have arisen because interpretations of the equations of
relativity have been made which impute a causal reality
that cannot be tested by direct observation. For example,
relativists generally claim that the relativity theories show
that (1) the gravitational red shift is caused by the loss of
energy in photons climbing out of a gravitational gradient;
(2) the kinetic energy of a falling body of matter is derived
from the gravitational field (3) the speed of light is
constant; (4) the displacement of a star on the rim of the
sun is caused by a curvature of space-time; (5) there is no
preferred frame of reference and thus all motion is relative;
and (6) the observed increase in mass of a speeding
particle of matter is caused by its motion relative to the
observer. These six interpretations of the relativity theories
are interdependent, internally consistent and compatible
with the predicted observations. The possibility that they
are false and create insuperable problems
to the
unification of relativity and QM is the subject of this essay.
I will try to show that an alternate view of the reality
behind the observations predicted by Einstein is not only
compatible with but dependent on QM.
The cause of the gravitational red shift
The relativistic explanation for the observed
gravitational red shift is that photons rising through a
gravitational gradient spend some of their energy(3).
Conversely, photons moving down the gradient are thought
to pick up energy. This view of reality may be derived
from the observation that energy must be applied to matter
particles to push them up the gravitational gradient, and
matter particles falling down the gradient acquire kinetic
energy. But unlike matter particles which require an
external source of energy to climb the hill, photons would
have to radiate some of their own energy spontaneously.
And photons would have to absorb energy from the
gravitational field as they move down. This raises some
important questions.
Where does the energy go when photons lose their
energy and where does the energy come from when they
gain it? Why don’t matter particles, which are composed of
energy, also radiate energy when they climb a gravitational
gradient and where does the kinetic energy come from
when they fall? Why do matter particles need an input of
energy to go up hill and why do they develop kinetic
energy going down hill, which is different from the
relativistic view of what happens to photons?
Why is the gravitational field never absorbed by the
matter that responds to its force? Why is there a correlation
between the amount of red shift and the reduction of clock
rate at the lower gravitational potential?. Why does the
speed of light appear to be reduced rather than accelerated
as photons pass by the sun? Is there an alternative
explanation of the gravitational red shift?
One alternative explanation of the gravitational red
shift is that the photons radiated from matter at a lower
gravitational potential are already red shifted at their
source. They are red shifted because the matter particles
from which they originate are on a slower time as
demonstrated by their slower clock rate. Thus, the photons
do not need to lose energy on their way up hill in order to
be red shifted. The correlation between the kinetic energy
developed during the fall of matter and the reduction in its
clock rate suggests that particles of matter require less rest
mass/energy at a lower gravitational potential than similar
particles at a higher potential. This would explain why the
radiated photons have less energy at a lower potential. It
also explains why matter particles require an external input
of energy to climb a hill and why they release kinetic
energy when they come down. Photons, however, unlike
matter particles, do not have a specific energy requirement
at any potential and should be able to travel up and down
without a change of energy.
The alternative explanation postulates that neither
photons nor matter particles exchange energy with the
gravitational field and that the kinetic energy is derived
from a reduction in rest mass. Although the small
reduction in rest mass that would go with the reduction of
gravitational potential has not been detected, the loss of rest
mass by the much greater release of nuclear energy has
been observed. And the proposal that matter responding to
the gravitational field does not absorb energy from the field
can explain why the gravitational force is not absorbed.
And this difference between the gravitational and the
electric fields might explain why the force of gravity is
weak relative to the other forces. The correlation between
the reduction in the speed of light and the reduction in
clock rate will be discussed in the next section.
The speed of light
Speed is the number of distance units traveled per
unit time. Thus, the values obtained from the measurement
of speed depend on the units of distance and time that are
used. The evidence that light travels at a lower speed near
the sun than it does on the earth’s surface is found in the
results of the experiments by Shapiro and coworkers(4, 5).
They measured the time required to bounce a pulsed light
beam off Venus, Mercury or a Viking spacecraft and
return. As the path of that light beam came close to the
sun, there was a measurable increase in the lapsed time, as
determined by clocks on the earth’s surface and thus was
expressed in units of time that obtain there. It was assumed
that the distance in earth units was not increased by the fact
that the light beam passed near the sun and corrections
could be made for any changes in distance caused by the
shape of the orbit. Shapiro expressed the result as a time
delay because he did not want to say that the speed of light
changed. However, a time delay over a constant distance is
equivalent to a reduction in the speed of light. Relativists
could say that the speed of light is constant if the result is
expressed in the proper units that obtain at the rim of the
sun. But the speed of light is reduced at lower gravitational
potentials in the same sense that the clock rate is reduced.
It is important when comparing two clock rates or two
speeds to use the same units of measurement in both cases.
When the changes in the speed of light and in clock
rate are compared, it has been determined that the fractional
change in the speed of light is twice the fractional change
in the clock rate. Shapiro explained this difference by
invoking an unobserved change in distance that was
symmetrical with the change in time. This implies that the
change in the speed of light is the primary effect of the
gravitational gradient and that the changes in time and
distance are secondary effects.
There is one other reason to conclude that the speed
of light changes with gravitational potential. This is that
the measurement of the speed of light is constant. Since it
is known that clocks move slower at lower potential, there
would be a change in the measured speed of light if the real
speed did not change to compensate. Thus, the lack of a
change in the speed that these changed clocks measure is
evidence that the speed of light changes.
The displacement of stars on the rim of the sun and the
curvature of space-time
This displacement is the prediction that made
Einstein famous.
The amount of the displacement
predicted by Einstein has been confirmed repeatedly by
observation. At first Einstein attributed the displacement to
a reduction in the speed of light(6), and only later attributed
it to a curvature of space-time around the sun. There are
two reasons to think that his first explanation was correct.
The first reason is that the amount of displacement is
exactly the amount that would be expected if the speed of
light followed a least time path and is reduced by the
amount that can be deduced from Shapiro’s observations(7).
The second reason is that quantum mechanics requires that
light follow a least time path(8). Any other explanation
would make General Relativity incompatible with QM.
Relativity of motion and the existence of a preferred
frame
If there is a preferred frame of reference in which
the speed of light is isotropic, it is impossible to detect
linear motion relative to this frame with laboratory
experiments. One observation that suggests the existence
of a preferred frame is the asymmetry of the cosmic
radiation that indicates that the solar system is moving
through the frame of that radiation at approximately 0 .001
times the speed of light. Another observation is that, as
predicted by Einstein, the speed of light is independent of
its source. This is confirmed by observations of double
stars, where the motion of one star is moving away from us
when the other is moving toward us. Despite this reciprocal
motion the timing pattern of the Doppler changes is
maintained over millions of years of travel. This would be
possible only if there was a frame of reference in which all
the photons traveled at exactly the same speed..
A very important argument in favor of a preferred
frame is that such a frame can be detected in rotational
experiments, such as the Newton bucket experiment, the
Foucault pendulum, the Hafele-Keating experiment(9) and
the Sagnac effect(10). Furthermore, the aberration of star
light, first observed by Bradley(11), depends on the
revolution of the earth around the sun, and is independent
of the motion of the source star. The existence of such a
rotational effect is evidence that the visible universe
provides a frame of reference which determines the
difference between straight and curved motion.
Fitzgerald and then Lorenz and Poincare(12)
suggested that the detection of linear motion in a preferred
frame is prevented by changes in the units of time and
distance that cancel the effect of changes in light speed.
The fact that changes in clock rate with motion have been
repeatedly confirmed provides ironic evidence that the
preferred frame exists. When Einstein was alive clocks
were not accurate enough to detect the changes in moving
clocks and the changes could be considered as only
appearances. Now that we know they are real(13), their
existence would produce differences in the measurement of
the two one way speeds of light unless there was a real
change in the speed of light to cancel their effects.
The increase in inertial mass of a speeding particle
This prediction has been confirmed repeatedly in
particle accelerators where corrections need to be made for
the changes in mass of accelerated particles. The charge on
particles such as electrons and protons remains constant
and the ratio of mass to charge is increased as the speed of
the particle approaches the speed of light. Since relativists
generally consider that all motion is relative they must
attribute the increase in mass to an apparent effect of the
motion of the particle relative to the observer. There is an
alternate explanation to the mass effect. This is that there is
a preferred frame that is undetectable because changes in
clock rate and distance produced by motion exactly cancel
any attempt to detect it. Since changes of mass are very
small at the presumed low speed of our solar system, it is
impossible to determine whether the changes of mass seen
in the particle accelerator are the result of motion relative to
the observer or relative to the undetectable preferred frame.
The quantum field
Quantum mechanics and the uncertainty principle
require the existence of a quantum field of virtual particles
surrounding all matter and energy(8). Unlike the field
surrounding electrons the field around neutral particles
would not be charged, but like the electromagnetic field the
density of the field should decrease with distance from the
source particle. Thus, the quantum field would possess a
gradient around massive bodies. If the density of the
quantum field around charged and uncharged matter
particles decreases as the first power of the distance, the
gravitational and electromagnetic forces, which are based
on the slope of the gradient, would be, as we observe,
inversely proportional to the square of the distance.
Another consequence of the inverse first power decrease of
the gradient is that distant objects of the universe would
have a major effect on the density of the quantum field.
This is because the total mass of distant bodies increases as
the square of the distance while the per unit effect of that
mass decreases by the first power of the distance. The
quantum field produced by distant bodies would be
undetectable because there are distant galaxies in every
direction, which prevents the existence of a significant
gradient. However, the quantum field from the universe
would be very large compared to that of local masses and
could provide the preferred frame against which inertial
forces develop.
The cause of inertia and its unification with gravity
The exact equivalence of gravitational and inertial
masses suggests that gravity and inertia have a common
cause. If this is so then inertia and gravity are both
produced by the same field.. The most likely candidate for
such a field is the quantum field. The proposal that the
primary effect of the quantum field is the control of the
speed of light provides a possible explanation of both
gravity and inertia. In the case of gravity matter particles
respond to the change in the speed of light caused by the
gradient in the quantum field, whereas with inertia a change
in the motion of the particles relative to the preferred frame
of the quantum field produces a change in the speed of light
relative to the particle.
Discussion
The observable predictions of the relativity theories
have been confirmed beyond any reasonable doubt. It is
the untestable explanations of these predictions that have
been challenged here. An alternate reality to six of these
explanations is .presented that is not only compatible with
quantum mechanics but uses the quantum field to explain
gravity and unify it with inertia.
The explanations given by relativists for the same
set of observations are interdependent and internally
consistent. For example, if you accept the explanation of
the red shift, that photons lose energy as they climb a
gravitational gradient, it is logical to believe that the kinetic
energy of a falling object is derived from the gravitational
field. This denigrates the importance of the reduction in
clock rate and leads to the belief that the apparent changes
in clock rate and light speed are only appearances. If the
speed of light is constant in all frames of reference then
there is no preferred frame and all motion is relative;
Paul Davies in his “Confessions of a Relativist”
admits that understanding relativity has required, for him at
least, to give up all ideas of common sense and visions of
reality(13). I believe that the alternate view of relativity
presented here permits a vision of reality that makes sense.
Several key observations made since Einstein’s
death utilize atomic clocks that possess an accuracy
undreamed of during his life time. With these clocks it has
been possible to distinguish between the reality and the
appearance in Einstein’s predictions(14). Clocks really do
run more slowly when moved and when placed at a lower
gravitational potential. By bringing the clocks back to their
original position and comparing them to clocks that have
remained there, it has been possible to show that it is the
motion and the low gravitational potential that make the
clocks move more slowly, not the acceleration. From this
firm foundation the following alternate view of reality has
been developed: (1) Neither photons nor matter particles
exchange energy with the gravitational field; (2) A change
in the speed of light is the primary effect of the gradient in
the gravitational field; (3) Secondary effects of the change
in the speed of light are gravity, inertia, the observed
change in the clock rate and the unobserved contraction of
1
2
3
4
distance; (4) the displacement of stars on the rim of the sun
is also an effect of the change in the speed of light; (5)
there is a preferred frame of reference against which inertia
develops, but linear motion in this frame is undetectable in
laboratory experiments because of compensating changes
in time and distance; (6) the change in mass of a rapidly
moving particle is a result of motion relative to a quantum
field created by the visible universe.
There are five relevant correlations that in a random
universe should logically indicate a causal relationship.
These are (1) The correlation between the fractional
reduction in clock rate and the fraction of total energy in a
matter particle that is released as kinetic energy when a
matter particle drops to a lower gravitational potential. (2)
The correlation between the fractional reduction in clock
rate at a lower gravitational potential and the fractional
reduction of the energy of photons as calculated from the
red shift. (3) The factor of two correlation between the
fractional change in the speed of light, as determined by the
time delay of light pulses passing by the sun, and the
fractional change in the clock rate of matter particles. (4)
The inverse correlation between the increase in mass of an
accelerated particle and the decrease in its clock rate.
(5)The identity of the gravitational and inertial masses of
all matter.
All five of the above correlations are predicted by the
relativity theories and have been confirmed by observation,
but they have not been given causal interpretations. They
have all been important in the development of the alternate
view of reality presented here. If there is any question
about the accuracy of these correlations further experiments
could be devised with the very accurate clocks now
available. And the equivalence of gravitational and inertial
masses might be tested further on spacecraft circling the
earth. For example, since heating a particle increases its
inertial mass, heating it should change its orbit around the
earth unless the gravitational mass also increased
proportionately.
REFERENCES
J. Maddox, Scientific America. 281, 62-67 (1999)
C.Isham, The New Physics, edited by P. Davies (Cambridge
University Press, 1989), p. 70.
C.M.Will, Was Einstein Right, (Basic Books, Inc. N.Y.
1986) p.49.
II. Shapiro et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 13, 789 (1964)
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
R.D. Reasenberg, II Shapiro et al., The Astrophysical J. 234
L219-L221 (1979)
A. Einstein, Relativity: The Special and the General
Theory, (1916) Translated by R. Lawson, 15th Edition with
added Appendix, (Crown Publishers, Inc. 1961) p.76.
D.W.Talmage and R.J.Sanderson, Phys.Essays, 7, 415-421
(1992).
R.P.Feynman, QED The Strange Theory of Light and
Matter (Princeton U. Press, 1985).
J.C.Hafele and R.E. Keating, Science 177, 168 (1972.
M.G.Sagnac and M.E.Bouty, C.R.Acad.Sci. 157, 708
(1913).
J. Bradley, J. Philos. Trans. 35, 637 (1728).
H. Poincare C.R.Acad.Sci. 140, 1504 (1905)
P.Davies and J. Gribbin, Yhe Matter Myth (Simon and
Schuster. N.Y. 1992) p.99.
R.F.C.Vessot, Contemp. Phys. 25 355 (1984).