THE HAWKING CONUNDRUM

From A Brief History of Time (Hawking, 1988):  “There must be a certain minimum amount of uncertainty, or quantum fluctuations, in the value of the field.”  [pp. 105-106].  This “field” can be a gravitational field, an electromagnetic field, etc.  “One can think of these fluctuations as pairs of particles of light or gravity that appear together at some time, move apart, and then come together again and annihilate each other.  These particles are virtual particles like the particles that carry the gravitational force of the sun:  unlike real particles, they can not be observed directly with a particle detector.”  However, a distinction exists:  “the antiparticles of light and gravity are the same as the particles,” i.e., the photon is its own antiparticle, while “the uncertainty principle also predicts that there will be ... virtual pairs of matter particles, such as electrons or quarks,” in other words quarks and antiquarks, or electrons and antielectrons.  [p. 106].  Both gravitons and photons are “chargeless” and “massless,” while quarks and electrons have mass and charge, so the graviton is its own antiparticle but the electron is not its own antiparticle, the electron needs an antielectron because charge is not the same, minus for the electron, plus for the antielectron.  It seems, however, Hawking is convinced both types of virtual particles are produced continuously due to “a certain minimum amount of uncertainty” which must be attributed to “the field.”  Therefore “in empty space the field cannot be fixed at exactly zero, because then it would have both a precise value (zero) and a precise rate of change (also zero).”  [p. 105].  This is echoed by Dr. Guth who calls the vacuum a “physical system.”  So far so good, even if it sounds tautological.  “There is a mathematical theorem that says that any theory that obeys quantum mechanics [and apparently the theory of the field must obey] and relativity must always obey the combined symmetry CPT.  In other words, the universe would have to behave the same if one replaced particles by antiparticles, took the mirror image, and also reversed the direction of time.  But Cronin and Finch showed that if one replaces particles by antiparticles, took the mirror image, but does not reverse the direction of time, then the universe does not behave the same.”  [p. 78].  Therefore if the field describe above has remained the same, has not changed, and if “there are forces that do not obey the symmetry T, it follows that as the universe expands [proving time is running in one direction], these forces could cause more antielectrons to turn into quarks than electrons into antiquarks.”  [p. 78].

According to this a Bondi, Gold, Hoyle “steady state” theory is not merely a possibility since what is good for the goose is also good for the gander.  If the universe expands “time runs forward – if it [time] ran backward, the universe would be contracting.”  [p. 78].  Therefore there is no reason to suppose the universe has stopped disobeying the symmetry T and is even today producing more quarks than antiquarks, more electrons than antielectrons, that as “the field” is affected by quantum fluctuations most virtual particle pairs annihilate, but not all and “a small excess of quarks would remain,” because not every virtual antiquark would annihilate with every virtual quark, not even today, and thus some of the virtual quarks would become “real particles.”  As Hawking asserts:  “real particles always have positive energy.”  [p. 106].  Matter, therefore, is being continually created everywhere in the universe, as the “steady state” theory predicts.  On the other hand, if it is not being continually created this puts the theory that “the field” must obey a “certain minimum amount of uncertainty” into question.  Surely, during the action when the virtual particles “appear together at some time, move apart, and then come together again and annihilate each other” a certain amount of time expires, real time not virtual time, and this action is not immune to the “forces” represented by symmetry T and which “could cause more antielectrons to turn into quarks than electrons into antiquarks.”

THE QUANTUM UNCERTAINTY PROBLEM

From Modern European Thought (Baumer 1977):  “Heisenberg speaks of particles as having not substance but mathematical form, and as therefore not having ‘even the quality of being,’ but only ‘a possibility for being, or a tendency for being.’  Partly, his was because matter was ... identified with energy.”  [p. 462].  A more precise explanation from The Encyclopedia of Physics (Lerner, 1991):  “Evidently the π meson carries energy E_a = 0 and momentum q ≠ 0 from a to b.  But this meson cannot be physical, for the Einstein mass-energy-momentum relationship dictates ... E_q = (q²c²+m²c⁴)^1/2 for a real pion with m_π = 140 MeV/c² (the rest mass of the π meson) and c = 3 x 10¹⁰ cm/s.  Thus the energy of the exchanged (or ‘virtual’) meson, being 0, is at least m_πc² = 140 MeV too low.  The Heisenberg uncertainty principle, ΔEΔt~h, does permit such energy discrepancies ΔE, but only for a sufficiently short time ∆t.”  [p. 824].  The π meson is not physical because its energy is zero, is defined by Heisenberg “as having not substance but only mathematical form,” but at the same time an energy discrepancy is permitted “for a sufficiently short time ∆t,” the π meson is physical, it has energy and is not virtual.  “The lightest baryon is the proton, the nucleus of the hydrogen atom ... a flurry of experimental activity ... to date has yielded no evidence for proton decay;  the current lifetime is known to be greater than 3 x 10³² years.”  [p. 89].  Despite being “virtual” and not having substance the π meson keeps all protons in one piece for at least “3 x 10³² years.”  Experimental activity has found “no evidence for proton decay,” a not very uncertain statement.  The uncertainty is not very uncertain, it produces a stability lasting over almost unimaginable eons of time.  The “sufficiently short time ∆t” is immediately and without interruption followed by an identical “sufficiently short time ∆t,” ad infinitum, during which time the π meson is permitted to deviate from being virtual or not physical, as the medium of exchange for the strong force between quarks to prevent proton decay.   The uncertainty whether or not the proton shall decay, thus, is eliminated, remains only a “virtual possibility” for a time period greater than “3 x 10³² years.”  No wonder the particle (which putatively causes the decay) described by Heisenberg’s uncertainty is endowed with “only a possibility for being.”  The uncertainty is no more than “mathematical form,” a form which, if it exists, must wait for at least “3 x 10³² years” to attain substance.  From The Inflationary Universe (Guth, 1997):  “The vacuum, like any physical system, is subject to ... quantum uncertainties.  Roughly speaking, anything can happen in a vacuum, although the probability for a digital watch to materialize is absurdly small.” [p. 12, emphasis in original].  The probabilities must be equal for either a proton to dematerialize (decay) or to “materialize” (emerge from the vacuum).  A digital watch most likely consists of more than one proton, thus Dr. Guth’s optimism the definition of “absurdly small” is computable by any human or any computer is seemingly unwarranted.  As an example, in one computational endeavor utilizing massive parallel processing it took about four months to compute the mass of a proton to within a 15% margin of error.  [cite].  The “3 x 10³² years” are divisible by the “sufficiently short time ∆t” producing the number of times the π meson is exchanged.  The probability the proton shall decay is defined by dividing 1 by this number.  Not even if the universe is infinite can sufficient amount of uncertainty exist to materialize a sufficiently large number of protons configured in the form of a operational digital watch.  The point:  the physical outcome of “an act of uncertainty” (quantum) is perfectly predicable, with zero rounding error.  Dr. Guth’s ponderous pontifications lead only to a reality reversing dictum.  Instead of every physical system being subject to quantum uncertainties, as Dr. Guth believes, the reverse is true:  every quantum uncertainty is subject to whatever physical system in which it is contained.  Dr. Guth dreams of the quantum uncertainty as the independent variable, as the controlling factor to which an unlimited number of possibilities are assignable, but it is exactly the reverse which is true:  the physical system permits only a certain, finite, limited amount of uncertainty, it is the physical system which is the independent variable and if uncertainty exists it is confined to the physical system, the uncertainties can not be lumped across physical systems just because Dr. Guth wishes this to be “true.”  Each proton is a separate physical system, it is the same as the flip of a coin, one flip has no influence on the next flip.  Most likely the “Dirac sea” [Shankar, Principles of Quantum Mechanics, 1988, pp. 586-588] is the germinating element onto which Dr. Guth et al. have latched on, similar to a drowning man clutching a straw, for the proposition the vacuum is a “physical system” where literally “anything can happen.”  Physicists are yet to design the vacuum or the Dirac sea observing instrument.  If a vacuum is perfect when, let’s say, a cubic kilometer contains literally nothing, not a single proton, electron, no energy, then this has never been seen or observed.  However, according to Dirac and his progeny, this same perfectly empty cubic kilometer, totally devoid of anything which could be plugged into the equation E = mc², the vacuum, "is really the occupied (but unobservable) sea of negative energy electrons.” [p. 588, emphasis in original].  Why?  Because the quantum formalism so dictates.  The theory, as described by quantum mechanics, is clear, as crystal:  because there is positive energy therefore there must be the same amount of negative energy.  Without negative energy to balance against positive energy the universe would collapse into a nothingness in an instant.  [Hawking].  There is only one problem:  only positive energy is observed, for all their efforts physicists are yet to discover a physical negative energy or a physical vacuum.  A completely new quantum mechanics shall be required if, in fact, the Dirac sea is a miscalculation, if it does not exist.  Quantum mechanics is based on the “fact” the probability is zero the Dirac sea does not exist and, conversely, the probability of the existence of negative energy is one.  But what if it this is false, what then?

TIME CAPSULE

A Day in the Life
Baba O'Riley
Catch a Wave
d
e
For What It's Worth
Gimme Shelter
Horse Latitudes Hypnotized
i
j
k
Long Cool Woman (in a black dress)
Miles Away	http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_65rBoOQ14E
n
Outlaw Man
Parallels
q
Rock and Roll
Soul Sacrifice Stranger
The Sound of Silence
u
v
When the Levee Breaks
x
y
z