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.”