Derivation of the Equivalence Principle in a Multi-fold Universe

Stephane H. Maes

June 29, 2020

Abstract:

[em]In a multi-fold universe, gravity emerges from Entanglement through the multi-fold mechanisms. As a result, gravity-like effects appear in between entangled particles that they be real or virtual. Long range, massless gravity results from entanglement of massless virtual particles. Entanglement of massive virtual particles leads to massive gravity contributions at very small scales. Multi-folds mechanisms also result into a spacetime that is discrete, with a random walk fractal structure and non-commutative geometry that is Lorentz invariant and where spacetime nodes and particles can be modeled with microscopic black holes. All these recover General relativity at large scales and semi-classical model remain valid till smaller scale than usually expected. Gravity can therefore be added to the Standard Model. This can contribute to resolving several open issues with the Standard Model.[/em]

The mechanisms proposed to address entanglement and that are responsible for gravity when considering entanglement of virtual particles, also automatically result into the (weak) principle of equivalence, without postulating it.

____

1. Introduction

The new preprint [1] proposes contributions to several open problems in physics like the reconciliation of General Relativity (GR) with Quantum Physics, explaining the origin of gravity proposed as emerging from quantum (EPR- Einstein Podolsky Rosen) entanglement between particles, detailing contributions to dark matter and dark energy and explaining other Standard Model mysteries without requiring New Physics beyond the Standard Model other than the addition of gravity to the Standard Model Lagrangian. All this is achieved in a multi-fold universe that may well model our real universe, which remains to be validated.

With the proposed model of [1], spacetime and Physics are modeled from Planck scales to quantum and macroscopic scales and semi classical approaches appear valid till very small scales. In [1], it is argued that spacetime is discrete, with a random walk-based fractal structure, fractional and noncommutative at, and above Planck scales (with a 2-D behavior and Lorentz invariance preserved by random walks till the early moments of the universe). Spacetime results from past random walks of particles. Spacetime locations and particles can be modeled as microscopic blackholes (Schwarzschild for photons and spacetime coordinates, and metrics between Reisner Nordstrom [2] and Kerr Newman [3] for massive and possibly charged particles – the latter being possibly extremal). Although surprising, [1] recovers results consistent with other like [4], while also being able to justify the initial assumptions of black holes from the gravity or entanglement model in a multi-fold universe. The resulting gravity model recovers General Relativity at larger scale, as a 4-D process, with massless gravity, but also with massive gravity components at very small scale that make gravity significant at these scales. Semi-classical models also turn out to work well till way smaller scales that usually expected.

In this paper, we remain at a high level of discussion of the analysis and references are generic for the subjects. It makes the points accessible to a wider audience and keeps the door open to further papers or discussions devoted to details of interest. Yet, it requires the reader to review [1], as we do not revisit here all the details of the multi-fold mechanisms or reconstruction of spacetime. More targeted references for all the material discussed here are compiled in [1].

2. The Equivalence Principles

The equivalence principle reflects how Einstein managed to first conceive, then formalize the extension of Special Relativity to any observer, no matter what his location and velocity and in particular to understand that nothing distinguish (non-gravitational) Physics in the presence of gravity from Physics in its absence but in an accelerated reference frame [5].

Rigorously, the principle exists in at least 3 forms:

• The weak equivalence principle that states that inertial mass and gravity mass (i.e. the charge for the gravitation interaction) are the same.
• Einstein’s equivalence principle, which really states the intuitive consideration above as the principle that any non-gravitational physics in a free-falling laboratory is independent of the velocity of the laboratory and its location in spacetime
• The strong equivalence principle which adds to Einstein’s equivalence principle that gravitational physics then depends only on the initial conditions, not the constitution of the (small) entities.

At the core, there are 3 key underlying principles: i) inertial mass = gravitational mass ii) (General) covariance (also related to background independence) iii) gravity and acceleration are equivalent in the sense that they can play the role on one another in different suitable frames.

These principles + Special relativity and Einstein’s genius gave us GR!

Then, two other giants of Physics provided (Quantum Field Theory) QFT derivations of the weak equivalence principle:

• Steven Weinberg showed that the Lorentz invariance of the scattering S-matrix involving gravitons ensures that the inertial mass and the gravitational mass must be the same [6]. As a side note, Weinberg then went on showing that Lorentz invariant S-Matrix for covariance and spin-2 long range (massless) interactions automatically recovers GR [7].
• Richard Feynman independently reconstructed GR from first principles and QFT (propagator and Feynman diagrams) showing that gravity must be Lorentz invariant, mediated by massless with spin-2 gravitons and recovers the equivalence principle as well as covariance / Gauge invariance of Fierz-Pauli [9].

As [1], recovers GR / massless gravity as well as additional massive gravity and entanglement contributions, from completely different considerations related to the EPR paradox, it is of interest to see:

• Can we recover the equivalence principle, for GR?
• Does it extend beyond GR?
• Are there any more insights from this analysis?

3. The Equivalence principles in a Multi-fold universe for Massless Gravity

Intuitively, the recovery of GR should imply that we recover the equivalence principles; or [1] assertions would be suspicious.

If we go back to the basics of [1], the multi-fold mechanisms have folds activated when EPR entanglement takes place. As a result, bundles of folds are activated and paths of particles crossing the support domains of the folds have paths mapped to each fold, resulting (per fold) into an attractive effective potential in

between the entangled particles and towards their center of mass (integration over all relevant folds in a multi-fold leads to potentials in

.

Each fold contributes its Ricci curvature scalar (GR is recovered by adding all these Ricci scalars and Ricci Tensors (by adding direction of attraction for every point of spacetime). The effective potential is the result of computing the path integral contribution of the path on the folds. It is also proportional to the mass of the particle on the folds.

So the resulting Lagrangian in [1] contains the Lagrangian of the particle, without gravity and with the inertial mass, plus a potential that reconstructs GR or Newton gravity with the same inertial mass: gravitational mass and inertial masses is a direct result of the multi-fold mechanisms. We have recovered the weak equivalence mechanism in multi-fold universes. Symmetries between flipping the roles of the particles also lead to determining that the effective potential will also be proportional to the mass of the source ([1] presents a different also valid argument for that).

Because GR is recovered at large scales and multi-fold mechanisms are covariant (e.g. based on path integrals) respecting Lorentz symmetries and background independence, we also recover Einstein’s equivalence principle and the strong equivalence principle.

4. Beyond Massless Gravity

Because multi-fold universe have also massive gravity contributions, at very small scales, we also need to note that the reasoning of section 3 can be repeated as is, for these contributions within their ranges. So the respect of the equivalence principle extends to all gravity contributions in multi-fold universes.

Entanglement (e.g. between real particles) is conventionally not counted as gravity effects. Yet they bring gravity like contributions in multi-fold universes [1,10]. Again the same mechanisms apply with the same reasoning: the weak equivalence principle extends to entanglement gravity-like effects.

On the other hand, the ranges and anisotropy / symmetry breaking introduced by two EPR entangled particles does not allow the same generic considerations for the two other variations of the principle: it may depend on the use case (we already know they considerations works for all the gravity use cases where the effects come from virtual EPR pairs). It may not really matter as we probably would consider that entanglement (between real particles) is not gravity.

5. A Quick Note on Fold Tenancy and Higgs Mechanisms Impact

[1] proposes multi-fold mechanisms where folds and mapping are multi-tenant with strong partitioning, so that only one particles is present per fold instance and no interaction takes place other than at entry and exit.

The analysis above necessitate to detail a bit more this statement. It is correct if the Lagrangian on the fold is the Lagrangian of the particle in spacetime, without other interactions. This implies that, the folds are spacetime also, just curved. Therefore the tenancy model is to be understood as applying for particles. A uniform field in spacetime and tied to it would also be present and interact in a fold. So Higgs and the Higgs field are expected to be present in the multi-folds and as a result the particle propagator remains associated to their mass in the folds. Note that if inflation was to be described with an inflaton field, it probably is not be present in the multi-folds as their dynamics is already said by the moves of the entangled particles (real and virtual) or field. These already take inflaton into account [11].

This model can be motivated by the fact that otherwise, particles could mutate in ways not intended by the mechanisms designed to solve EPR paradoxes and no observed in practice. Otherwise, for example, electroweak symmetry breaking and Englert-Brout-Higgs-Guralnik-Hagen-Kibble mechanisms would not be in the multi-folds and physics would be different. [1] was clear that physics is the same except without particle to particle interactions; which we must explicitly now qualify as not excluding Higgs interactions with the particles in the multi-fold.

This multi-fold tenancy model can also be motivated by how multi-fold and mappings can be seen as holographic effects from higher dimensional geometrical effects in a non-compact 7D Kaluza-Klein surrounding universe [12]: different particles at different spacetime locations enter are in different KK instances and so they don’t interact. Higgs boson are located where the particles are, so they can enter the same KK instance. See [12] for more details on this unconstrained KK model. [Note: This paragraph was added in the October 11 version of this paper, the post original write-up.]

With these qualification, it was indeed appropriate to use the inertial mass in the Lagrangian in the previous sections when in the multi-folds.

6. Non-elementary particles

For composite particles, like hadrons or atoms, the composite is the particle considered as having paths on the multi-folds and therefore all the arguments above can be repeated and applied to all matter in general.

7. Conclusions

This analysis is for a Multi-fold universe as in [1]. [1] details arguments and ways to check its relationship with the real universe. Besides properties that can be experimentally verified (in the future because of the macroscopic weakness of gravity and gravity like effects for entangled systems), [1] shows how the multi-fold mechanisms and behaviors are in many aspects in today’s conventional physics, that, at times, anticipate the behaviors modeled in a multi-fold universe. In addition, [1] potentially explains many results obtained in gravity, quantum mechanics, General Relativity, superstring theory, Loop Quantum Gravity and the AdS/CFT correspondence conjecture. All these works attempt to come up with models for the real universe. It is at least a good sign that [1] may provide an interesting model of the real universe. Compilation of outcome and derivative from [1] can be found in [13].

Our analysis has no equivalent or variations for non multi-fold universe: derivation of the equivalence principle is directly tied to the multi-fold mechanisms.

We believe that [1] makes a compelling case for the consistency of its multi-fold proposal. The present paper shows that the weak equivalence principle can be derived in multi-fold universe. The other principles applies to massless, and to massive gravity, when within the range of the latter. Extensions to gravity like effects due to other entanglements is on a case by case basis. The analysis applies to all matter.

The qualification of the multi-fold tenancy model to allow interactions with Higgs bosons within multi-folds is important as normal for multi-fold mechanisms and implied by the reasoning proving the equivalence principle.

____

Cite as: Stephane H Maes, (2020), ”Derivation of the Equivalence Principle in a Multi-fold Universe”, viXra:2010.0090v1, shmaesphysics.wordpress.com/20…, June 19, 2020.

____

References: (most references come from popular science to make the discussion more approachable)

[1]: Stephane H. Maes, (2020) “Quantum Gravity Emergence from Entanglement in a Multi-Fold Universe”, viXra:2006.0088v1, (June 9, 2020). (shmaesphysics.wordpress.com/20…)

[2]: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reissner…

[3]: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerr-New…

[4]: Burinskii, Alexander, (2008), “The Dirac-Kerr-Newman electron”, arXiv:0507109v4

[5]: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivale…

[6]: S. Weinberg, (1964), “Derivation of Gauge Invariance and The Equivalence Principle from Lorentz Invariance and the S-Matrix”, Phys. Letters, Vol 9, N. 4

[7]: S. Weinberg, (1965), “Photons and. Gravitons in Perturbation Theory: Derivation of Maxwell’s and Einstein’s Equations”, Phys. Rev., Vol 138, N. 4B

[8]: Richard Feynman, (2002), “Feynman Lectures On Gravitation”, Westview Press; 1 edition (June 20, 2002)

[9]: M. Fierz, Wolfgang Ernst Pauli, (1939), “On relativistic wave equations for particles of arbitrary spin in an electromagnetic field”, Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A173211–232

[10]: Stephane H Maes, (2020), “Gravity-like Attractions and Fluctuations between Entangled Systems?”, viXra:2010.0010v1, shmaesphysics.wordpress.com/20…, June 24, 2020.

[11]: Stephane H Maes, (2020), ”Explaining Dark Energy, Small Cosmological Constant and Inflation Without New Physics?”, viXra:2006.0261v1, shmaesphysics.wordpress.com/20…, June 19, 2020.

[12]: Stephane H Maes, (2020), “Tracking Down The Standard Model With Gravity In Multi-Fold Universes”, shmaesphysics.wordpress.com/20…, August 20, 2020.

[13]: Stephane H. Maes, (2020), “Web Site Tracking all Publications around the Multi-fold universe” -Navigation page listing all papers. shmaesphysics.wordpress.com/sh…

I thank my generous supporters on Patreon. If you like my work, publications, and opinions, please consider joining them. This way, you can support this research work done totally independent from any institution. Use the contact form if you prefer to help by putting together a grant or other type of funding.

#EquivalencePrinciple #GaugeSymmetry #GeneralRelativity #Graviton #Gravity #LorentzInvariance #MultiFoldUniverse #PathIntegrals #QuantumGravity #Spin2

Shmaes - Physics

2020-06-26 00:50:45

Gravity-like Attractions and Fluctuations between Entangled Systems?

Stephane H. Maes

June 24, 2020

Abstract:

In a multi-fold universe, gravity emerges from Entanglement through the multi-fold mechanisms. As a result, gravity-like effects appear in between entangled particles that they be real or virtual. Long range, massless gravity results from entanglement of massless virtual particles. Entanglement of massive virtual particles leads to massive gravity contributions at very smalls scales. Multi-folds mechanisms also result into a spacetime that is discrete, with a random walk fractal structure and non-commutative geometry that is Lorentz invariant and where spacetime nodes and particles can be modeled with microscopic black holes. All these recover General relativity at large scales and semi-classical model remain valid till smaller scale than usually expected. Gravity can therefore be added to the Standard Model. This can contribute to resolving several open issues with the Standard Model.

All these phenomena result from the observation that attractive gravity-like potentials appear in spacetime between entangled systems, because of the mechanisms proposed in a multi-fold universe to address the EPR paradox. An immediate implication, and opportunity to validate or falsify the model, is that gravity-like effects and fluctuation are predicted to appear between, around or near entangled systems; we just need check if this is encountered in the real world.

This paper discuss situations where attraction due to entanglement, and hence gravity like effects or fluctuations, could be encountered. For example, within or near quantum matter like superconductors or (Bose Einstein Condensates) BECs or within Qubits. One could argue that some indications exist that some of these effects could already have already been observed. We are really seeking falsifiability or validation opportunities for the multi-fold mechanisms. Early considerations are encouraging.

Discussing some related experiments led us to also address how shielding is correctly modeled with multi-fold mechanisms: Faraday cages do not weaken gravity!

____

1. Introduction

The new preprint [1] proposes contributions to several open problems in physics like the reconciliation of General Relativity with Quantum Physics, explaining the origin of gravity proposed as emerging from quantum (EPR- Einstein Podolsky Rosen) entanglement between particles [5], detailing contributions to dark matter and dark energy and explaining other Standard Model mysteries without requiring New Physics beyond the Standard Model other than the addition of gravity to the Standard Model Lagrangian. All this is achieved in a multi-fold universe that may well model our real universe, which remains to be validated.

With the proposed model of [1], spacetime and Physics are modeled from Planck scales to quantum and macroscopic scales and semi classical approaches appear valid till very small scales. In [1], it is argued that spacetime is discrete, with a random walk-based fractal structure, fractional and noncommutative at, and above Planck scales (with a 2-D behavior and Lorentz invariance preserved by random walks till the early moments of the universe). Spacetime results from past random walks of particles. Spacetime locations and particles can be modeled as microscopic black holes (Schwarzschild for photons and spacetime coordinates, and metrics between Reisner Nordstrom [2] and Kerr Newman [3] for massive and possibly charged particles – the latter being possibly extremal). Although surprising, [1] recovers results consistent with other like [4], while also being able to justify the initial assumptions of black holes from the gravity or entanglement model. The resulting gravity model recovers General Relativity (GR) at larger scale, as a 4-D process, with massless gravity, but also with massive gravity components at very small scale that make gravity significant these scales. Semi-classical models also work well till way smaller scales than usually expected.

In the present paper, we remain at a high level of analysis. It makes the points accessible to a wider audience and keeps the door open to further papers or discussions devoted to details of interest. Yet, it requires the reader to review [1], as we do not revisit here all the details of the multi-fold mechanism or reconstruction of spacetime. The followings subsections are organized as a series of observations in [1] where gravity like effects are expected to result from entanglement and should be observable, at least indirectly through some resulting effects. Direct observation will remain challenging because of the expected weakness of the attractions. Our analysis is by no means exhaustive. However, we hope that it will intrigue enough the reader to push him or her to dig deeper. Most of the more detailed (or entry point) references are provided in [1], and so every statement is not motivated here or presented with the most appropriate references. This paper is rather a story tale. “[1]” appears often, as a person or a model, to refer to the original arguments, analysis, mechanisms or proposals discussed in [1].

2. Entanglement effects in Multi-fold universes

The mechanisms of multi-folds, the main feature proposed in [1], trigger activation of additional structures (folds) when particles are (EPR) entangled so that additional paths can traverse the folds, where the EPR entangled particles can always meet as a same exit points. Doing so, all the activated folds (i.e. multi-folds) create attractive potentials in in between the entangled particles ( per fold). The attraction is towards their source or center the mass, depending of the use cases and movements (and masses involved – entangled particles can be massive or massless). When involving virtual particles emitted by a source of energy, this potential is reminiscent of gravity and [1] attributes gravity to these effects. It can also be looked as adding contributions of the Ricci curvature scalar R of the folds, from all matter or energy contributions, to build a new Ricci curvature scalar field R and, with the direction of attraction information, a new consistent Ricci curvature tensor. Doing so, for all sources of energy, recovers Einstein’s GR field equations (or Hilbert Einstein Action); which is amazing as invariance of surfaces (the real geometrical meaning behind the Hilbert Einstein Action) or variants of the Hilbert Einstein have, at no point, be postulated in [1] prior to that determination (something that can’t exactly be said the same way for strings). Also, the multi-folds have a spin-2 symmetry.

So, it is predicted in [1], that (EPR) entanglement between particles (or larger systems), results into attractive potentials in

towards the center of mass, with r the distance between form the center of mass, in

between the entangled particles (on the support domain of the mapping), if integration takes place over r. That is over a system of entangled particles or for the range of uncertainty. Otherwise, each particles contribute a per fold contribution. For gravity, the integration of r goes to infinity, hence the generic gravity like statement.

It is also important to note for completeness that [1] postulates that such effects only exist when entanglement is the result of interaction occurring locally (same source location). Other situations are considered as hierarchical and thought not to contribute an additional effective potential. Yet, as in force composition, the different parts involved in a hierarchical event also amount to attractive effects; so attraction exist but as force composition. Also, if the entanglement is the effect of many repeated interactions (e.g. electron to phonon to electron), while hierarchical, the effects with composition will just appear as a normal non-hierarchical effect with attractive potential (at least in first approximation). So solid state entanglements a la superconductors for examples are modeled as nonhierarchical entanglement in this discussion; even if, in reality, it is the outcome of complex hierarchical composition of attractive potentials.

3. Gravity like fluctuations near (in between) entangled systems

An immediate consequence of the mechanism and model proposed in [1], is that fluctuations of gravity-like effects (in

– when macroscopic and in

when mostly between localized individual particles. These effects are very small (as is gravity beyond very small scales), so direct observation is probably hopeless for the near future, if ever. We will need clever indirect ways or macroscopic additive effects to be able to validate our model.

A non-exhaustive list of candidate scenarios where such gravity like fluctuations are predicted to exist is provided here:

• Gravity like effects or fluctuations within, and in proximity of superconductors. Superconductors involve of combinations of Bardeen Cooper Schrieffer (BCS) pairs (at low temperatures and for low temperature superconductors) [7] and Bose Einstein Condensate (BEC) pairs [8] (after a transition from BCS pairs for high temperature superconductors) as well BEC pairs of pairs etc. in high temperature superconductors [6]. According to the mechanisms described in [1]:
  
  • Attraction should occur within the bulk of the superconductors. It should also be with stronger effects for high temperature superconductors, because BEC pairs are smaller than BCS pairs (That spread all over the material over many crystal cells).
    
    • This kind of effects have been anecdotally reported (see [9] for one of the most recent compilation of these controversial and hard to reproduce experiments)[fn1]. However, we urge the reader to be cautious in reading beyond the descriptions of the experiments and results and the references as we do not necessarily subscribe with the presentation of the experiments as accepted facts or many aspects of the proposed explanations or assertions in some of the listed references material, of anti-gravity, gravity shielding or repulsive gravity effects and other families or properties of gravitons-like particles. Unfortunately, the results experiments seem to have never been rigorously confirmed or unambiguously analyzed.
      
      • In our view, these reported effects, if corroborated, and if we understand well the setup of the two experiments, could result from super-conductor internal stress within the electromagnetic field (between separated BEC BCS-pairs) plus vacuum polarizations. The latter results from entanglement attractions between the produced polarized virtual pairs. When the discharges occur, the superconductor and the vacuum polarization relaxes and so does the vacuum entanglement and attraction potential, resulting into a gravity fluctuation or wave that propagate at the same speed as the polarization relaxation. The relaxation produce a “expansion effects”, wherever polarization was present in the vacuum as well as within the superconductor and could explain the effects on the emitter or on the test masses. It would appear as an initially repulsive effect as the relaxation wave propagates. This explanation to these controversial experiments have never been proposed in the related literature as summarized in [9]. The complications of the shields is discussed in Appendix A.
      • If true (both the observations and our suggested explanation), then we have a resounding indirect confirmation of the mechanisms described (attraction due to entanglement) in [1]; not just for entanglements within the superconductor but also the entanglement of the polarized vacuum.
      • The stronger attraction within the high temperature superconductor creates a stronger effect than with low temperature superconductor material when the pairs are pushed to its boundaries by the electromagnetic field. A non-entangled material only see the vacuum effect. Without superconductors, i.e. in normal discharge situations, only vacuum polarization relaxation takes place. This is not sufficient. The fact that recoil may be better corroborated while radiation effects seems (often) no reproducible could come from the fact that the relaxation effect within the superconductor always takes place and is stronger than vacuum polarization relaxation. The other case (figure 1-a in [9]) requires suitable polarization beyond the right electrodes till the test mass something and it is a much weaker effect.
      • Superconductors are also involved in these experiments also because of their known propensity of quantum matter like superconductors to amplify or reflect the vacuum polarization effects; something well known since the work for example of deWitt [10] and also involved in the still unconfirmed gravitational Casimir effect proposal [11]. These works predict effects of gravity on superconductor, not gravity like effect produce by super conductors. The distinction matters and shows the challenge in distinguishing the two types of effects if we want to validate the gravity like attraction generated by entanglement.
      • To be convincing, we should see larger effects than expected by just contributions à la [10]. The results, with the problems already mentioned seem to indicate that it may be the case.

      
      

    • As another related potential corroboration, building on the ideas of [10], it has also been proposed that an effect for gravitation analogous to the London moment in superconductor could exist for gravitons, in rotating superconductors, in a varying strong magnetic field [12]. Again, the magnetic field would push BEC BCS-pairs towards the surface of the superconductor and, as a result, bring stronger gravitation effect leaks observable outside and very near the super conductor, where a frame dragging effect as in GR, but stronger could be observed. Such effects have been observed [12]. However, the reported results were again in our view not clear enough to assess for sure if they would match our frame dragging expectation. It seems that they might.
      
      • It is also important to understand all aspects of the experiments and details are missing on the actual results and in particular make sure that the effect are due to entanglement and not a variation a la [10], where frame dragging would be explained solely by the rotation flipping the roles (here the super conductor rotates, the detector is fixed) without the contributions of the attraction / gravity like fluctuation due to entanglement.
      • The effect must be larger than normal frame dragging (undetectable) or effects explained by [10]. More work to model how [10] impacts the experimentation and if we can really detect an unexpected additional effect. Assuming that [12] did correctly account for [10], then according to the result, they have unaccounted for effects.

      
      

    • The proposed setup of [12] and variations could be good ways (better than the first set of discharge experiments) to (indirectly) validate the multi-fold mechanisms. However, we would prefer experiments that are not involving and mixing other Physics (like strong magnetic fields, strong electromagnetic pulses etc.) to avoid the risk of misinterpretations and combinations of all these effects from superconductor, existing gravity and electromagnetism interactions. Electromagnetic fields were required because London – Meissner types of behaviors can amplify our predicted attraction . Unfortunately, we could not determine based on the research reports what of the side effects of the fields, as discussed here, have been accounted for in the results.

    
    

  
  

• Quantum matter, like BECs, superfluids, supermetals etc. are other candidates. The gravity fluctuation effects to look for are similar to what is discussed above for superconductors. The particular existing results discussed above for superconductor may not be repeatable or may need adaptation depending on the type of quantum material.
• Quark Gluon Plasma (QGP) is another example of BEC [14]. Here, we see two avenue for confirmations:
  
  • Experimentally when such plasma are formed in high energy accelerators [13]. It would be worth looking if any perturbations due to attractive potentials could be modeled and observed
  • Theoretical models of cosmology (early moments after the big bang) and stellar physics could consider if adding such considerations could introduce new prediction or effects when involving large quantities of plasma and thus entanglement. The main reason being that at the scale of the universe or of stars, even small effects can start to play meaningful roles.

  
  

• Speaking of which, [1,5] showed of an effect associated to entanglement can qualitatively explain the dark matter effects, without requiring New Physics. It seems also consistent with the observations of galaxies that seem not to contain dark matter; something that most other models have had difficulties to handle. This is quite a potential confirmation, but we now need to proceed towards a more quantitative model of [1] so that we can determine if the number match to account for dark matter (or a portion of it).
  
  • Validating [5] would be of great interest. It would after all, with the conclusions of our model, probably and most influential entanglement effect that we can think of (short of large or even larger, scale spacetime entanglement, proposed by others, but not something that we support).
  • It is certainly encouraging that in addition, [1,15] can also explains effects that contribute to cosmological inflation and dark energy as well as a small cosmological constant that does not conflict with the QFT vacuum energy density estimates.

  
  

• Qubits are entangled systems achieved by different mechanisms like trapped ions, superconductors etc. [16]. They are at the code of quantum computing and larger Qubit systems are being built as time passes. These are not yet large enough for our needs, but things may change rapidly. Within the Qubits, if measurable, attraction would be a sign of entanglement and therefore a way to detect entanglement without observing it; something forbidden by the non-observability of entanglement [17]. Being able to do so would be a great tool for quantum computing and validation of our predictions.
• For quantum computing, teleportation or other purpose, researchers are entangling bigger systems like atoms, larger and larger molecules, wider atom systems or even biological systems; all involving huge amounts of entities (see for example [18-20]). The bigger these systems are the better are the chance to directly or indirectly determine if gravity fluctuations appear among them, as long that we do not hit the snag of hierarchical entanglement not producing attractive potentials. So some precaution are needed to understand if validation is possible or if the absence of attraction would implies falsifiability of our model or rather such the dominance of hierarchical entanglement effects.

4. Other effects and Considerations

It is also worth also noting that [1] predicts impact of the multi-folds effects on the Standard Model. So far, we have used that explain some open problems with the standard model, without requiring new physics. We have shown how entanglement would also appear; but we have not yet found any situation (besides dark matter as in [5]) where it is the contributing factor, versus rather the massive gravity contribution term at small scales also predicted by [1] and expected to be non-negligible at small scales. So far it is that latter mechanism that is invoked in [1] to contribute explanations. See [21] for a list of papers derived from [1], many discussing the impact on the standard model or on New Physics beyond the Standard Model.

That is not to say that, even if possibly surprising, the model proposed in [1] is in fact already contained in many existing conventional physics as well as New Physics around Superstrings and the AdS/CFT correspondence conjecture [22]. Indeed, see for example [23-24] showing how entanglement and spacetime curvature relate. See [1,22] for analysis of how our model also relates to superstring and more directly on topic, how the ER=EPR conjecture [25] is very much a more limited model corroborating the multi-fold mechanisms (see for example [26]); but missing the resulting impact of gravity like potentials towards the center of mass. Non-transferability of the wormholes and misreading of the curvature implications of the entangled black holes may possibly be why these models have not (yet) reached our conclusions. For us, the beauty is that we do not need the New Physics, we just need to add gravity (string enough at smalls scales) to the Standard Model. There is enough material to start making a case for this [21].

5. Conclusions

In this paper, we have compiled examples of situation where it might be possible to observe gravity like fluctuations due to entanglement, as predicted by the multi-fold mechanisms proposed in [1].

At this stage, we hope to find more experiments, effects or model where the additional gravity fluctuation due to entanglement plays a significant role that makes it or its consequence detectable. It is essential to the validation or falsifiability of the multi-fold mechanism proposed in [1]. Doing so if for future work but we can only encourage any such experiments or to keep our predictions in mind quantum matter or quantum computing and teleportation experiments, just in case.

A few challenges remain. The main one being that just like for gravity, at the scale considered, the effects are so small that it will be very hard to detect them, especially directly. Yet our proposal for dark matter already shows that there are ways and there is hope. We also have high hopes for superconductors and BEC experiments. We already pointed out to anecdotal that may corroborate; even if not necessarily as the authors of these experiments would have expected.

Of course, another challenge is that the model of [1] is more qualitative than quantitative. Now, it is a priority for us to evolve towards more quantitative approaches by evolving form proportionality equation to the real coupling factors and estimate these factors (e.g. by relating to expected values in classical situations). We aim with future work to get such better quantitative predictions as well as to evangelize experimentations base don the present paper. Not being currently active in a Physics institution, currently limits our ability to directly attempt an experimental program ourselves.

Our hope with this publication is that others will get ideas on how to validate our model directly or indirectly. We certainly welcome such, or any other, collaborations.

Needless to say that the early hints of corroboration presented here, the contributions to addressing open issues covered in [1,21] and the fact that Physics all along maybe hinted at the multi-folds mechanism, are strong encouragements. We hope it will convince the community to spend some cycle on what [1] proposes.

Note (10/2/20): The progresses towards larger entangled systems reported recently in [27,28], as well as [18-20], will hopefully result into some focused efforts to test our model of attractive gravity like effects between and among entangled systems.

____

Cite as: Stephane H Maes, (2020), “Gravity-like Attractions and Fluctuations between Entangled Systems?”, viXra:2010.0010v1, shmaesphysics.wordpress.com/20…, June 24, 2020.

____

Footnotes:

[fn1]: We are cautious about citing and concerned about the extensive discussion presented here. Indeed the experiment result mentioned here are seen as controversial. We mention them, more as examples of indirect ways to experiments with effects predicted by [1], than as successfully reviewed experimental results that we would want to rely on.

____

References: (most references come from popular science to make the discussion more approachable)

[1]: Stephane H. Maes, (2020) “Quantum Gravity Emergence from Entanglement in a Multi-Fold Universe”, viXra:2006.0088v1, (June 9, 2020).

[2]: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reissner…

[3]: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerr-New…

[4]: Burinskii, Alexander, (2008), “The Dirac-Kerr-Newman electron”, arXiv:0507109v4

[5]: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_para…

[6]: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercon…

[7]: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BCS_theo…

[8]: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bose%E2%…

[9]: Giovanni Modanese, (2014), “Gravity-Superconductors Interactions as a Possible Means to Exchange Momentum with the Vacuum”, arXiv:1408.1636v1

[10]: Bryce S. DeWitt, (1966), “Superconductors and Gravitational Drag”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 16, 1092

[11]: James Q. Quach, (2015), “Gravitational Casimir effect”, arXiv:1502.07429v1

[12]: Clovis Jacinto de Matos, Martin Tajmar (2006). “Gravitomagnetic London Moment and the Graviton Mass inside a Superconductor”, arXiv:cond-mat/0602591

[13]: ALICE Collaboration, (2018), “Anisotropic flow in Xe-Xe collisions at sqrt{s_{NN}}=5.44 TeV”, arXiv:1805.01832v2

[14]: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quark%E2…

[15]: Stephane H Maes, (2020), ”Explaining Dark Energy, Small Cosmological Constant and Inflation Without New Physics?”, https://shmaesphysics.wordpress.com/2020/06/19/explaining-dark-energy-small-cosmological-constant-and-inflation-without-new-physics/, June 19, 2020.

[16]: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qubit

[17]: Ning Bao and Jason Pollack and Grant N. Remmen, (2015), “Wormhole and entanglement (non-)detection in the ER=EPR correspondence”, arXiv:1509.05426

[18]: C. F. Ockeloen-Korppi, E. Damskagg, J.-M. Pirkkalainen, A. A. Clerk, F. Massel, M. J. Woolley, M. A. Sillanpaa, (2017), “Entangled massive mechanical oscillators”, arXiv:1711.01640v1

[19]: Yaakov Y. Fein et al. (2019), “Quantum superposition of molecules beyond 25 kDa”, Nature Physicss.

[20]: Kong, J., Jiménez-Martínez, R., Troullinou, C. et al., (2020), “Measurement-induced, spatially-extended entanglement in a hot, strongly-interacting atomic system”. Nat Commun 11, 2415.

[21]: shmaesphysics.wordpress.com/sh…

[22]: Stephane H Maes, (2020), “Dualities or Analogies between Superstrings and Multi-fold Universe”, viXra:2006.0178v1, shmaesphysics.wordpress.com/20…, June 14, 2020.

[23]: ChunJun Cao, Sean M. Carroll, Spyridon Michalakis, (2016). “Space from Hilbert Space: Recovering Geometry from Bulk Entanglement”, arXiv:1606.08444v3.

[24]: van Raamsdonk, Mark (2010). “Building up spacetime with quantum entanglement”, Gen. Rel. Grav. 42 (14): 2323–2329. arXiv:1005.3035

[25]: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ER%3DEPR

[26]: Julian Sonner, (2013), “Holographic Schwinger Effect and the Geometry of Entanglement”, arXiv:1307.6850v3.

[27]: sciencealert.com/physicists-pu…

[28]: Rodrigo A. Thomas, Michał Parniak, Christoffer Østfeldt, Chistoffer B. Møller, Christian Bærentsen, Yeghishe Tsaturyan, Albert Schliesser, Jürgen Appel, Emil Zeuthen, Eugene S. Polzik, (2020), “Entanglement between Distant Macroscopic Mechanical and Spin Systems”, arXiv:2003.11310v1

____

Appendix A – No gravity shields in Multi-fold Universes

In [9], the experiences of figure 1 and 2, sensors are described as positioned in shielded boxes or behind shield screens, we do interpret this as electromagnetic shields (as faraday cages or large screens). This is certainly challenging a direct vacuum polarization story beyond the shield. We did not want to bring this up in the main discussion and add more controversies.

Obviously, gravity screens do not exist. [1] must be able to account for no weakening of gravity within faraday cages for example, despite our mechanisms relying on virtual particles. If only virtual neutrinos were to contribute, gravity would be weakened within such a cage, which is obviously not the case. In general for the multi-fold mechanisms of [1], when the virtual particles tries to reach a test particle within an electromagnetic shield, it does it be affecting the four -vector potential of the shield. Considering the system shield + target particle, its total energy is affected and it affects the energy source available to multi-folds affecting the test particle. The combine effect is hierarchical and the composition appears as if the effect went through the shield. A dedicated upcoming paper or an update of [1] will explicitly address these shielding concerns with the multi-fold mechanisms.

Coming back to [9], our plausible explanation stops at the shield. So what could be happening next? The gravity fluctuation due to the relaxation of the vacuum polarization (e.g. in figure 2 of [9]) affects the 4-vector potential as a fluctuation that therefore could continue beyond the shield as a gravity fluctuation. Remember, we only try to interpret [9] at the light of [1]. We are in no position to corroborate what actually was observed.

____

I thank my generous supporters on Patreon. If you like my work, publications, and opinions, please consider joining them. This way, you can support this research work done totally independent from any institution. Use the contact form if you prefer to help by putting together a grant or other type of funding.

#AdSCFTCorrespondence #BCS #BEC #DarkEnergy #DarkMatter #EPR #EREPR #FrameDragging #GeneralRelativity #Gravity #GravityFluctuations #MultiFoldUniverse #QuantumComputing #QuantumGravity #QuantumMatter #QuarkGluonPlasma #Qubits #StandardModel #Superconductor #superfluid #Teleportation #VacuumPolarization #WeakGravityConjecture

Physicists Have Successfully Connected Two Large Objects in Quantum Entanglement : ScienceAlert

We stride through our Universe with the confidence of a giant, giving little thought to the fact that reality bubbles with uncertainty.

^{Mike McRae (ScienceAlert)}

Pointers to Nowhere with Geometric Unity Theory, or Some Ways Forward in Multi-fold Universes?

Stephane H. Maes

March 7, 2021

Abstract

The theory of Geometric Unity is an incomplete, often misunderstood, and controversial new candidate as Theory of everything, that has been proposed by Eric Weinstein.

This paper starts with some pointers to conventional reviews of the Geometric Unity theory.

Then, we add our own considerations, that indicate that some of the main inconsistencies like anomalous fiber bundle, and complexification of the group used for the bundle and connections, may be addressable with approaches, and arguments, encountered in the multi-fold theory, including anomaly smearing by gravity, via chirality flips, and spacetime orientation flips, fractal discrete spacetime, and multi-fold space time matter induction and scattering.

Yet the assumptions of supersymmetry, and high dimensions present in Geometric Unity probably doom the physicality of the Geometric Unity model, just as we have shown it to be the case for most supersymmetry-based GUTs and TOEs.

The arguments can apply to GU over our real universe, especially if it was multi-fold, but to be multi-fold is not necessarily a requirement.

1. Introduction

The theory of Geometric Unity (GU) is described in [1,2]. Many controversies, and confusion, surround this theory. It seems to many, that it may just be a cabal, because of all the mysteries and absence of a clear description. We do not share that view.

In fact it seems like the push back seems primarily motivated by the fact that the theory was developed outside the main Physics community and bypassed expected publication steps. So what? That may not be an appropriate justification for tossing it aside, without much consideration as seems to be the case so far.

[1] sketches the theory, as finally published by its author. It is in our view the best and most detailed mathematical formulation of the theory publicly available to date. [2] remained for a long time the only way that the proposal was known through this video of the controversial 2013 Cambridge lecture.

A review and criticism of GU can be found in [3]. With a few follow-up from the same author, it is the only published analysis and review of GU.

Note added on 10/26/22: [27], and references therein, list additional issues with, and discussions of GU [1,2].

2. Analysis of Existing Reviews of GU

In our views, there are a few things that are worth noting.

There has been way too much drama around this matter. As a consequence, everything makes the GU proposal too mysterious, and suspicious. See for example the comments in [4] (e.g. comment [5]), that can also be widely found by Googling the history of the Oxford talk, the Guardian article [17], and the Scientific American follow-up [6]. As a result, it seems that to some extent the theory has been dismissed by many, without having even considered, reviewed and proven wrong or falsified.

It is sad. Indeed we believe that the idea behind GU and merit and it is certainly attractive, from a modeling point of view, with its position of General Relativity (GR) / spacetime, fields and matter, and quest for a common first order equation where gravity/GR, Dirac and Yang Mills can be different aspects of a same equation. Note added on 10/16/22: It is a bit like when we argue in [14,33,34] that GR (the Hilbert Einstein Action) is contained in Yang Mills and Yang Mills is contained in gravity/GR.

Unfortunately, there seems to be many challenges with the proposal [1,2] that is incomplete, argued inconsistent, etc. The current GU paper [1], is certainly under-documented and poorly explained, and therefore often not verifiable, or at time even not understandable. For example, even intuitively, the hope in self-dual Yang Mills equation as square root of Yang Mills equations (we are speaking of the order of the equations), built on the analogy of what needs to be done, inspired by Dirac vs. Klein Gordon equations/operator with Dirac and squared root of Klein Gordon, itself based on the fact that Feynman diagrams seem to hint that matter (seen as fermions here) like electrons and positrons would be the square root of bosons like the photon, seem farfetched and somehow hard to reconcile with dualities like the gravity as double copy of Yang Mills (Note added on 11/16/22: See [34] and reference therein).

However, we are not sure that the main issues raised so far in [3] mean necessarily the end for the geometric Unity Theory (GU). Indeed, there may be ways around these key issues, based on what we did or encountered in the multi-fold theory [7,16]. Unfortunately, doing so, additional challenges with GU are encountered.

3. Anomaly inconsistencies, Yeah or Nay?

The anomaly challenges, discussed in [3], may not be what they seem, and it can possibly be solved with the mechanisms that we proposed to address the anomalies of the symmetries forbidding proton decays, quantum gravitational anomalies, and chiral anomalies [7-10,18]. In particular, in [7,9], we have seen that the anomalies could be smeared out by the chiral flips induced by gravity, keeping the symmetry valid, and canceling the non-conserved axial chiral current (averaged over the chirality flips for particles, or orientation changes of space time at higher energies) [7,18,26]. Indeed, U(128), the group in question, plays its role only at energies way above (the series of) different symmetry breakings ultimately into the GR (General Relativity) and SM (Standard Model) symmetries.

On that basis, we argue that, at energies well above the electroweak symmetry breaking energy scales, the spacetime is not yet oriented. It will not happen until way lower in energy scales. It means that notions of orientations, and hence chirality, are red herrings, at the energy levels where U(128) plays a role: chirality is undefined and therefore so is the axial chiral current, except for local spurious notions, based on the local rotation of temporary local massive particle. As the notion of chirality does not exist, its symmetry cannot be broken. That can only happen when or after chirality symmetry appears. No anomaly is observable or relevant at the scales where GU proposes that U(128) plays a role. More details on chirality and orientation flips are provided in [7,18].

Note added on 11/16/22: A fuller discussion, and interpretation of the effects, has since been further discussed in [28,29].

These two arguments (chirality/orientation flips due to gravity, and the absence of global/stable orientation at energies where U(128) would matter) show that [3] is possibly incorrect in assuming that it would be impossible to think of a mechanism that could consistently remove the Gauge (chiral) anomaly associated to U(128). Indeed, QFT, SM, and GR can be seen as effective and valid at larger spacetime scales, than the ones relevant to U(128). Therefore, smearing of the UV effects is exactly what is expected: anomalies disappear in that process. GU can be modeled using U(128), no need to go to Spin(14), and encounter the dimension and isomorphism incompatibilities mentioned in [3].

Such considerations would allow GU, as is, to maintain unitarity of the theory, despite the anomalies, and apparent subsequent loss of unitarity. Of course, it also implies that, even if it were to lead to unification, GU would not be a true TOE, but, at best, still be an effective theory approximating the UV / Planck scale Physics. It would be progress, but not to the full extent hoped for, and claimed, by Weinstein.

4. Complexification of the (bundle) group, an issue?

[3] argues that GU misses a complexification step, as it proceeds to defining (a) Shiab (Ship in a Bottle) operator(s). Firstly, we are not so sure that it is the case: [3] may have missed on the reading [1], as it is our understanding that it was composed mostly based on [2], before [1] was made available. It seems that [1] is working with Gl(128,ℂ) (See equations 3.30, 3.34 to 3.36, 3.37 and 8.4 in [1]). But we admit that so many groups are thrown around in [1] that it may not be what is ultimately used at the critical step.

Secondly, and, in any case, and as already mentioned, GU applies at very high energies, above all the potential symmetry breakings leading to the final GR and SM symmetries, and above typical GUTs energy scales, with their symmetries listed in [1]. At such GU scales, and above, it is unclear if one can still consider that spacetime is continuous, instead of discrete, non-commutative, fractal like, generated via random walks and still Lorentz invariant [7] (Note added on 10/16/22: See also [30]), or if the dominant processes are 4D, 3D or 2D [7]. We need to know more details about GU to understand the actual scales involved. However, if the process, followed by GU, is aware of spacetime discreteness and its fractal nature, as we do expect, then we know that it is typically described with QM (/QFTs) on fractional spacetime and that involves complex/imaginary potentials [7,19], hence particles with complex or imaginary masses, just as for the Higgs above the electroweak symmetry breaking scale [20]. Therefore, it could be possible to interpret complexification as an approximation, and a sign, of what exactly happens at these high energies. At such energies, high enough, the complex gauge connection could very well reflect the discreteness, and fractal nature, of spacetime, that we met in the multi-fold theory [7].

When spacetime become discrete, the notion of gauge symmetry is itself an approximation. Also, it may just not correctly handle unitarity considerations under these conditions.

Note added on 11/16/22: More details about the 2D processes, random walk, discrete spacetime, and how these properties can be addressed by the Higgs filed and approximately modeled in QFT can also be found in [7, 12,15,21,22,28,30].

On this basis, we argue that the GU approach may reflect being able to approximate, and hint, what is physically happening, and that the complexification, with complex connections, may rather be an advantage, instead of a doomsday con, as argued in [3].

Also, the analysis of [3], and paper 15 in [3], focus on aspects of complex connections that may not be not what complexification implies in GU; just as imaginary masses are not really about Tachyonic Higgs, but rather instability and (global) electroweak symmetry breaking by the Higgs mechanisms [20].

5. 14D, U(128), Spin(14) and more

In GU, a 14D space corresponds to the GU “observerse”, proposed by Weinstein [1], with reduction to 4D, via pull back via ב*, that probably requires more thoughts.

The multi-fold theory encounters also 14D through the different paths described in the next two paragraphs. Therefore, it is a priori a reasonable model for the GU “observerse”, as target for a super in-and-out mapping/modeling of spacetime.

For example, we note that extending the multi-fold mechanisms to explain, with multi-folds, gravity in the Ricci flat 7D embedding spacetime [15,21], associated to multi-fold universe version of 7D space time matter induction, (i.e. adding 3D and sharing time) [This amount to what the 4D multi-fold spacetime feels in the presence of multi-folds, i.e. the inside-out view], and considering AdS(5) sharing time (i.e. adding 4D, the 3D to again explain gravity in AdS(5) via multi-fold can be shared with the 3D already added to the 7D spacetime) [This amounts to the space where multi-fold live, i.e. the outside-in view] leads to a 14D spacetime.

Alternatively, space time matter induction (see [15,21] and reference therein) requires 14D to account for left and right chirality, that it can’t model on its own in a 7D spacetime [9,18,26]. This would imply symmetries Spin(7,7) ≃ Spin (14), in that 14D space.

And yes one could also argue that 14D are enough dimensions to support all relevant flavors of supersymmetry, super strings, super gravity and M-theory [14], even if a key outcome of the multi-fold theory, seems to be that supersymmetry and superstrings/M-theory are no physical, but rather a mathematical duality [7,11,12,14,23-25]. Follow [16], to get the latest papers and comments on this.

Note added on 10/16/22: However, in a paper later published [27], we further analyzed GU and got inspired by to progress the multi-fold theory, thereby proving wrong those in the Physics community who simply rejected GU, and decided to not pay attention to it because of its challenges and its allegedly controversial promotion: even problematic studies may have good ideas! In particular, we derived the symmetries of SM and GR. A key implications of the derivation [27], and the Ultimate Unification [7,13,29] is however that we probably have a desert of new fundamental particles above the gravity electroweak symmetry breaking energy scales and that no grand unification symmetry breaking takes place [7,29,31]. In other words, no U(128) or Spin(14), or even lower level symmetry breaking are expected to be encountered, at high energy scales. That may be a new even more problematic problem for the GU program: there may be no room for U(128) symmetry breaking, just as there is no room for GUTs.

Also [35] will provide on all these multi-fold dimensions thrown around, albeit there we did not try to focus on interpreting possible 14D spaces.

6. More Multi-fold Considerations: more dead-ends, or ways forward for Geometric Unity?

More importantly, based on the work we have done so far, we know that supersymmetry, and 14D spacetime are not compatible with the Standard Model along with Asymptotic Safety of gravity [11,12]. This seems to doom, for now at least, the GU proposal, just as for other GUTs and TOEs [7, 11-13], as well as superstrings. Again, addressing this, or looking at a reformulation that would not require supersymmetry may be a good way forward, if at all plausible and consistent.

To be fair the notion of proposed supersymmetric in GU is vague in [1]. It may imply something different, albeit not likely.

In a multi-fold universe, these 5D, 7D, 14D extra dimensions relate to multi-folds, but are not encountered as the spacetime, where the particles live, and wherePhysics takes place, and therefore not affected by the large dimension incompatibility issues. Therefore, there may still be ways forward compatible with Multi-fold theories, or not… This is also for future work, but worth some collaboration.

Note added in 10/16/22: [27] discusses follow-ups to [3], and discusses a new problem for GU, if we were to follow this train of thought. There are no stable and renormalizable (asymptotically safe) Yang Mills in more than 4 (5)D, unless of supersymmetric. This is another challenge with GU approach as it seems to imply the need to introduce supersymmetries to ensure such renormalizability or asymptotic safety, but then hit our stated incompatibility with asymptotically safe gravity (and SM), which we have confirmed in [7,11,12,32], even for the real universe. Also it is unclear that high dimensional self-dual Yang Mills equation can help with these issues. The problem is that when quantization of GU is introduced, all the work may fall apart if asymptotic safety can’t be ensured. A theory that relies on high dimensional Yang Mills, can’t be quantized and asymptotically safe, unless if super symmetric. But that would then be incompatible with the standard model in 4D.

7. Conclusions

Besides the objections to Geometric Unity raised within conventional Physics, we identified additional considerations arguing against it, related to supersymmetry and high dimensionality, which has been established as incompatible with the Standard Model plus asymptotic safety of gravity, and supersymmetric Yang Mills (Note added on 11/16/22) and to the lack of asymptotic safety of high dimension Yang Mills that is not supersymmetric).

These issues remain problematic, especially as asymptotic safety of gravity seems to apply to the real universe, even if that is not (yet) accepted by many. Note added 11/16/22: See [11,12,32]

On the other hand, we have shown that some of the (conventional) concerns raised against GU (in [3], the only paper / preprint that the community bothered to produce, yet got refused publication even just on arXiv), may have answers based on approaches, and results, encountered in the multi-fold theory, which can be applied to GU to address these concerns. Not being experts in GU, we can’t be sure if they will ultimately help, or if the effort is any way futile, considering the new issues that we identified.

Also, there are also discrepancies and gaps between GU and the multi-fold approach, so that we are also not sure if GU can apply to multi-fold universes, or the Physics in multi-fold spacetime.

It is also unclear if some, or all, of our proposals to address some of the GU challenges, are valid in the real universe. We have growing reasons to believe it might, but for more details, the reader should check upcoming papers tracked that at [16]. Yet, our arguments could also be repeated for non-multi-fold universes, if we are willing to accept the ability of gravity to flip chirality, or spacetime orientation, or that spacetime would be discrete and fractal. Note added on 10/16/22: then again, [33] seems to indicate that our universe is indeed multi-fold.

It is also worth mentioning that the dimensions of the GU “observerse” can be confirmed as sensible in the multi-fold theory, in multiple ways. Different reasonings also lead to Spin (14), and therefore glimpses of U(128), with complexification. We see it as a mutual consistency check between GU and the Multi-fold theory.

Note added on 10/16/22: More issues have since been raised in [27], inspired by GU. Unfortunately, [27] encounters, and predicts, the absence of group symmetry larger than SM and gravity above the energy scales of multi-fold gravity electroweak symmetry breaking.

In conclusions, while we may have proposed some useful input to GU, we do not believe that we have been able to progress the quest motivating GU, or even catch a glimpse of hint that it would be the right approach, or that the desired Shiab operator(s) would exist. We are left not too optimistic for GU, even if grateful for the proposal.

____

Cite as: Stephane H Maes, (2021), “Pointers to Nowhere with Geometric Unity Theory, or Some Ways Forward in Multi-fold Universes?”, viXra:2210.0081v1, shmaesphysics.wordpress.com/20…, March 7, 2021.

____

References

[1]: The Portal, “Theory of Geometric Unity”, theportal.wiki/wiki/Theory_of_…. Retrieved for this write-up on March 7, 2021.

[2]: Eric Weinstein, “A Portal Special Presentation- Geometric Unity: A First Look”, youtube.com/watch?v=Z7rd04KzLc…. Retrieved for this write-up on March 7, 2021.

[3]: Timothy Nguyen, Theo Polya, (2021), “A Response to Geometric Unity”, timothynguyen.files.wordpress.…. Retrieved for this write-up on March 7, 2021.

[4]: Back Reaction, (2021), “[Guest Post] Problems with Eric Weinstein’s “Geometric Unity””, backreaction.blogspot.com/2021…. Retrieved for this write-up on March 7, 2021.

[5]: Comment to [5]: backreaction.blogspot.com/2021…. Retrieved for this write-up on March 7, 2021. [Unfortunately, the comments seem to have now disappeared. A copy was made, and could be made available upon request].

[6]: Not Even Wrong, (2013“, “Eric Weinstein on Geometric Unity”, math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpr…, and Comments on the page. Retrieved for this write-up on March 7, 2021.

[7]: Stephane H. Maes, (2020) “Quantum Gravity Emergence from Entanglement in a Multi-Fold Universe”, viXra:2006.0088v1, (June 9, 2020). Tracked at shmaesphysics.wordpress.com/20….

[8]: Stephane H Maes, (2022), ”Gravity or Magnetic Monopoles? You Cannot Have Both! II“, viXra:2006.0190v2, shmaesphysics.wordpress.com/20…, August 20, 2022.

[9]: Stephane H Maes, (2020), “Gravity Induced Anomalies Smearing in Standard Model so that Protons May Never Decay, Except in Black Holes“, viXra:2006.0128v1, shmaesphysics.wordpress.com/20…, June 13, 2020.

[10]: Stephane H Maes, (2020), “Viable Lattice Spacetime and Absence of Quantum Gravitational Anomalies in a Multi-fold Universe”, viXra:2205.0143v1, shmaesphysics.wordpress.com/20…, December 4, 2020.

[11]: Stephane H Maes, (2020), “Renormalization and Asymptotic Safety of Gravity in a Multi-Fold Universe: More Tracking of the Standard Model at the Cost of Supersymmetries, GUTs and Superstrings”, viXra:2102.0137v1, shmaesphysics.wordpress.com/20…, September 18, 2020.

[12]: Stephane H Maes, (2021), “Quantum Gravity Asymptotic Safety from 2D Universal Regime and Smooth Transition to Dual Superstrings”, viXra:2208.0151v1, shmaesphysics.wordpress.com/20…, January 29, 2021.

[13]: Stephane H Maes, (2020), ”Ultimate Unification: Gravity-led Democracy vs. Uber-Symmetries”, viXra:2006.0211v1, shmaesphysics.wordpress.com/20…, June 16, 2020.

[14]: Stephane H Maes, (2020), “Circular Arguments in String and Superstring Theory from a Multi-fold Universe Perspective”, viXra:2103.0195v1, shmaesphysics.wordpress.com/20…, October 5, 2020.

[15]: Stephane H Maes, (2020), “Tracking Down The Standard Model With Gravity In Multi-Fold Universes”, viXra:2011.0208v1, shmaesphysics.wordpress.com/20…, August 20, 2020.

[16]: Stephane Maes, (2020-2022), “Web Site Tracking all Publications around the Multi-fold universe”, Navigation page listing all papers. shmaesphysics.wordpress.com/sh….

[17]: Marcus du Sautoy, (2013), “Eric Weinstein may have found the answer to physics’ biggest problems”, The Guardian, theguardian.com/science/2013/m…, 23 May 201. Retrieved on November 16, 2020.

[18]: Stephane H Maes, (2022), “Can Chirality Flips Occur in a Multi-Fold Universe? What About Conservation Laws? II”, viXra:2204.0152v2, shmaesphysics.wordpress.com/20…, August 20, 2022.

[19]: Trifce Sandev, Irina Petreska, Ervin K. Lenzi, (2016), “Effective Potential from the Generalized Time-Dependent Schrodinger Equation”, Semantic Scholar, pdfs.semanticscholar.org/f19a/….

[20]: Wikipedia, “Tachyonic field”, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tachyoni…. Retrieved on April 5, 2019.

[21]: Stephane H. Maes, (2020), “Particles of The Standard Model In Multi-Fold Universes”, viXra:2111.0071v1, shmaesphysics.wordpress.com/20…, November 4, 2020.

[22]: Stephane H Maes, (2020), “Multi-fold Higgs Fields and Bosons”, viXra:2204.0146v1, shmaesphysics.wordpress.com/20…, November 6, 2020.

[23]: Stephane H Maes, (2020), “Dualities or Analogies between Superstrings and Multi-fold Universe”, viXra:2006.0178v1, shmaesphysics.wordpress.com/20…, June 14, 2020.

[24]: Stephane H Maes, (2020), ”Superstrings Encounter of the Second, Third or Fourth Types?”, viXra:2010.0140v1, shmaesphysics.wordpress.com/20…, July 5, 2020.

[25]: Stephane H Maes, (2021), “The String Swampland and de Sitter Vacua: A Consistent Perspective for Superstrings and Multi-fold Universes”, viXra:2208.0078v1, shmaesphysics.wordpress.com/20…, January 9, 2021.

[26]: Stephane H Maes, (2021), “More on Multi-fold Particles as Microscopic Black Holes with Higgs Regularizing Extremality and Singularities”, viXra:2210.0004v1, shmaesphysics.wordpress.com/20…, February 25, 2021.

References added on 10/16/2022

[27]: Stephane H. Maes, (2022), “Justifying the Standard Model U(1) x SU(2) x SU(3) Symmetry in a Multi-fold Universe”, shmaesphysics.wordpress.com/20…, August 8, 2022.

[28]: Stephane H Maes, (2021), “Multi-fold Gravity-Electroweak Theory and Symmetry Breaking”, shmaesphysics.wordpress.com/20…, March 16, 2021.

[29]: Stephane H. Maes, (2022), “Invalidation and Proof of the Mass Gap, and Viability of The Standard Model on a Discrete Spacetime”, shmaesphysics.wordpress.com/20…, July 15, 2022.

[30]: Stephane H Maes, (2021), “Multi-fold Non-Commutative Spacetime, Higgs and The Standard Model with Gravity”, shmaesphysics.wordpress.com/20…, April 11, 2021.

[31]: Stephane H. Maes, (2022), “A Conjecture: No Dark Matter will be discovered at LHC, or elsewhere”, shmaesphysics.wordpress.com/20…, July 8, 2022.

[32]: Stephane H Maes, (2022), “A Non-perturbative Proof of the Asymptotic Safety of 4D Einstein Gravity, With or Without Matter”, shmaesphysics.wordpress.com/20…, May 4, 2022.

[33] Stephane H Maes, (2022), “Deriving the Multi-fold Theory from General Relativity at Planck scale”, shmaesphysics.wordpress.com/20…, February 22, 2022.

[34]: Stephane H Maes, (2022), “Multi-folds in Yang Mills Feynman Diagrams”, shmaesphysics.wordpress.com/20…, April 5, 2022.

[35]: Stephane H Maes, (2021), “Multi-fold Embeddings, Space Time Matter Induction or Gravity Asymptotically Safe and The AdS/CFT Correspondence Conjecture, they all can recover the Standard Model”, shmaesphysics.wordpress.com/20…, December 20, 2021.

____

I thank my generous supporters on Patreon. [strong]If you like my work, publications, and opinions, please consider joining them. This way, you can support this research work done totally independent from any institution. Use the contact form if you prefer to help by putting together a grant or other type of funding.[/strong]

#anomalies #AsymptoticSafe #asymptoticSafety #chiralAnomalies #chiralityFlip #complexification #dimensions #Dirac #flips #GeneralRelativity #GeometricUnityTheory #gravityInducedChiralityFlips #imaginaryMass #Matter #MultiFoldUniverse #protonDecay #QuantumGravity #spacetime #spacetimeOrientation #StandardModel #standardModelWithGravity #Supersymmetry #TheoryOfEverything #YangMills

Shmaes - Physics

2020-06-13 17:16:25

Gravity Induced Anomalies Smearing in Standard Model so that Protons May Never Decay, Except in Black Holes

Stephane H. Maes

June 13, 2020

Abstract:

Gravity is not modeled in the Standard Model. The Proton decay, predicted by many GUTs, TOEs, supersymmetry, supergravity theories and superstrings, is forbidden in the Standard Model because the proton is the lightest baryon and the conservation of the lepton and baryon numbers would be violated. In New Physics beyond the Standard Model, such violations could be tolerated because the baryon and lepton number symmetries have chirality anomalies. We discuss that in a multi-fold universe, where gravity emerges from entanglement effects, or in a universe where gravity is strong enough to cause chirality flips of fermions, these anomalies are smeared so that the baryon and lepton symmetries could be no more anomalous, and conservation of the baryon and lepton numbers could be seen as stricter. As a result, proton decay could remain forbidden, except when gravity is extreme. It has significant consequences for theories predicting proton decay but matches the total lack of any proton decay observation so far.

____

The new preprint [1] proposes contributions to several open problems in physics like the reconciliation of General Relativity with Quantum Physics, explaining the origin of gravity proposed as emerging from quantum entanglement between particles, detailing contributions to dark matter and dark energy and explaining other Standard Model mysteries without requiring New Physics beyond the Standard Model other than the addition of gravity to the Lagrangian. All this is achieved in a multi-fold universe that may well model our real universe. That is still to be validated.

With the proposed model, spacetime and Physics can be modeled from Planck scales to quantum and macroscopic scales and semi classical approaches appear valid till very small scales. The gravity model recovers General Relativity (GR) at large scale, with massless gravity, but also massive gravity contributions at very small scale, that make gravity no more negligible at these scales.

The hypothetical decay of proton into lighter subatomic particles, such as a neutral Pion and a positron or involving charged Pions or Kaons has been proposed, although forbidden by the Standard Model. Sakharov proposed it as a Baryogenesis, that explains the dominance of matter over anti matter. Theories that try to unify electromagnetic, weak and strong interactions, called Grand Unification Theories, or Unified, (GUTs) typically predict proton decay. Details can be found in [2] (For Proton Decay) and [3] (for GUTs). GUT and Theories of Everything (TOE), have been the long dream of physicists since Einstein encountered then embraced the ideas pioneered by Kaluza and Klein. Most GUTs (there are some exceptions), TOEs, supersymmetry, superstrings, along with super gravity, predict proton decay with different prediction for its half-life.

Yet, unfortunately, experimental results are not good so far: no proton decay has ever been observed and upper bounds for its half-life [2] are raising beyond the predictions of all these theories. Details are discussed in [4]. This has dire consequences for all these theories [5]: they are one by one invalidated or ad hoc changes are needed in order to explain the lack of any observation. Therefore, no GUT or TOE yet. It certainly does not help that most of these theories also predict magnetic monopoles: they also have never been observed and [1] also suggests that they might not exist because of gravity.

Going back to the details of the Standard Model, proton decay is forbidden because the proton is the lightest baryon and the Standard Model conserves the baryon and lepton numbers, as result of symmetries. Yet it is known that these symmetries are anomalous, meaning that they create problems when the classical or non-quantized formulations are quantized. As a result, they is not associated to interactions, fields or boson carriers. The difference between these numbers however cancels the anomalies and it could be associated to a boson (in models beyond the Standard Model). The anomalies involve the asymmetries in chirality: left-handed and right-handed particles do not interact the same way in the Standard Model [6,7].

With its proposal for gravity emergence from entanglement, [1] shows that gravity can be added to the Standard Model without really introducing the New Physics brought by all these other theories that predict proton decay. In particular, [1] shows that fermions (massive and massless) have their chirality flipped (back and forth between left-handed and right-handed) by gravity. This allows [1] to propose a new model to explain the mass of the neutrino that also does not require New Physics. In the present case, these flips can be seen as allowing particles to be at time right-handed and at time left-handed, effects appearing at very small scales, where massive gravity plays a role. As a result, we observe a smeared average, that will not care of the difference of behavior between left-handed and right-handed particles, as all are sometimes in one mode and sometimes in the other. Doing so, could eliminate the anomalies by canceling the problematic axial currents, e.g. just as in a similar effect in QCD involving QCD sphalerons [11]. Of course, it is a conjecture, that requires more formal work to validate if such a smearing concept would make sense for anomalies and what is exactly its impact. An immediate consequence would be that, because the baryon and lepton numbers are now more stringently conserved, there is no easy leeway to break these symmetries and have proton decays. This is a very important result not limited to the model of [1]: gravity may eliminate chirality anomalies in symmetries of the Standard Model in all models where gravity induces chirality flips for fermions.

Therefore, if [1] is right, proton decay could be forbidden by more fundamental and unbroken (i.e. not anomalous) symmetries and may never be observed (in normal conditions of reasonable gravity). Of course, the reasoning still need to be peer reviewed and it also relies on the proposal that the smearing or averaging saves the symmetries in Physics.

It creates hurdles for any theory that predicts proton decay, and we saw that this includes most of the GUTs, TOEs, and superstring models. For non-TOEs, their best way out would probably be to argue that their prediction is due to the absence of gravity in their model and that they would probably also drop their predictions or estimates for proton decays if gravity is correctly added. Yet, that may not work for models that are already encompassing gravity or gravitons (e.g. superstrings). This is not the argument encountered usually today [8].

[1] also mentions that, in a massive macroscopic black hole, the quarks can probably be compressed till they fully overlap and annihilate their colors. And so, yes, proton decay can take place, but only in black holes, or extreme gravity, and with half-life way larger than anything predicted by conventional theories.

If proton decay was to be observed, way beyond the predictions of GUTs and TOEs, then [1] could provide an explanation with its strong (massive) gravity contribution proposal. Depending on the resulting observed half-life of the proton, it may explain the large half time (due to the extreme gravity effects), or if invalidated (i.e. the half-time is within expectations of a conventional GUT or TOE), it would be only create problems for the anomaly smearing hypothesis of [1]: it did not prevent the anomalies of the baryon and lepton number symmetries. Note that whatever is the outcome, proton decay should not be seen as a criteria to invalidate the model of gravity emergence from entanglement and multi-fold mechanisms proposed in [1].

In conclusion, [1] provides a new hypothesis to explain why, with gravity, proton decay has never been observed under normal conditions over the last 40+ years. It also throw new challenges to the theories that predict proton decay, especially if they also already claim to model gravity.

It is also worth noting that, even without the models of [1], if gravity can be shown to play a strong enough role at very small scale so that it can flip chirality of fermions, the arguments above can be repeated in such a context and they would result into the same consequences for proton decay. [1] has just the convenient advantage of already making a case for why gravitation would be strong enough to cause the chirality flips.

This paper really contributed two things: i) the considerations in the context of [1]. ii) A new theoretical hypothesis on how and why a strong enough gravity at small scales can remove the anomaly from baryon and lepton number symmetries. That is new in itself and should be considered, no matter what the outcome of investigation of concept of multi-fold universes proposed in [1] are. In both cases, it is proposed that removing the anomalies, could render proton decay less acceptable because of gravity. It also exemplifies and makes a case for adding gravity consideration in the Standard Model. [1] discusses other examples where gravity could matter to the Standard Model.

The analysis presented in this paper and in [1] are quite different analyses of the gravity effects than what is conventionally proposed (e.g. see [8] for a review), where the effects are also seen as smearing, but rather in terms of impact on the coupling constants and fine structures constants; with recognition that gravity may significantly affect the proton decay and half-life estimates but without identifying that it may instead eliminate its possibility altogether.

Interactions with Black holes and magnetic monopoles have also been proposed as sources of proton decay [9,10]. [1] settles the magnetic monopole by arguing that they do not exist, also because of gravity effects. Black holes are discussed above. [1] models particles and spacetime as microscopic black holes. It leads to a distinction between business as usual for microscopic black holes (i.e. just think of particle interactions) and the effects within macroscopic black holes able to compress quarks and annihilate colors. In a multi-fold universe proposed in [1], extremal black holes can disintegrate into smaller black holes and eventually into protons, themselves as compositions of extremal black holes (quarks) and other elementary particle black holes. This way, there should be no pesky remnant troubles.

In retrospect, the chirality flipping, and semi classical suitability found in [1], were really key in coming up with the new analysis proposed here. But the reasoning indicates that it should be possible to apply the outcome to our real universe not only if is well modeled by [1] but also if it is not the case with suitable gravity effects that flip chirality.

____

Cite as: Stephane H Maes, (2020), “Gravity Induced Anomalies Smearing in Standard Model so that Protons May Never Decay, Except in Black Holes “, viXra:2006.0128v1, shmaesphysics.wordpress.com/20…, June 13, 2020.

____

References: (most references come from popular science to make the discussion more approachable)

[1]: Stephane H. Maes, (2020) “Quantum Gravity Emergence from Entanglement in a Multi-Fold Universe”, viXra:2006.0088v1, (June 9, 2020).

[2]: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton_d…

[3]: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Un…

[4]: forbes.com/sites/startswithaba…

[5]: quantamagazine.org/no-proton-d…

[6]: Schwartz, M.D., (2013), “Quantum Field Theory and the Standard Model”, Cambridge University Press.

[7]: Kazuo Fujikawa, Hiroshi Suzuki, (2014), “Path Integrals and Quantum Anomalies”, Oxford University Press, USA; Reprint edition (January 21, 2014).

[8]: Pran Nath, Pavel Fileviez Perez, (2006), “Proton stability in grand unified theories, in strings, and in branes”, arXiv:hep-ph/0601023v3.

[9]: Steven Weinberg, (1981), “The Decay of the Proton”, Scientific American, Vol. 244, No. 6 (June 1981), pp. 64-75.

[10]: npl.washington.edu/AV/altvw01.…

[11]: Steven D. Bass, (2004), “Anomalous commutators and electroweak baryogenesis”, arXiv:hep-ph/0403219v1

____

I thank my generous supporters on Patreon. [strong]If you like my work, publications, and opinions, please consider joining them. This way, you can support this research work done totally independent from any institution. Use the contact form if you prefer to help by putting together a grant or other type of funding.[/strong]

#anomalousSymmetries #BaryonNumber #BlackHoles #GeneralRelativity #GrandUnificationTheories #Gravity #LeptonNumber #MagneticMonopoleProblem #MultiFoldUniverse #protonDecay #QuantumGravity #StandardModel #strings #Superstrings #Supersymmetry #TheoryOfEverything

Grand Unification Dream Kept at Bay

Physicists have failed to find disintegrating protons, throwing into limbo the beloved theory that the forces of nature were unified at the beginning of time.

^{Natalie Wolchover (Quanta Magazine)}

Call for Collaboration

Call for Collaboration:

Looking for collaborators or students interested to validate (or falsify) experimentally the multi-fold universe predictions (See [1]) and in particular gravity like effects due to entanglement (macroscopic entangled systems like superconductors are a recommended starting point) [2].

The Nobel price suggestion is of course a joke, but the impact of any corroboration would be huge and have a significant impact on many aspects of Theoretical Physics, Particle Physics, Gravity and Quantum Computing. If you look for new ideas out of the beaten path….

Besides experimental validation, numerous opportunities for deriving quantitative theoretical models, based on [1], also exist for Theoretical Physics activities. Potential implications on the Standard model, Strings, Supersymmetry, GUTs and TOEs are interesting.

See [3] for an up to date list of topics derived from [1]. Many open also the door to new models and experimental validations.

Offer is to collaborate or mentor. At this stage, no funding or grant is available.

Contact via contact form.

Multi-fold Community, where you can submit your own related papers, and be linked here.

(April 1, 2023), we have created Multi-fold Theory community (on Zenodo site sponsored by CERN, EU, …): zenodo.org/communities/multi-f…. We will progressively have (most) relevant preprint also available there (It will take a while).

We encourage serious related work, papers and collaboration to be submitted there at zenodo.org/deposit/new?c=multi….

____

Cite as: Stephane H Maes, (2020), “Call for Collaboration”, shmaesphysics.wordpress.com/20…, September 6, 2020.

____

References

[1]: Stephane H. Maes, (2020) “Quantum Gravity Emergence from Entanglement in a Multi-Fold Universe”, viXra:2006.0088v1, (June 9, 2020).

[2]: Stephane H Maes, (2020), “Gravity-like Attractions and Fluctuations between Entangled Systems?”, shmaesphysics.wordpress.com/20…, June 24, 2020.

[3]: shmaesphysics.wordpress.com/sh…

____

I thank my generous supporters on Patreon. If you like my work, publications, and opinions, please consider joining them. This way, you can support this research work done totally independent from any institution. Use the contact form if you prefer to help by putting together a grant or other type of funding.

#Collaboration #Entanglement #ExperimentalPhysics #Gravity #Ideas #MultiFoldUniverse #ParticlePhysics #PhDResearch #PostDocResearch #QuantumComputing #Superconductor #TheoreticalPhysics

Shmaes - Physics

2020-06-26 00:50:45

Gravity-like Attractions and Fluctuations between Entangled Systems?

Stephane H. Maes

June 24, 2020

Abstract:

In a multi-fold universe, gravity emerges from Entanglement through the multi-fold mechanisms. As a result, gravity-like effects appear in between entangled particles that they be real or virtual. Long range, massless gravity results from entanglement of massless virtual particles. Entanglement of massive virtual particles leads to massive gravity contributions at very smalls scales. Multi-folds mechanisms also result into a spacetime that is discrete, with a random walk fractal structure and non-commutative geometry that is Lorentz invariant and where spacetime nodes and particles can be modeled with microscopic black holes. All these recover General relativity at large scales and semi-classical model remain valid till smaller scale than usually expected. Gravity can therefore be added to the Standard Model. This can contribute to resolving several open issues with the Standard Model.

All these phenomena result from the observation that attractive gravity-like potentials appear in spacetime between entangled systems, because of the mechanisms proposed in a multi-fold universe to address the EPR paradox. An immediate implication, and opportunity to validate or falsify the model, is that gravity-like effects and fluctuation are predicted to appear between, around or near entangled systems; we just need check if this is encountered in the real world.

This paper discuss situations where attraction due to entanglement, and hence gravity like effects or fluctuations, could be encountered. For example, within or near quantum matter like superconductors or (Bose Einstein Condensates) BECs or within Qubits. One could argue that some indications exist that some of these effects could already have already been observed. We are really seeking falsifiability or validation opportunities for the multi-fold mechanisms. Early considerations are encouraging.

Discussing some related experiments led us to also address how shielding is correctly modeled with multi-fold mechanisms: Faraday cages do not weaken gravity!

____

1. Introduction

The new preprint [1] proposes contributions to several open problems in physics like the reconciliation of General Relativity with Quantum Physics, explaining the origin of gravity proposed as emerging from quantum (EPR- Einstein Podolsky Rosen) entanglement between particles [5], detailing contributions to dark matter and dark energy and explaining other Standard Model mysteries without requiring New Physics beyond the Standard Model other than the addition of gravity to the Standard Model Lagrangian. All this is achieved in a multi-fold universe that may well model our real universe, which remains to be validated.

With the proposed model of [1], spacetime and Physics are modeled from Planck scales to quantum and macroscopic scales and semi classical approaches appear valid till very small scales. In [1], it is argued that spacetime is discrete, with a random walk-based fractal structure, fractional and noncommutative at, and above Planck scales (with a 2-D behavior and Lorentz invariance preserved by random walks till the early moments of the universe). Spacetime results from past random walks of particles. Spacetime locations and particles can be modeled as microscopic black holes (Schwarzschild for photons and spacetime coordinates, and metrics between Reisner Nordstrom [2] and Kerr Newman [3] for massive and possibly charged particles – the latter being possibly extremal). Although surprising, [1] recovers results consistent with other like [4], while also being able to justify the initial assumptions of black holes from the gravity or entanglement model. The resulting gravity model recovers General Relativity (GR) at larger scale, as a 4-D process, with massless gravity, but also with massive gravity components at very small scale that make gravity significant these scales. Semi-classical models also work well till way smaller scales than usually expected.

In the present paper, we remain at a high level of analysis. It makes the points accessible to a wider audience and keeps the door open to further papers or discussions devoted to details of interest. Yet, it requires the reader to review [1], as we do not revisit here all the details of the multi-fold mechanism or reconstruction of spacetime. The followings subsections are organized as a series of observations in [1] where gravity like effects are expected to result from entanglement and should be observable, at least indirectly through some resulting effects. Direct observation will remain challenging because of the expected weakness of the attractions. Our analysis is by no means exhaustive. However, we hope that it will intrigue enough the reader to push him or her to dig deeper. Most of the more detailed (or entry point) references are provided in [1], and so every statement is not motivated here or presented with the most appropriate references. This paper is rather a story tale. “[1]” appears often, as a person or a model, to refer to the original arguments, analysis, mechanisms or proposals discussed in [1].

2. Entanglement effects in Multi-fold universes

The mechanisms of multi-folds, the main feature proposed in [1], trigger activation of additional structures (folds) when particles are (EPR) entangled so that additional paths can traverse the folds, where the EPR entangled particles can always meet as a same exit points. Doing so, all the activated folds (i.e. multi-folds) create attractive potentials in in between the entangled particles ( per fold). The attraction is towards their source or center the mass, depending of the use cases and movements (and masses involved – entangled particles can be massive or massless). When involving virtual particles emitted by a source of energy, this potential is reminiscent of gravity and [1] attributes gravity to these effects. It can also be looked as adding contributions of the Ricci curvature scalar R of the folds, from all matter or energy contributions, to build a new Ricci curvature scalar field R and, with the direction of attraction information, a new consistent Ricci curvature tensor. Doing so, for all sources of energy, recovers Einstein’s GR field equations (or Hilbert Einstein Action); which is amazing as invariance of surfaces (the real geometrical meaning behind the Hilbert Einstein Action) or variants of the Hilbert Einstein have, at no point, be postulated in [1] prior to that determination (something that can’t exactly be said the same way for strings). Also, the multi-folds have a spin-2 symmetry.

So, it is predicted in [1], that (EPR) entanglement between particles (or larger systems), results into attractive potentials in

towards the center of mass, with r the distance between form the center of mass, in

between the entangled particles (on the support domain of the mapping), if integration takes place over r. That is over a system of entangled particles or for the range of uncertainty. Otherwise, each particles contribute a per fold contribution. For gravity, the integration of r goes to infinity, hence the generic gravity like statement.

It is also important to note for completeness that [1] postulates that such effects only exist when entanglement is the result of interaction occurring locally (same source location). Other situations are considered as hierarchical and thought not to contribute an additional effective potential. Yet, as in force composition, the different parts involved in a hierarchical event also amount to attractive effects; so attraction exist but as force composition. Also, if the entanglement is the effect of many repeated interactions (e.g. electron to phonon to electron), while hierarchical, the effects with composition will just appear as a normal non-hierarchical effect with attractive potential (at least in first approximation). So solid state entanglements a la superconductors for examples are modeled as nonhierarchical entanglement in this discussion; even if, in reality, it is the outcome of complex hierarchical composition of attractive potentials.

3. Gravity like fluctuations near (in between) entangled systems

An immediate consequence of the mechanism and model proposed in [1], is that fluctuations of gravity-like effects (in

– when macroscopic and in

when mostly between localized individual particles. These effects are very small (as is gravity beyond very small scales), so direct observation is probably hopeless for the near future, if ever. We will need clever indirect ways or macroscopic additive effects to be able to validate our model.

A non-exhaustive list of candidate scenarios where such gravity like fluctuations are predicted to exist is provided here:

• Gravity like effects or fluctuations within, and in proximity of superconductors. Superconductors involve of combinations of Bardeen Cooper Schrieffer (BCS) pairs (at low temperatures and for low temperature superconductors) [7] and Bose Einstein Condensate (BEC) pairs [8] (after a transition from BCS pairs for high temperature superconductors) as well BEC pairs of pairs etc. in high temperature superconductors [6]. According to the mechanisms described in [1]:
  
  • Attraction should occur within the bulk of the superconductors. It should also be with stronger effects for high temperature superconductors, because BEC pairs are smaller than BCS pairs (That spread all over the material over many crystal cells).
    
    • This kind of effects have been anecdotally reported (see [9] for one of the most recent compilation of these controversial and hard to reproduce experiments)[fn1]. However, we urge the reader to be cautious in reading beyond the descriptions of the experiments and results and the references as we do not necessarily subscribe with the presentation of the experiments as accepted facts or many aspects of the proposed explanations or assertions in some of the listed references material, of anti-gravity, gravity shielding or repulsive gravity effects and other families or properties of gravitons-like particles. Unfortunately, the results experiments seem to have never been rigorously confirmed or unambiguously analyzed.
      
      • In our view, these reported effects, if corroborated, and if we understand well the setup of the two experiments, could result from super-conductor internal stress within the electromagnetic field (between separated BEC BCS-pairs) plus vacuum polarizations. The latter results from entanglement attractions between the produced polarized virtual pairs. When the discharges occur, the superconductor and the vacuum polarization relaxes and so does the vacuum entanglement and attraction potential, resulting into a gravity fluctuation or wave that propagate at the same speed as the polarization relaxation. The relaxation produce a “expansion effects”, wherever polarization was present in the vacuum as well as within the superconductor and could explain the effects on the emitter or on the test masses. It would appear as an initially repulsive effect as the relaxation wave propagates. This explanation to these controversial experiments have never been proposed in the related literature as summarized in [9]. The complications of the shields is discussed in Appendix A.
      • If true (both the observations and our suggested explanation), then we have a resounding indirect confirmation of the mechanisms described (attraction due to entanglement) in [1]; not just for entanglements within the superconductor but also the entanglement of the polarized vacuum.
      • The stronger attraction within the high temperature superconductor creates a stronger effect than with low temperature superconductor material when the pairs are pushed to its boundaries by the electromagnetic field. A non-entangled material only see the vacuum effect. Without superconductors, i.e. in normal discharge situations, only vacuum polarization relaxation takes place. This is not sufficient. The fact that recoil may be better corroborated while radiation effects seems (often) no reproducible could come from the fact that the relaxation effect within the superconductor always takes place and is stronger than vacuum polarization relaxation. The other case (figure 1-a in [9]) requires suitable polarization beyond the right electrodes till the test mass something and it is a much weaker effect.
      • Superconductors are also involved in these experiments also because of their known propensity of quantum matter like superconductors to amplify or reflect the vacuum polarization effects; something well known since the work for example of deWitt [10] and also involved in the still unconfirmed gravitational Casimir effect proposal [11]. These works predict effects of gravity on superconductor, not gravity like effect produce by super conductors. The distinction matters and shows the challenge in distinguishing the two types of effects if we want to validate the gravity like attraction generated by entanglement.
      • To be convincing, we should see larger effects than expected by just contributions à la [10]. The results, with the problems already mentioned seem to indicate that it may be the case.

      
      

    • As another related potential corroboration, building on the ideas of [10], it has also been proposed that an effect for gravitation analogous to the London moment in superconductor could exist for gravitons, in rotating superconductors, in a varying strong magnetic field [12]. Again, the magnetic field would push BEC BCS-pairs towards the surface of the superconductor and, as a result, bring stronger gravitation effect leaks observable outside and very near the super conductor, where a frame dragging effect as in GR, but stronger could be observed. Such effects have been observed [12]. However, the reported results were again in our view not clear enough to assess for sure if they would match our frame dragging expectation. It seems that they might.
      
      • It is also important to understand all aspects of the experiments and details are missing on the actual results and in particular make sure that the effect are due to entanglement and not a variation a la [10], where frame dragging would be explained solely by the rotation flipping the roles (here the super conductor rotates, the detector is fixed) without the contributions of the attraction / gravity like fluctuation due to entanglement.
      • The effect must be larger than normal frame dragging (undetectable) or effects explained by [10]. More work to model how [10] impacts the experimentation and if we can really detect an unexpected additional effect. Assuming that [12] did correctly account for [10], then according to the result, they have unaccounted for effects.

      
      

    • The proposed setup of [12] and variations could be good ways (better than the first set of discharge experiments) to (indirectly) validate the multi-fold mechanisms. However, we would prefer experiments that are not involving and mixing other Physics (like strong magnetic fields, strong electromagnetic pulses etc.) to avoid the risk of misinterpretations and combinations of all these effects from superconductor, existing gravity and electromagnetism interactions. Electromagnetic fields were required because London – Meissner types of behaviors can amplify our predicted attraction . Unfortunately, we could not determine based on the research reports what of the side effects of the fields, as discussed here, have been accounted for in the results.

    
    

  
  

• Quantum matter, like BECs, superfluids, supermetals etc. are other candidates. The gravity fluctuation effects to look for are similar to what is discussed above for superconductors. The particular existing results discussed above for superconductor may not be repeatable or may need adaptation depending on the type of quantum material.
• Quark Gluon Plasma (QGP) is another example of BEC [14]. Here, we see two avenue for confirmations:
  
  • Experimentally when such plasma are formed in high energy accelerators [13]. It would be worth looking if any perturbations due to attractive potentials could be modeled and observed
  • Theoretical models of cosmology (early moments after the big bang) and stellar physics could consider if adding such considerations could introduce new prediction or effects when involving large quantities of plasma and thus entanglement. The main reason being that at the scale of the universe or of stars, even small effects can start to play meaningful roles.

  
  

• Speaking of which, [1,5] showed of an effect associated to entanglement can qualitatively explain the dark matter effects, without requiring New Physics. It seems also consistent with the observations of galaxies that seem not to contain dark matter; something that most other models have had difficulties to handle. This is quite a potential confirmation, but we now need to proceed towards a more quantitative model of [1] so that we can determine if the number match to account for dark matter (or a portion of it).
  
  • Validating [5] would be of great interest. It would after all, with the conclusions of our model, probably and most influential entanglement effect that we can think of (short of large or even larger, scale spacetime entanglement, proposed by others, but not something that we support).
  • It is certainly encouraging that in addition, [1,15] can also explains effects that contribute to cosmological inflation and dark energy as well as a small cosmological constant that does not conflict with the QFT vacuum energy density estimates.

  
  

• Qubits are entangled systems achieved by different mechanisms like trapped ions, superconductors etc. [16]. They are at the code of quantum computing and larger Qubit systems are being built as time passes. These are not yet large enough for our needs, but things may change rapidly. Within the Qubits, if measurable, attraction would be a sign of entanglement and therefore a way to detect entanglement without observing it; something forbidden by the non-observability of entanglement [17]. Being able to do so would be a great tool for quantum computing and validation of our predictions.
• For quantum computing, teleportation or other purpose, researchers are entangling bigger systems like atoms, larger and larger molecules, wider atom systems or even biological systems; all involving huge amounts of entities (see for example [18-20]). The bigger these systems are the better are the chance to directly or indirectly determine if gravity fluctuations appear among them, as long that we do not hit the snag of hierarchical entanglement not producing attractive potentials. So some precaution are needed to understand if validation is possible or if the absence of attraction would implies falsifiability of our model or rather such the dominance of hierarchical entanglement effects.

4. Other effects and Considerations

It is also worth also noting that [1] predicts impact of the multi-folds effects on the Standard Model. So far, we have used that explain some open problems with the standard model, without requiring new physics. We have shown how entanglement would also appear; but we have not yet found any situation (besides dark matter as in [5]) where it is the contributing factor, versus rather the massive gravity contribution term at small scales also predicted by [1] and expected to be non-negligible at small scales. So far it is that latter mechanism that is invoked in [1] to contribute explanations. See [21] for a list of papers derived from [1], many discussing the impact on the standard model or on New Physics beyond the Standard Model.

That is not to say that, even if possibly surprising, the model proposed in [1] is in fact already contained in many existing conventional physics as well as New Physics around Superstrings and the AdS/CFT correspondence conjecture [22]. Indeed, see for example [23-24] showing how entanglement and spacetime curvature relate. See [1,22] for analysis of how our model also relates to superstring and more directly on topic, how the ER=EPR conjecture [25] is very much a more limited model corroborating the multi-fold mechanisms (see for example [26]); but missing the resulting impact of gravity like potentials towards the center of mass. Non-transferability of the wormholes and misreading of the curvature implications of the entangled black holes may possibly be why these models have not (yet) reached our conclusions. For us, the beauty is that we do not need the New Physics, we just need to add gravity (string enough at smalls scales) to the Standard Model. There is enough material to start making a case for this [21].

5. Conclusions

In this paper, we have compiled examples of situation where it might be possible to observe gravity like fluctuations due to entanglement, as predicted by the multi-fold mechanisms proposed in [1].

At this stage, we hope to find more experiments, effects or model where the additional gravity fluctuation due to entanglement plays a significant role that makes it or its consequence detectable. It is essential to the validation or falsifiability of the multi-fold mechanism proposed in [1]. Doing so if for future work but we can only encourage any such experiments or to keep our predictions in mind quantum matter or quantum computing and teleportation experiments, just in case.

A few challenges remain. The main one being that just like for gravity, at the scale considered, the effects are so small that it will be very hard to detect them, especially directly. Yet our proposal for dark matter already shows that there are ways and there is hope. We also have high hopes for superconductors and BEC experiments. We already pointed out to anecdotal that may corroborate; even if not necessarily as the authors of these experiments would have expected.

Of course, another challenge is that the model of [1] is more qualitative than quantitative. Now, it is a priority for us to evolve towards more quantitative approaches by evolving form proportionality equation to the real coupling factors and estimate these factors (e.g. by relating to expected values in classical situations). We aim with future work to get such better quantitative predictions as well as to evangelize experimentations base don the present paper. Not being currently active in a Physics institution, currently limits our ability to directly attempt an experimental program ourselves.

Our hope with this publication is that others will get ideas on how to validate our model directly or indirectly. We certainly welcome such, or any other, collaborations.

Needless to say that the early hints of corroboration presented here, the contributions to addressing open issues covered in [1,21] and the fact that Physics all along maybe hinted at the multi-folds mechanism, are strong encouragements. We hope it will convince the community to spend some cycle on what [1] proposes.

Note (10/2/20): The progresses towards larger entangled systems reported recently in [27,28], as well as [18-20], will hopefully result into some focused efforts to test our model of attractive gravity like effects between and among entangled systems.

____

Cite as: Stephane H Maes, (2020), “Gravity-like Attractions and Fluctuations between Entangled Systems?”, viXra:2010.0010v1, shmaesphysics.wordpress.com/20…, June 24, 2020.

____

Footnotes:

[fn1]: We are cautious about citing and concerned about the extensive discussion presented here. Indeed the experiment result mentioned here are seen as controversial. We mention them, more as examples of indirect ways to experiments with effects predicted by [1], than as successfully reviewed experimental results that we would want to rely on.

____

References: (most references come from popular science to make the discussion more approachable)

[1]: Stephane H. Maes, (2020) “Quantum Gravity Emergence from Entanglement in a Multi-Fold Universe”, viXra:2006.0088v1, (June 9, 2020).

[2]: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reissner…

[3]: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerr-New…

[4]: Burinskii, Alexander, (2008), “The Dirac-Kerr-Newman electron”, arXiv:0507109v4

[5]: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_para…

[6]: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercon…

[7]: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BCS_theo…

[8]: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bose%E2%…

[9]: Giovanni Modanese, (2014), “Gravity-Superconductors Interactions as a Possible Means to Exchange Momentum with the Vacuum”, arXiv:1408.1636v1

[10]: Bryce S. DeWitt, (1966), “Superconductors and Gravitational Drag”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 16, 1092

[11]: James Q. Quach, (2015), “Gravitational Casimir effect”, arXiv:1502.07429v1

[12]: Clovis Jacinto de Matos, Martin Tajmar (2006). “Gravitomagnetic London Moment and the Graviton Mass inside a Superconductor”, arXiv:cond-mat/0602591

[13]: ALICE Collaboration, (2018), “Anisotropic flow in Xe-Xe collisions at sqrt{s_{NN}}=5.44 TeV”, arXiv:1805.01832v2

[14]: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quark%E2…

[15]: Stephane H Maes, (2020), ”Explaining Dark Energy, Small Cosmological Constant and Inflation Without New Physics?”, https://shmaesphysics.wordpress.com/2020/06/19/explaining-dark-energy-small-cosmological-constant-and-inflation-without-new-physics/, June 19, 2020.

[16]: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qubit

[17]: Ning Bao and Jason Pollack and Grant N. Remmen, (2015), “Wormhole and entanglement (non-)detection in the ER=EPR correspondence”, arXiv:1509.05426

[18]: C. F. Ockeloen-Korppi, E. Damskagg, J.-M. Pirkkalainen, A. A. Clerk, F. Massel, M. J. Woolley, M. A. Sillanpaa, (2017), “Entangled massive mechanical oscillators”, arXiv:1711.01640v1

[19]: Yaakov Y. Fein et al. (2019), “Quantum superposition of molecules beyond 25 kDa”, Nature Physicss.

[20]: Kong, J., Jiménez-Martínez, R., Troullinou, C. et al., (2020), “Measurement-induced, spatially-extended entanglement in a hot, strongly-interacting atomic system”. Nat Commun 11, 2415.

[21]: shmaesphysics.wordpress.com/sh…

[22]: Stephane H Maes, (2020), “Dualities or Analogies between Superstrings and Multi-fold Universe”, viXra:2006.0178v1, shmaesphysics.wordpress.com/20…, June 14, 2020.

[23]: ChunJun Cao, Sean M. Carroll, Spyridon Michalakis, (2016). “Space from Hilbert Space: Recovering Geometry from Bulk Entanglement”, arXiv:1606.08444v3.

[24]: van Raamsdonk, Mark (2010). “Building up spacetime with quantum entanglement”, Gen. Rel. Grav. 42 (14): 2323–2329. arXiv:1005.3035

[25]: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ER%3DEPR

[26]: Julian Sonner, (2013), “Holographic Schwinger Effect and the Geometry of Entanglement”, arXiv:1307.6850v3.

[27]: sciencealert.com/physicists-pu…

[28]: Rodrigo A. Thomas, Michał Parniak, Christoffer Østfeldt, Chistoffer B. Møller, Christian Bærentsen, Yeghishe Tsaturyan, Albert Schliesser, Jürgen Appel, Emil Zeuthen, Eugene S. Polzik, (2020), “Entanglement between Distant Macroscopic Mechanical and Spin Systems”, arXiv:2003.11310v1

____

Appendix A – No gravity shields in Multi-fold Universes

In [9], the experiences of figure 1 and 2, sensors are described as positioned in shielded boxes or behind shield screens, we do interpret this as electromagnetic shields (as faraday cages or large screens). This is certainly challenging a direct vacuum polarization story beyond the shield. We did not want to bring this up in the main discussion and add more controversies.

Obviously, gravity screens do not exist. [1] must be able to account for no weakening of gravity within faraday cages for example, despite our mechanisms relying on virtual particles. If only virtual neutrinos were to contribute, gravity would be weakened within such a cage, which is obviously not the case. In general for the multi-fold mechanisms of [1], when the virtual particles tries to reach a test particle within an electromagnetic shield, it does it be affecting the four -vector potential of the shield. Considering the system shield + target particle, its total energy is affected and it affects the energy source available to multi-folds affecting the test particle. The combine effect is hierarchical and the composition appears as if the effect went through the shield. A dedicated upcoming paper or an update of [1] will explicitly address these shielding concerns with the multi-fold mechanisms.

Coming back to [9], our plausible explanation stops at the shield. So what could be happening next? The gravity fluctuation due to the relaxation of the vacuum polarization (e.g. in figure 2 of [9]) affects the 4-vector potential as a fluctuation that therefore could continue beyond the shield as a gravity fluctuation. Remember, we only try to interpret [9] at the light of [1]. We are in no position to corroborate what actually was observed.

____

I thank my generous supporters on Patreon. If you like my work, publications, and opinions, please consider joining them. This way, you can support this research work done totally independent from any institution. Use the contact form if you prefer to help by putting together a grant or other type of funding.

#AdSCFTCorrespondence #BCS #BEC #DarkEnergy #DarkMatter #EPR #EREPR #FrameDragging #GeneralRelativity #Gravity #GravityFluctuations #MultiFoldUniverse #QuantumComputing #QuantumGravity #QuantumMatter #QuarkGluonPlasma #Qubits #StandardModel #Superconductor #superfluid #Teleportation #VacuumPolarization #WeakGravityConjecture

Physicists Have Successfully Connected Two Large Objects in Quantum Entanglement : ScienceAlert

We stride through our Universe with the confidence of a giant, giving little thought to the fact that reality bubbles with uncertainty.

^{Mike McRae (ScienceAlert)}

Entangled Neural Networks from Multi-fold Universes to Biology

Stephane H. Maes

December 25, 2020

Abstract:

In a multi-fold universe, gravity emerges from Entanglement through the multi-fold mechanisms. As a result, gravity-like effects appear in between entangled particles, that they be real or virtual. Long range, massless gravity results from entanglement of massless virtual particles. Entanglement of massive virtual particles leads to massive gravity contributions at very smalls scales. Multi-folds mechanisms also result into a spacetime that is discrete, with a random walk fractal structure and non-commutative geometry that is Lorentz invariant and where spacetime nodes and particles can be modeled with microscopic black holes. All these recover General relativity at large scales, and semi-classical model remain valid till smaller scale than usually expected. Gravity can therefore be added to the Standard Model. This can contribute to resolving several open issues with the Standard Model without new Physics other than gravity. These considerations hints at a even stronger relationship between gravity and the Standard Model.

Recently a controversial series of papers ended up proposing the possibility that the universe be a neural network. It is the result of observing that with an irreversible thermodynamics model of the learning process of the neural network (NN), it might appear possible to model quantum and classical physics, to observe the emergence of a General Relativistic spacetime with gravity, and plausibly to construct a generalized holographic principle beyond the AdS/CFT correspondence conjecture. The approach has been received with some skepticism.

In this paper, we revisit the notion of NN in relationship to multi-fold universes, and illustrate how the multi-fold mechanism can be implemented with grafted NN. Relying on progress in biology and medicine, we argue that not only just NN can emulate NN universe, but also that it can provide new tools for AI, and new approaches to NNs, shallow or deep. It validates our multi-fold models and offer models for biological neurological models.

____

1. Introduction

The new preprint [1] proposes contributions to several open problems in physics like the reconciliation of General Relativity (GR) with Quantum Physics, explaining the origin of gravity proposed as emerging from quantum (EPR- Einstein Podolsky Rosen) entanglement between particles, detailing contributions to dark matter, and dark energy, and explaining other Standard Model mysteries without requiring New Physics beyond the Standard Model, other than the addition of gravity to the Standard Model Lagrangian. All this is achieved in a multi-fold universe that may well model our real universe.

With the proposed model of [1], spacetime and Physics are modeled from Planck scales to quantum and macroscopic scales, and semi classical approaches appear valid till very small scales. In [1], it is argued that spacetime is discrete, with a random walk-based fractal structure, fractional and noncommutative at, and above Planck scales (with a 2-D behavior and Lorentz invariance preserved by random walks till the early moments of the universe). Spacetime results from past random walks of particles. Spacetime locations and particles can be modeled as microscopic black holes (Schwarzschild for photons and spacetime coordinates, and metrics between Reisner Nordstrom [2] and Kerr Newman [3] for massive and possibly charged particles – the latter being possibly extremal). Although surprising, [1] recovers results consistent with others like [4], while also being able to justify the initial assumptions of black holes from the gravity or entanglement model in a multi-fold universe. The resulting gravity model recovers General Relativity at larger scale, as a 4-D process, with massless gravity, but also with massive gravity components at very small scale that make gravity significant at these scales. Semi-classical models also turn out to work well till way smaller scales that usually expected.

In previous papers, we analyzed how works, that proposed to model Physics in the universe as a neural network (NN) [5,6,7], relates to multi-fold universes when entanglement is added [8,9]. In this paper, we discuss how the multi-fold mechanisms, and grafted NN are indeed QNN, and conversely. Interestingly, NN, which can represent any AI algorithm, can also model QNN. QNN are postulated to relate to deeper properties of the human mind, including possible consciousness [10,11]. The analogies between these different domains can be the basis for new NN-based algorithms.

2. Entangled Neurons and the Mind

As discussed in [10], it has been proposed that consciousness and other mind features are related to entanglement in the brain. Although the initial mechanisms proposed by Penrose [12,13] did not (yet) pan out [14], new models suggest that entanglement indeed exist in the brain [11].

According to [15], Phosphorus has the right spin properties to be both a QuBit and an entanglement transporter (that can carry an entangled state from a region of, say a chain, to another, e.g. from the beginning of a chain to the end of that chain) with long enough coherent times to support transport. And we know that macroscopic systems and large molecules or objects can be entangled [1,15,16]. So, with this, the arguments of Penrose or other considerations, we can expect that it is possible to entangle (non-local) neurons.

Plausibility of the proposal of [15], and the role of entanglement in the mind and consciousness can be deducted from the results of [18], where Lithium is seen impacting differently the treatment of bipolar disorder when using different isotopes (a sign that the impact comes from nuclear properties like spin rather than the electronics, i.e., chemical properties). Considering that Phosphorus entanglement properties comes from its nuclear spin 1/2, Lithium can substitute for Calcium in the associated molecules with Phosphorus and impacts the entanglement. The fact that it impact bipolarity, seems to validate the proposal.

In this paper, based on the reasoning above, we assume the following:

• Neuron entanglement are the key properties of the human brain, including consciousness, ability to reason, imagine and “decide”, as well as to learn, or best. act on data never encountered and learned before.
• NNs implementing non-local neuron entanglement, can implement these behavior with the right optimization algorithms.

We keep also in mind that any function, classification, or ML/AI algorithm can be modeled and implemented by NNs [19-21].

3. Multi-fold NNs

Based on [1,8,9]: entanglement takes place under a mode where Quantum Physics dominates. According to [5], wavefunction and mechanisms from the Schrödinger equation, governs the parameters of the NN weights, and biases, when close to equilibrium. As quantum mechanics dominates, entanglement can take place among spacetime regions with significant wavefunction contributions [22]. When that is the case, the neurons dominantly associated to these regions, are entangled: their weights and biases are correlated, as are the states of the hidden layer: the emergent spacetime.

Both aspects (GR governed spacetime, and Quantum behaviors underlying the weights and biases) coexist as we are close to equilibrium (and learning has taken place). However entanglement requires that the states be represented as Bell states, which, in quantum computing, means applying Hadamard gates on the quantum circuits [23]. That step is not included in the [5] model, that was not focused on modeling entanglement [8,9].

Figure 1: Multi-fold Grafted NN to emulate entanglement. W(H) refers to the weights of extra layer described in [24].

Per [24,25], such H gate is emulated in NN, e.g. Boltzmann restricted Machines (BRM), by adding hidden layers (nodes) [24,25]. These can be the multi-folds activated by entanglement (and in 7D), as discussed in [8,9]. These are the additional grafted NN between entangled spacetime points as shown on figure 1. Their effects mixes and correlates entangled state, and that propagates to all the subsequent neurons and states at the next clock click; something shown in [25] to well approximate the Hadamard gate effects (figure 1b in [25]).

These NNs are the ones we mentioned but did not detailed in [8,9]. The presence of the Grafted NN create gravity modifications in the spacetime of x(t) (per [5]).

4. New NNs: Grafted Multi-fold NN

Figure 2 – (a) Grafted multi-fold NN: optimization includes deciding node pairs to entangle by emulation. When entangled, multi-folds appear and Hadamard emulation weights are set. (b) Entangled pairs may then continue to be entangled, be disentangled or propagate (entanglement propagation to a neighbor). This propagation strategy can just be an option: another approach can just consider any possible pair for entanglement at every step.

Following the model of section 3, and the considerations of section 2, we propose to consider the following new NN types for AI and deep learning: Non quantum grafted NN where, at each time click, pairs of nodes can be considered for entanglement, and the corresponding weights and biases are correlated, and Hadamard layers are added to emulate the behavior.

Whatever are the cost/loss functions to optimize, and the optimization algorithm, now each node pair (neighbor) can be considered for “entanglement”, or QNN circuit behaviors, if it better optimizes the target function that with the two NN branches, business as usual. Then entangled pairs are next considered for disentanglement, maintaining entanglement or moving it to a neighbor node (e.g. as if the nodes correspond to particles that are moving away). The optimization algorithm where the evolution of the weights and biases purportedly entangled evolve in a correlated manner (e.g. roughly the same increase, or decrease, say in percentage).

It is illustrated in Figure 2. Note that it is different from more conventional hybrid NN where layers are either conventional or QNNs [26].

Doing so fully emulates a multi-fold universe, and adds entanglement to NN, copying biological behavior as discussed in section 2.

Entanglement (emulation) is expected to improve learning (more accurate and with less training data) [27]. It also allows exploring different (many) options in parallel which accounts for better learning and decision capabilities. From a learning angle, the entanglement, or its emulation, reduces the entropy of the encoder (and therefore the mutual information between visible and hidden layers) and increases the mutual entropy between the hidden layer of the decoder and the output (e.g. classification) as in [28], following Information Theory’s coding theorems [31]. We believe it also is the basis for adding efficient decision-making features to NN based AI beyond just decision trees types of approaches. Exploring and combining options is also expected to provide new abilities to act on new data, or situations/contexts. Implementing and validating such proposals is for future work.

5. Dimensions of the Mind

[29] presents some results that suggest that the brain works in 7+ dimensions. This is something also hinted by the 7D induction model for a multi-fold universe [30]. We may also come back to this in the future.

6. Conclusions

The paper proposes new NNs: multi-fold graft NNs, and how they can be implemented and trained or used. The approach further validates and complements the analyses in [8,9].

Future work is warranted to study and validate Grafted multi-fold NNs, both in AI, and in the context of modeling neurological models of biological neurons as well as models of the human mind including consciousness, decision making, bipolarity and other related aspects, on the road to quantum supremacy for AI.

____

Cite as: Stephane H Maes, (2020), “Entangled Neural Networks from Multi-fold Universes to Biology”, viXra:2207.0174v1, shmaesphysics.wordpress.com/20…, December 25, 2020.

____

References:

[1]: Stephane H. Maes, (2020), “Quantum Gravity Emergence from Entanglement in a Multi-Fold Universe”, viXra:2006.0088v1, vixra.org/pdf/2006.0088v1.pdf (June 9, 2020).

[2]: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reissner…

[3]: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerr-New…

[4]: Burinskii, Alexander, (2008), “The Dirac-Kerr-Newman electron”, arXiv:0507109v4

[5]: Vitaly Vanchurin, (2018), ” The world as a neural network”, arXiv:2008.01540v1

[6]: Vitaly Vanchurin, (2018), “Covariant Information Theory and Emergent Gravity”, arXiv:1707.05004v4

[7]: Vitaly Vanchurin, (2020), “Towards a theory of machine learning”, arXiv:2004.09280v3

[8]: Stephane H Maes, (2020), “Implicit Multi-Fold Mechanisms in a Neural Network Model of the Universe”, viXra:2012.0191v1, shmaesphysics.wordpress.com/20…, September 12, 2020.

[9]: Stephane H Maes, (2020), “Interpretation of “Neural Network as the World””, viXra:2012.0197v1, shmaesphysics.wordpress.com/20…, September 14, 2020.

[10]: Philip Ball, (2017), ” Nobody understands what consciousness is or how it works. Nobody understands quantum mechanics either. Could that be more than coincidence?”, bbc.com/earth/story/20170215-t…. Retrieved on November 28, 2020.

[11]: Matthew P.A. Fisher (2015), Quantum cognition: The possibility of processing with nuclear spins in the brain, Annals of Physics, Volume 362.

[12]: Penrose, R. (1989). “The emperor’s new mind: Concerning computers, minds, and the laws of physics”, Oxford University Press.

[13]: Penrose, R. (1994). “Shadows of the mind: A search for the missing science of consciousness”, Oxford University Press.

[14]: Max Tegmark, (1999), “Importance of quantum decoherence in brain processes”, Importance of quantum decoherence in brain processes.

[15]: C Marletto, D M Coles, T Farrow and V Vedral, (2018), “Entanglement between living bacteria and quantized light witnessed by Rabi splitting”, Journal of Physics Communications, Volume 2, Number 10.

[16]: C. F. Ockeloen-Korppi, E. Damskagg, J.-M. Pirkkalainen, A. A. Clerk, F. Massel, M. J. Woolley, M. A. Sillanpaa, (2017), “Entangled massive mechanical oscillators”, arXiv:1711.01640v1.

[17]: Yaakov Y. Fein et al. (2019), “Quantum superposition of molecules beyond 25 kDa”, Nature Physics.

[18]: Severus, E., Taylor, M.J., Sauer, C. et al., (2014), “Lithium for prevention of mood episodes in bipolar disorders: systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Bipolar Disord”, 2, 15.

[19]: Wikipedia, “Kolmogorov–Arnold representation theorem” en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolmogor…, Retrieved on September 14, 2020.

[20]: Wikipedia, “Universal approximation theorem”, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universa…, Retrieved on September 14, 2020.

[21]: Andre Ye, (2020), “Every Machine Learning Algorithm Can Be Represented as a Neural Network”, towardsdatascience.com/every-m…. Retrieved on December 19, 2020

[22]: Stephane H Maes, (2020), “The W-type Multi-Fold Hypothesis and Quantum Physics Interpretation of wave Functions and QFT”, viXra:2207.0118v1, shmaesphysics.wordpress.com/20…, December 20, 2020.

[23]: Michael A. Nielsen, Isaac L. Chuang, (2011), “Quantum computation and quantum information”, Cambridge University press.

[24]: Gao, X. & Duan, L.-M. (2017) “Efficient representation of quantum many-body states with deep neural networks”. Nature Communications 8, 662

[25]: Bjarni Jónsson, Bela Bauer, Giuseppe Carleo, (2018), “Neural-network states for the classical simulation of quantum computing”, arXiv:1808.05232v1

[26]: Qiskit, “Hybrid quantum-classical Neural Networks with PyTorch and Qiskit “, qiskit.org/textbook/ch-machine…. Retrieved on December 19, 2020.

[27]: Tohru Nitta, (2009), “Complex-Valued Neural Networks: Utilizing High-Dimensional Parameters”, Information Science Reference

[28]: Mukul Malik, (2018), “Information Theory of Neural Networks, Opening the Black Box …. Somewhat”, https://towardsdatascience.com/information-theory-of-neural-networks-ad4053f8e177. Retrieved on December 19, 2020.

[29]: Paul Ratner, (2017), “The human brain builds structures in 11 dimensions, discover scientists”, bigthink.com/paul-ratner/our-b…. Retrieved on December 27, 2020.

[30]: Stephane H Maes, (2020), “Tracking Down The Standard Model With Gravity In Multi-Fold Universes”, viXra:2011.0208v1, shmaesphysics.wordpress.com/20…, August 20, 2020.

[31]: Parthasarathy, K. R, (2013), “Coding Theorems of Classical and Quantum Information Theory”, Hindustan Book Agency

I thank my generous supporters on Patreon. If you like my work, publications, and opinions, please consider joining them. This way, you can support this research work done totally independent from any institution. Use the contact form if you prefer to help by putting together a grant or other type of funding.

#AI #BoltzmannRestrictedMachines #Consciousness #DeepLearning #entangledNeurons #Entanglement #GeneralRelativity #GraftedMultiFoldNeuralNetworks #GraftedNeuralNetworks #Gravity #MachineLearning #Mind #MultiFoldUniverse #NeuralNetworks #neuralNetworksAsTheWorld #Neurology #NN #QuantumComputing #QuantumGravity #QuantumNeuralNetwork #QuantumPhysics #QuantumSupremacy

Shmaes - Physics

2020-09-13 03:36:44

Implicit Multi-Fold Mechanisms in a Neural Network Model of the Universe

Implicit Multi-Fold Mechanisms in a Neural Network Model of the Universe

Stephane H. Maes

September 12, 2020

Abstract:

In a multi-fold universe, gravity emerges from Entanglement through the multi-fold mechanisms. As a result, gravity-like effects appear in between entangled particles that they be real or virtual. Long range, massless gravity results from entanglement of massless virtual particles. Entanglement of massive virtual particles leads to massive gravity contributions at very smalls scales. Multi-folds mechanisms also result into a spacetime that is discrete, with a random walk fractal structure and non-commutative geometry that is Lorentz invariant and where spacetime nodes and particles can be modeled with microscopic black holes. All these recover General relativity at large scales and semi-classical model remain valid till smaller scale than usually expected. Gravity can therefore be added to the Standard Model. This can contribute to resolving several open issues with the Standard Model without new Physics other than gravity. These considerations hints at a even stronger relationship between gravity and the Standard Model.

Recently a controversial series of papers ended up proposing the possibility that the universe be a neural network. It is the result of observing that with an irreversible thermodynamics model of the learning process of the neural network, it might appear possible to model quantum and classical physics, to observe the emergence of a General Relativistic spacetime with gravity, and plausible to construct a generalized holographic principle beyond the AdS/CFT correspondence conjecture. The approach has been received with some skepticism.

In this paper, we do not try to assess the validity of the approach and proposal. We simply assume that the proposal amounts to showing that neural network (NN) learning with a suitable thermodynamically related loss function (aka cost function) optimization, that amounts to extremize the free energy of the system, can model the Physics of the universe. When we add a model of entanglement, we discover that the neural network must allow its involved neurons to pair into pairs (or groups) of (dynamic) Qubits. Non quantum NN neurons cannot be simply grouped this way. Instead one need to add new (external) NN, that themselves emulate Qubit behaviors, between the “entangled” nodes. It amounts to match the multi-folds, including their spacetime extensions, and mechanisms. Furthermore the additional NN, explain the possibility to induce 7D physics in 4D space time to induce the Standard Model with gravity (SM_G), encountered with multi-fold universes, while the multi-fold dynamics itself (in AdS(5), does not have necessarily have to be governed by General Relativity.

The work also leads us to wonder if Quantum Physics is fundamental or emergent; especially with what we already know about entanglement and spacetime construction by random walks, in multi-fold universes.

An appendix also discusses how NN models could relate to the Wigner’s wonder at why mathematics describe the Physical world.

____

1. Introduction

The new preprint [1] proposes contributions to several open problems in physics like the reconciliation of General Relativity (GR) with Quantum Physics, explaining the origin of gravity proposed as emerging from quantum (EPR- Einstein Podolsky Rosen) entanglement between particles, detailing contributions to dark matter and dark energy and explaining other Standard Model mysteries without requiring New Physics beyond the Standard Model other than the addition of gravity to the Standard Model Lagrangian. All this is achieved in a multi-fold universe that may well model our real universe, which remains to be validated.

With the proposed model of [1], spacetime and Physics are modeled from Planck scales to quantum and macroscopic scales and semi classical approaches appear valid till very small scales. In [1], it is argued that spacetime is discrete, with a random walk-based fractal structure, fractional and noncommutative at, and above Planck scales (with a 2-D behavior and Lorentz invariance preserved by random walks till the early moments of the universe). Spacetime results from past random walks of particles. Spacetime locations and particles can be modeled as microscopic black holes (Schwarzschild for photons and spacetime coordinates, and metrics between Reisner Nordstrom [2] and Kerr Newman [3] for massive and possibly charged particles – the latter being possibly extremal). Although surprising, [1] recovers results consistent with other like [4], while also being able to justify the initial assumptions of black holes from the gravity or entanglement model in a multi-fold universe. The resulting gravity model recovers General Relativity at larger scale, as a 4-D process, with massless gravity, but also with massive gravity components at very small scale that make gravity significant at these scales. Semi-classical models also turn out to work well till way smaller scales that usually expected.

The present paper discusses how modeling entanglement by extending the neural networks (NN) proposed to model Physics in the universe as neural networks theories [5,6,7], can be seen as recovering key results of [1] and [9].

In this paper, we remain at a high level of discussion of the analysis and references are generic for the subjects. It makes the points accessible to a wider audience and keeps the door open to further papers or discussions devoted to details of interest. Yet, it requires the reader to review [1], as we do not revisit here all the details of the multi-fold mechanisms or reconstruction of spacetime. More targeted references for all the material discussed here are compiled in [1] and derived papers.

2. NN Model of the Universe

[6] shows that if information theory is modeled with (covariant) irreversible / non-equilibrium thermodynamic processes then, close to equilibrium, the conjugate thermodynamics variables of the information content (tensor) is an emerging spacetime following the Hilbert Einstein spacetime. This result is to be related to [8], that derives emergence of quantum mechanics from classical irreversible thermodynamics. Away from equilibrium, the picture is less clear. We note that the irreversibility has to be directly related to the quantum behavior.

Following up on these results, [7] proposes a thermodynamics model for Machine Learning (ML) and derives a proposal for Thermodynamics of learning. NN are example of ML, but we know that any AI or ML algorithm can always be modeled as a NN [17,18,22]. [5] then models NN thermodynamics, using [7] and inspired from [6,8] and shows

• Close to equilibrium and when the entropy contributions from learning are small, one can recover a Schrödinger equation and a wave function that results from the stochastic dynamics of the training variables randomly trying to find where to go to learn. It amounts to small scale events, trying different evolution to find hints of the best ones, not really changing much with respect to what the NN has learned, and it denotes a state of the NN, where equilibrium has been reached, and new variables values for the models are randomly visited just in case they could help or because learning continues.
• Further away from equilibrium, where random fluctuations of the q_i, the learning variables, are smaller and less visible, and hence at larger scales, and therefore when learning process dominates the thermodynamic, the training variable have an evolution that can be characterized by a classical Hamiltonian and therefore can be modeled by classical Physics. It corresponds to a state of the NN, where it can estimate how to progress to learn or improve the loss/cost function (think of gradient like steepest gradient descent methods for learning/training/optimization).
• When modeling directly the dynamics of the state of the neurons, [6] applies and under suitable conditions (close to equilibrium and with weak interaction between the neurons (at least when nonlocal)), the dynamics of the neurons follows Einstein’s GR field equations
• Analyzing In and Out layers of the NN versus hidden layers, one can hypothesize ways to recover a generalized holographic principle that would link a quantum mechanically dominated NN (In + Out layers) to a deep / many layers NN dominated by gravity.

Appendix A presents additional considerations on what we can learn from [5].

However, this model does not model entanglement yet (under {*)). It is a key missing part before we can claim to have a truly complete quantum model emerging from [5].

3. Adding Entanglement to NN

Qubit/Quantum NN and Fuzzy Logic are traditional ways to add quantum entanglement effects [10,11,12]. Essentially the most natural way is to allow neurons to now be Qubits, instead of, say binary neurons.

But this is not what we are discussing here. The NN in [5] are not modeled as Qubits. Some additional considerations should probably be added to [5] to handle these, although may be without significant impact. However that is different from having nodes switching from neurons to Qubit based neurons. That is not trivially handled by the Quantum NN in [5]. In future work, we will show it actually could be handled by a different NN, as [17,18,22] suggest that a different NN could do the job, unfortunately possible at the cost of an excessive cost in complexity and number of neurons and variables. This option (*) is not discussed in the present paper and will be the topic of a future paper.

Returning to [5], entanglement results from having regions of the wave function entangled, corresponding say to different EPR particles. These correspond to different hidden values x_i^(K) where K denotes regions not directly interacting (and as such non-local).

Per [5] we know that, before entanglement, the x_j^(L) form a spacetime governed by GR (at least when interactions between the neurons is weak). Entanglement (and disentanglement) are strongly interacting disrupting events that correlate and bind the behaviors between two (or more) different x_i^(O) and x_j^(P), or disrupt such correlation. Entangled region become essentially a self-interacting system with, at best, weak (as in with small interaction impacts) interactions with the rest. Changes to the training variables are correlated so that they impact the hidden variable consistently with the entanglement behavior. Such an entanglement amounts to having x_i^(O) and x_j^(P) now behaving like a Qubit pair. To be handled with NN à la [5], we need an external NN grafted between the now entangled hidden variable to emulate a Qubit. Such a NN is for example studied in [13]. It is possible to show that any NN with such grafts is in fact a QNN or hybrid NN + QNN. A more detailed discussion and proof will be provided in a future dedicated paper. Of course, other approaches may exist.

As a result, when entanglement takes place, a discontinuity in the wave function/equations is reflected by the grafts of additional NNs. This NN also follows [5] and so an extra spacetime appears between the two entangled hidden variable regions (the rest remaining the same). The grafting process is most probably not governed by GR, but once connected, GR applies on the resulting spacetime + extra spacetime, which modifies the gravity felt, per [7], on the pre-existing spacetime (not from the grafted NN). At disentanglement, we revert to a previous unentangled topology, and we can consider that x_i^(O) and x_j^(P) also maintain their place in the main spacetime. Of course, all these steps have impact on the entropy production and destruction and the free energy.

As time passes, the grafted NNs evolve to remain connected between the entangled points and new NNs can be grafted, seeded by previous values. Older ones remain in place. When disentanglement takes place, they are removed.

4. Multi-folds and Multi-fold Mechanism in Entanglement of Quantum systems described by NN

Fundamentally, section 3 depicts the multi-fold mechanisms proposed and detailed in [1]: extra folds are made available for path integral paths of the entangled particle and result into gravity impact on the background spacetime (as attractive gravity like effective potentials or effective curvature between entangled systems [14]). We recover the extra gravity due to the folds, here exemplified by the interactions in the grafted spacetime that curves as a result. Mappings effects result from older grafted NN remaining in place till disentanglement, located around/between the neurons and affected by the correlation between entangled neurons. As the graft is done via another process, it is not expected to follow GR, as we suggested for the dynamics of multi-folds [1,16].

We also recover the additive effect of multiple sources in multi-fold: if different source merge the different additional grafted NNs add their effects.

The disentanglement process, where we remove the graft, is related in our view to how we handle fold deactivation to maintain unitarity as well as the process of deactivation.

The irreversibility associated to Quantum Physics [8] is also interesting considering that [1] predicts that multi-fold mechanisms are a source of irreversibility (deactivation can’t “grow” as activation starting from local points per the hierarchical principle) and T-symmetry violation. We expect to explain it beyond just disentanglement in future work. Only allowing entanglement to grow from neighboring points, is a way to enforce the hierarchical principle discussed in [1].

5. Recovering the Standard Model with Gravity (SM_G)

[9] did all the work to recover from [1] the Standard Model with gravity: SM_G. To do so, it relied on induced space-time-matter from locally embedding spacetime into a 7D unconstrained (i.e. non compact) Kaluza-Klein Universe.

The result here show how “entangled” points of spacetime are locally embedded is a bigger spacetime (with 2 times the space dimensions, i.e. 7D for a 4D background spacetime), therefore also relating entangled NN with the proposal of [9] for induction from 7D Physics.

6. AdS(5) in the NN model of the Universe

Because additional NN are grafted, not generated by optimization of just the original NN (at least within the context of (*)), their dynamics and kinematics are not a priori governed by GR (not forbidden, as easily seen when considering approaches beyond (*)), but not implied). We recover our result from (and a priori a difference with ER= EPR) [9,24].

Repeating our multi-fold analysis that describes the quantum origin gravity, from entanglement via the multi-fold mechanisms, results into an AdS(5) dual space surrounding every spacetime point and generated by the folds [1]. That is for now beyond the model of [5], yet fully compatible.

The proposal of [5] in terms of Holographic duality can not only model and extend the AdS/CFT correspondence conjecture but also the factual correspondence discussed in [1,9,15,16]. Maybe the extensions proposed in [5], for going beyond the zone of applicability of Quantum Physics, also apply to multi-fold universes. It could be worth further investigation.

7. Quantum Physics, Irreversibility and Equilibrium

The recovery of GR close to equilibrium, in [5], agrees with the results from many other works, following the pioneering recovery of GR, by Ted Jacobson, who applied Thermodynamics to spacetime treated as adiabatic, and in, or close to, equilibrium. That work was used in later work to study quantum gravity and entanglement entropy. Indeed this adiabatic and equilibrium regime is the domain of applicability of GR and of Quantum Physics

In general, the equations of conventional Quantum Physics appear time reversible. [1] showed that gravity and entanglement is not T-symmetric. It hints at why [8] can model quantum physics and phenomena by thermodynamics of irreversible systems. And irreversibility is expected to result from purely quantum effects, What is more representative of quantum Physics than entanglement and disentanglement?

But [8] provides another result that is possibly even more important: if thermodynamics is such a good model, then Quantum Physics may rather be an emergent theory and we still need to find the more fundamental underlying theory. As [1] provide both idea of irreversibility of entanglement and construction of spacetime via random walks, these may be good starting point. It will be object of future work.

12/24/20 note: See [23] for such a follow-up contribution where the W-type hypothesis introduced in [23] complements [1] to provide glimpses of such a fundamental theory. Interestingly it also extends causes for T-asymmetry to wave function collapses.

9. Conclusions

There have been already many hints of relationships between spacetime, entanglement, thermodynamics and information theory like treating the universe as universal Quantum Computer, encountering error correcting code in spacetime (including in [1]), deriving GR from spacetime properties in equilibrium and the relationships between gravity, entropy and entanglement entropy as well as the principle of conservation of information in Quantum Physics and the information paradox with Black holes. Information and Physics are closely related and this paper, along with many of its references, add to these observations.

In this paper, we did not try or claim to validate or endorse the proposal that the universe would be a NN. We rather started from the point of view that Physics and the Universe seems to follow models analog to the evolution of a learning NN using the models of [5]. Adding entanglement to the models, we immediately recover strong hints of the multi-fold mechanisms: a way to add it as a model can be interpreted immediately as adding multi-folds with all the implications of [1,17]; including in particular compatibility with the approach that allowed us to recover the SM_G, induced from a 7D unconstrained KK universe. It certainly reinforces the claim that multi-fold universes should be seriously considered.

On the flip side, we showed compatibility of multi-fold universes with the proposal of [5], extended with NN grafts that model entanglement, something that [5] must add to its model to further its claims about the universe by supporting entanglement.

We also encountered hints that Quantum Physics may be an emergent theory, if so well modeled by Thermodynamics. Being a NN maybe an explanation. Other explanations, more physical, may exist.

Appendix A – A NN model of the world? An alternate interpretation

(This appendix will also be repurposed into a dedicated paper not tied to multi-fold universes)

[5] proposes that the universe is a NN. We do not believe that this is the only interpretation of the results presented in [5] and we want to propose an alternative explanation. As already mentioned, the NN approach can be seen as a model of the dynamics of Physics in the universe. Such model is mathematical, in fact it is a consequence of Hilbert 13th problem and the ability to model any system with deep hidden layers and in particular NN as demonstrated with the Kolmogorov-Arnold representation Theorem [17] and the Universal approximation theorem [18].

In the present case the dynamics of the state variables, i.e. the equation of motion, are the approximated functions. Per the theorems above we know such approximation is (almost) always possible (up to discontinuities) and to any desired degree of accuracy (for the right optimization strategy in the case of NN).

What is interesting, is that if the algorithm for loss/cost function optimization relies on (classical) Thermodynamics (for Irreversible and for non-equilibrium processes with a Free Energy model), it uncovers naturally the dynamics described in section 2 [5], where the fact that the NN includes also the model of the learning processes allows to capture in one shot dynamics of the physical system (i.e. the universe) and the dynamic of information processing; therefore concretizing the physical information theory aspects also (e.g. see [19] for related aspects of physical information theory); something that now can be captured into a common Thermodynamics (and physical) model. It goes beyond [8] and justifies considerations like Learning’s Thermodynamics or the principle of conservation of information. In our view, much more than having a NN modeling (or being per [5]) the universe, the key aspect is that we have a complete model for physical and information entropy modeling and computing.

In such a model, it makes sense that entropy extremization and action extremization become equivalent or dual. It is also natural to see that, at small scales, quantum fluctuations around equilibrium imply fluctuations of the learning variables, and the NN state, while at larger scales away from equilibrium (albeit still close), the system will rather behave classically as a learning system (to go back to equilibrium).

So we interpret [5] as a model that shows first and foremost how Physics + Information Theory coexist into a larger model. The model of [5] has its own dynamics. These dynamics may be seen as a model of how physical systems like the universe handle information conservation or just as an algorithm to derive the same outcome. More work is needed to determine that. If it is the former, this may actually be a way to answer why and how mathematics are so good at modeling the Universe as asked famously by Wigner [20], and others, and it would be aligned with Tegmark’s view [21]. Indeed, [5] would now amount to modeling how the universe remains close to thermodynamic equilibrium while always reacting to changes and fluctuation (e.g. random, thermal external, etc.) to catch up with the mathematical prescription aiming at optimizing the loss/cost function while evolving with minimum disruptions as captured by extremization of the entropy and action changes: physical systems take some “guessed optimized efforts” to catch up and follow the mathematics that describe them correctly and these mathematics are the reflection of this process. It is a direct application of Pontryagin’s maximum principles and theorem [25-27].

____

Cite as: Stephane H Maes, (2020), “Implicit Multi-Fold Mechanisms in a Neural Network Model of the Universe”, viXra:2012.0191v1, shmaesphysics.wordpress.com/20…, September 12, 2020.

____

References:

[1]: Stephane H. Maes, (2020), “Quantum Gravity Emergence from Entanglement in a Multi-Fold Universe”, viXra:2006.0088v1, vixra.org/pdf/2006.0088v1.pdf (June 9, 2020).

[2]: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reissner…

[3]: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerr-New…

[4]: Burinskii, Alexander, (2008), “The Dirac-Kerr-Newman electron”, arXiv:0507109v4

[5]: Vitaly Vanchurin, (2018), ” The world as a neural network”, arXiv:2008.01540v1

[6]: Vitaly Vanchurin, (2018), “Covariant Information Theory and Emergent Gravity”, arXiv:1707.05004v4

[7]: Vitaly Vanchurin, (2020), “Towards a theory of machine learning”, arXiv:2004.09280v3

[8]: D. Acosta, P. Fernandez de Cordoba, J. M. Isidro, J. L. G. Santander, (2012), “Emergent quantum mechanics as a classical, irreversible thermodynamics”, arXiv:1206.4941v2

[9]: Stephane H Maes, (2020), “Tracking Down The Standard Model With Gravity In Multi-Fold Universes”, viXra:2011.0208v1, shmaesphysics.wordpress.com/20…, August 20, 2020.

[10]: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_…

[11]: Nobuyuki Matsui, Haruhiko Nishimura and Teijiro Isokawa, (2009), “Qubit Neural Network: Its Performance and Applications”, in Tohru Nitta, (2020), “Complex-valued Neural Networks: Utilizing High-dimensional Parameters”, Information Science Reference

[12]: Gopathy Purushothaman and Nicolaos B. Karayiannis, (1997), “Quantum Neural Networks (QNN’s): Inherently Fuzzy Feedforward Neural Networks”, IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON NEURAL NETWORKS, VOL. 8, NO. 3, MAY 1997

[13]: Emmanuel Flurin, Leigh S. Martin, Shay Hacohen-Gourgy, Irfan Siddiqi, (2020), “Using a Recurrent Neural Network to Reconstruct Quantum Dynamics of a Superconducting Qubit from Physical Observations”, PHYSICAL REVIEW X 10, 011006

[14]: Stephane H Maes, (2020), “Gravity-like Attractions and Fluctuations between Entangled Systems?”, viXra:2010.0010v1, shmaesphysics.wordpress.com/20…, June 24, 2020.

[15]: Stephane H Maes, (2020), “Area Laws Between Multi-Fold Universes and AdS”, viXra:2010.0207v1, shmaesphysics.wordpress.com/20…, August 10, 2020.

[16]: Stephane H Maes, (2020), “Multi-fold Gravitons In-N-Out Spacetime”, viXra:2010.0155v1, shmaesphysics.wordpress.com/20…, July 27, 2020.

[17]: Wikipedia, “Kolmogorov–Arnold representation theorem” en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolmogor…, Retrieved on September 14, 2020.

[18]: Wikipedia, “Universal approximation theorem”, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universa…, Retrieved on September 14, 2020.

[19]: Seth Lloyd, (2006), “Programming the Universe: A Quantum Computer Scientist Takes on the Cosmos”, Alfred A. Knopf

[20]: Wigner, E. P. (1960). “The unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in the natural sciences. Richard Courant lecture in mathematical sciences delivered at New York University, May 11, 1959”. Communications on Pure and Applied Mathematics. 13: 1–14.

[21]: Max Tegmark, (2007), “The Mathematical Universe”, arXiv:0704.0646v2

(Added when pre-print was published on vixra.org)

[22]: Andre Ye, (2020), “Every Machine Learning Algorithm Can Be Represented as a Neural Network”, towardsdatascience.com/every-m…. Retrieved on December 19, 2020

[23]: Stephane H Maes, (2020), “The W-type Multi-Fold Hypothesis and Quantum Physics Interpretation of wave Functions and QFT”, viXra:2207.0118v1, shmaesphysics.wordpress.com/20…, December 20, 2020.

[24]: Maldacena, Juan and Susskind, Leonard (2013). “Cool horizons for entangled black holes”. Fortsch. Phys. 61 (9): 781–811. arXiv:1306.0533

[25]: Wikipedia, “Pontryagin’s maximum principle”, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontryag…. Retrieved on September 29, 2020.

[26]: “13 Pontryagin’s Maximum Principle”, statslab.cam.ac.uk/~rrw1/oc/L1…. Retrieved on September 29, 2020.

[27]: Thayer Watkins, “The Nature of the Principle of Least Action in Mechanics”, sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/minpr…. Retrieved on September 29, 2020.

---

I thank my generous supporters on Patreon. If you like my work, publications, and opinions, please consider joining them. This way, you can support this research work done totally independent from any institution. Use the contact form if you prefer to help by putting together a grant or other type of funding.

#CFTAdSCorrespondenceConjecture #ClassicalPhysics #Emergent #Entropy #FundamentalTheory #GeneralRelativity #Gravity #Hamiltonian #HolographicDuality #Irreversible #irreversibleThermodynamics #LearningThermodynamics #MachineLearning #MultiFoldUniverse #NeuralNetworks #NonEquilibriumThermodynamics #QuantumComputing #QuantumGravity #QuantumMechanics #QuantumPhysics #Qubits #TheUnreasonableEffectivenessOfMathematicsInTheNaturalSciences #Themodynamics

Contact

Don’t hesitate to reach out with the contact information below, or send a message using the form. Multi-fold Community, where you can submit your own related papers, and be linked here. (Apri…

^{Shmaes - Physics}

A bold prediction on the muon anomalous magnetic moment, and expected results to be published on April 7, 2021 by the Fermilab Muon g-2, and its explanation

Stephane H. Maes

April 1, 2021

Abstract:

The proposed model of particles as Kerr Newman black hole (regularized Qballs of condensed Higgs bosons matching Kerr Newman solitons), as derived in the multi-fold theory, or in Burinskii works, implies a composite and extended model. As a result, the form factors involved in the computation of the anomalous magnetic moment of the muon have to be corrected, not just by all the radiative corrections to consider, but also to account for the fact that the Landé g-factor will differ now from 2.

Also, in an experimental setup as in the Fermilab muon g-2, the soliton/Qball will be deformed by inertial effects (e.g. centripetal force) that can add an additional effect to the measured magnetic moment of the muons (or any other particle). However, effects remain negligible even if gravity at the Standard Model scales were to become non-negligible.

We predict that the first discrepancy will be confirmed and that it is not linked to new particles or new forces. We will see if the results published on April 7, 2021 will agree.

___-

1. Introduction

With respect to the muon anomalous magnetic moment, and expected resulted to be published on April 7, 2021.

For an overview, see [1,2]. A complete computation of the electron anomalous magnetic moment is detailed in [15], including its problems [16].

Tutorial and the technical details of the discrepancy between the theoretically expected magnetic moment, and the observations can be found at [3-6]. [5,6] represent the predictions of different collaborations as discussed in [1].

2. Not Just Loop Radiation Corrections

2.1 Away from 2 as Landé g-Factor

Considering [7,8,12], the electron and the muon are modeled as microscopic black holes regularized by a superconducting edge that confines a condensate of massless Higgs boson inside. Even if surprising to many, this proposal recovers many results in physics e.g. [11, 17,18]. A high-level overview can be found in [19], albeit without the twist and microscopic model of Q-balls and Higgs potentials.

Note that in a multi-fold universe, gravity increases at the scales of the Standard Model (something that we denote as SM_G) and we expected it to be non-negligible (even if small) with all the massive gravity contributions that start to contribute [12,20]. Accordingly, the microscopic radii involved are smaller than what is discussed in [19]. The massive black holes remain beyond extremal.

All particles are now composite. While [18] showed that the scattering at high spins are equivalent, for fermion with 1/2 spins, there are some corrections. Or said different, there are no additional effects to consider at the SM scales beyond what is described by the Dirac equation: extended objects and their interactions and composite behavior like a Hadron bag à la MIT or SLAC bags [8]. So the Landé g-Factor will evolve away from 2, albeit staying close to it as otherwise all the analyses of [8,17,18] would have been wrong.

It means that the computations performed in [5,6] and explained for example in [16] are not sufficient: another correction is to be introduced (based on updated F1(0) and F2(0)≠0 (See equation (6.37) and following two paragraphs in [15]); just as in the case of a proton which is a composite particle (involving also other interactions) only approximated by Dirac equation; a much coarser approximation. For the proton, the difference is at 40%. For the muon, or for the electron for that matter, the corrections would be way smaller, but non-zero. The greater the mass the greater the effect.

Therefore, the effect has more chances to be detected with muons than with electrons, and as shown in [3], the measurements of the tauon are still way too imprecise to detect anything relevant. Other particles are composite or not leaning themselves to a setup as in muon g-2 at Fermilab (and before Brookhaven).

A quantitative analysis would be worth applying. It is for future work, but it could be initiated with a model or simulations extracted from [8,17,18].

2.2. Any additional internal effects?

Considering [7], and in particular its references (e.g. [8]) that discusses the fine structure constant and the electron magnetic momentum as geometrical properties of the Kerr-Newman solution as an electron, it is fair to expect that the soliton geometry is affected by gravity / inertial forces. The larger the mass or object, the larger de deformation.

Examples of such deformations can be found in [9] (due to external field in this reference). It is logical to expect that, based on the proposal mapping the Qball edges as soliton solution to Dirac-Kerr-Newman discussed in [7], the solution in an external field (external gravity field or internal effects per the equivalence principle) will be similarly deformed and therefore provide a (slight magnetic moment variation, considering for example [10,14]) vs. the original one liked to the not-deformed Kerr Newman metric/soliton: e.g. [11]).

Considering the experiment muon g-2 setup described in [2], In the present case, the field in [9] would be replaced, per the equivalence principle, by the inertial effects due to the rotation in the Fermilab rings (see figures in [2], and think of tidal effects). The inertial / centrifugal / centripetal effect could deform the muon Qball slightly and as a result create a discrepancy in the measured magnetic momentum, that would be greater and hence more noticeable than say in a similar electron experimentation. Such an effect would be missing from the prediction estimates [5,6].

However, quick estimates show that the dominant effects coming into play at the centripetal effect from the experimentation and the angular momentum of the microscopic black holes. Corrections to the magnetic momentum end up being roughly 10¹⁴ times smaller than the anomalous magnetic moment of the muon. The effects are negligible. It is a good lessons, in general we do not have to consider Qballs as deformable beyond being able to scatter, split or merge.

3. Predictions

Based on the above, we predict an extra term, for the corrections to the anomalous magnetic moment of the muon (and electron and other particles in similar conditions), that captures the drift of the Landé g-Factor away from 2. It is due to the microscopic black hole model, in addition and independently to the other radiative loop corrections.

Therefore, the result of Fermilab should confirm Brookhaven initial results, and, in our view, it is not an indication of New Physics beyond the Standard Model (SM), i.e. no new forces or particles, but instead a confirmation of [7] originally derived from the multi-fold theory [12] built on Burinksii’s proposals.

4. Conclusions

We presented a prediction for the result of the Fermilab muon g-2 experimental results to be published on April 7, 2001. We also provided a theoretical microscopic explanation for it. In particular we showed that qualitatively there is an effect that should appear for muon as well as other particles under similar settings. We did not provide quantitative estimates so it is possible that the effect is too small to explain the observations, in which case other considerations would need to be added.

If our prediction is not confirmed, we believe that it would rather be due to the effect being too small rather than the effect not taking place.

On that basis, we recommend that any explanation of the Fermilab muon g-2 experimental results consider this and other explanations that do not involve New Physics, in the sense of new particles or new forces; although this proposal does not exclude them. Other analyses in [20] lead us to be skeptical, at least for now of additional particles especially, if tied to supersymmetry or additional Higgs bosons.

The prediction is based on the bet that our real universe is a multi-fold universe, where we derived the model of particles as regularized microscopic black holes and SM_G. It should also hold if Burinskii’s theory holds even in a non-multifold universe.

As the analysis is not quantitative, the absence of observation of a different value from the conventional predictions [5,6], may just mean that the effect in section 2.2. are still too small. It would still be of great interest to seek validation future technology would make it possible.

Let us see what April 7, 2021 will bring us.

Note also the interest to collaborate to compute the actual correction to the muon (and electron) anomalous moments due to the Kerr-Newman Qball solutions.

Note added on April 7, 2021, post Fermilab result publications.

The results have been published [21,22]. There is a discrepancy as predicted. The press labels it a sign or even proof of New Physics as in new particles and new forces (e.g. [23]). The present paper shows that we do not need New Physics, à la new particles or new forces. Also as we already knew another paper argues the absence of tension of the results with SM [6,24]. We suspect that actual the situation is a mix: no tension but some discrepancies as we described here.

Our next prediction, for the long run: no New Physics is needed no matter what: this is not due to new particles or forces and even if such were to exist they are not behind this effect.

____

Cite as: Stephane H. Maes, “A bold prediction on the muon anomalous magnetic moment, and expected results to be published on April 7, 2021 by the Fermilab Muon g-2, and its explanation”, viXra:2104.0030v1, shmaesphysics.wordpress.com/20…, April 1, 2021.

____

References

[1]: Davide Castelvecchi, (2021), “Long-Awaited Muon Physics Experiment Nears Moment of Truth. A result that has been 20 years in the making could reveal the existence of new particles and upend fundamental physics”, scientificamerican.com/article…. Retrieved on April 1, 2021.

[2]: Elizabeth Gibney, (2017), “Muons’ big moment could fuel new physics. Fermilab experiment to measure muon magnetic moment more precisely might reveal unknown virtual particles.”, nature.com/news/muons-big-mome…. Retrieved on April 1, 2021.

[3]: Wikipedia, “Anomalous magnetic dipole moment”, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anomalou…. Retrieved on April 1, 2021.

[4]: A. Hoecker and W.J. Marciano, (2019), “57. Muon Anomalous Magnetic Moment”, in M. Tanabashi et al. (Particle Data Group), Phys. Rev. D 98, 030001 (2018) and 2019 update, pdg.lbl.gov/2019/reviews/rpp20…. Retrieved on April 1, 2021.

[5]: T. Aoyama, at al. (2020), “The anomalous magnetic moment of the muon in the Standard Model”, Physics Reports, Volume 887, 3 December 2020, Pages 1-166, sciencedirect.com/science/arti….

[6]: Bipasha Chakraborty, at al. (2017-2018), “Strong-isospin-breaking correction to the muon anomalous magnetic moment from lattice QCD at the physical point”, arXiv:1710.11212v2.

[7]: Stephane H Maes, (2021), “More on Multi-fold Particles as Microscopic Black Holes with Higgs Regularizing Extremality and Singularities”, shmaesphysics.wordpress.com/20…, February 25, 2021.

[8]: Alexander Burinskii, (2020), “The Kerr–Newman Black Hole Solution as Strong Gravity for Elementary Particles”, researchgate.net/publication/3….

[9]: N. Bretón, A. A. García, V. S. Manko, and T. E. Denisova, (1998), “Strong-isospin-breaking correction to the muon anomalous magnetic moment from lattice QCD at the physical point”, Phys. Rev. D 57, 3382, researchgate.net/publication/2….

[10]: Marcus Ansorg, Jörg Hennig, Carla Cederbaum, (2011-2010), ), “Universal properties of distorted Kerr-Newman black holes”, arXiv:1005.3128v2.

[11]: Newman, E.T., (2002), “On a classical, geometric origin of magnetic moments, spin-angular momentum and the Dirac gyromagnetic ratio”, Phys. Rev. D, 66, 104005.

[12]: Stephane H. Maes, (2020), “Quantum Gravity Emergence from Entanglement in a Multi-Fold Universe”, viXra:2006.0088v1, vixra.org/pdf/2006.0088v1.pdf (June 9, 2020).

[13]: Wikipedia, “Anomalous magnetic dipole moment”, “Anomalous magnetic dipole moment”, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muon_g-2.

[14]: Andrey A. Shoom, (2015), “Distorted stationary rotating black holes”, arXiv:1501.06579v1.

[15]: Peskin, Michael Edward and Schroeder, Daniel V., (1995), “An Introduction to Quantum Field Theory”, Westview Press.

[16]: Zhong-Zhi Xianyu, (2016), “A Complete Solution to Problems in “An Introduction to Quantum Field Theory” by Peskin and Schroeder”, Harvard University. zzxianyu.files.wordpress.com/2…. Retrieved for this paper on April 1, 2021.

[17]: Burinskii, Alexander, (2008), “The Dirac-Kerr-Newman electron”, arXiv:0507109v4

[18]: Nima Arkani-Hamed, Yu-tin Huang, Donal O’Connell, (2019-2020), “Kerr Black Holes as Elementary Particles”, arXiv:1906.10100v2.

[19]: Wikipedia, “Black hole electron”, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_ho…. Retrieved on April 13, 2020.

[20]: Stephane Maes, (2020), “Web Site Tracking all Publications around the Multi-fold universe”, Navigation page listing all papers. shmaesphysics.wordpress.com/sh….

References added April 7, 202, post publication of the results:

[21]: B. Abi, et al. (2021), “Measurement of the Positive Muon Anomalous Magnetic Moment to 0.46 ppm”, PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS 126, 141801

[22]: Daniel Garisto, (2021), “Long-Awaited Muon Measurement Boosts Evidence for New Physics. Initial data from the Muon g-2 experiment have excited particle physicists searching for undiscovered subatomic particles and forces”, Scientific American, April 7, 2021. scientificamerican.com/article…. Retrieved on April 7, 2021.

[23]: Pallab Ghosh, (2021), “Muons: ‘Strong’ evidence found for a new force of nature”, BBC News, April 7, 2021. bbc.com/news/56643677. Retrieved on April 7, 2021.

[24]: Quanta Magazine, April 7, 2021. quantamagazine.org/muon-g-2-ex…. Retrieved on April 7, 2021.

____

I thank my generous supporters on Patreon. [strong]If you like my work, publications, and opinions, please consider joining them. This way, you can support this research work done totally independent from any institution. Use the contact form if you prefer to help by putting together a grant or other type of funding.[/strong]

___

Figure for comment below (from physics.aps.org/assets/bfd7908…)

TLDR: Anomalous magnetic moment of muon. Dirac= magnetic moment. Diagram: SM anomalous model. New Physics: additional diagrams. Our theory per this paper: Dirac =/= 2

April 7, 2021 – 9 AM PDT:

Prediction confirmed!

Of course New Physics vs. our explanation is now to be evaluated.

#BeyondTheStandardModel #corrections #Fermilab #FeynmanDiagrams #Gravity #HiggsInMultiFolds #HighEnergyPhysics #KerrNewman #MultiFoldUniverse #MuonAnomalousMagneticMomentum #muonG2 #ParticlesAsBlackHoles #Qball #QuantumGravity #StandardModel #standardModelWithGravity

New Physics with LHCb to explain loss of lepton universality, or just gravity?

Stephane H. Maes

March 29, 2021

Abstract:

In a multi-fold universe, gravity emerges from Entanglement through the multi-fold mechanisms. As a result, gravity-like effects appear in between entangled particles that they be real or virtual. Long range, massless gravity results from entanglement of massless virtual particles. Entanglement of massive virtual particles leads to massive gravity contributions at very smalls scales. Multi-fold mechanisms also result into a spacetime that is discrete, with a random walk fractal structure and non-commutative geometry that is Lorentz invariant and where spacetime nodes and particles can be modeled with microscopic black holes. All these recover General Relativity (GR) at large scales and semi-classical model remain valid till smaller scale than usually expected. Gravity can therefore be added to the Standard Model resulting into what we defined as SM_G. This can contribute to resolving several open issues with the Standard Model without new Physics other than gravity. These considerations hints at a even stronger relationship between gravity and the Standard Model.

Recently, there has been a flurry of enthusiasm following announcement of 3.1-sigma violation of lepton universality at LHCb. Many articles, papers and pundits see it as hints of New Physics.

In this paper we hypothesize that gravity could explain these observation, instead of New Physics understood as new particles or forces. The proposal can be strongly justified in a multi-fold universe with SM_G. It could also make sense, in general, whenever SM_G can be motivated.

____

1. Introduction

The multi-fold paper [7] proposes contributions to several open problems in physics like the reconciliation of General Relativity (GR) with Quantum Physics, explaining the origin of gravity proposed as emerging from quantum (EPR- Einstein Podolsky Rosen) entanglement between particles, detailing contributions to dark matter and dark energy and explaining other Standard Model mysteries without requiring New Physics beyond the Standard Model other than the addition of gravity to the Standard Model Lagrangian. All this is achieved in a multi-fold universe that may well model our real universe, which remains to be validated.

With the proposed model of [10], spacetime and Physics are modeled from Planck scales to quantum and macroscopic scales and semi classical approaches appear valid till very small scales. In [7], it is argued that spacetime is discrete, with a random walk-based fractal structure, fractional and noncommutative at, and above Planck scales (with a 2-D behavior and Lorentz invariance preserved by random walks till the early moments of the universe). Spacetime results from past random walks of particles. Spacetime locations and particles can be modeled as microscopic black holes (Schwarzschild for photons and spacetime coordinates, and metrics between Reisner Nordstrom [60] and Kerr Newman [17] for massive and possibly charged particles – the latter being possibly extremal). Although surprising, [10] recovers results consistent with others (see [32] and its references), while also being able to justify the initial assumptions of black holes from the gravity or entanglement model in a multi-fold universe. The resulting gravity model recovers General Relativity at larger scale, as a 4D process, with massless gravity, but also with massive gravity components at very small scale that make gravity significant at these scales. Semi-classical models also turn out to work well till way smaller scales than usually expected.

The present paper reviews the hints of New Physics. It therefore provides a simple argument based on gravity in the context of SM_G, to explain the reported observations. Then based on the work on particles as microscopic black holes regularized by Higgs boson condensates, we provide a strong argument that could extend to other past hints of violation of lepton universality.

2. Hints of New Physics at LHCb?

There have been a report of 3.1 standard deviations, i.e. still below the 5-sigma threshold for confirmation, of violations of lepton universality in B meson decays [1,2,3]. According to the Standard Model (SM) and lepton universality for the weak interaction (lepton coupling constant to gauge bosons does not depend on the flavor of the leptons) [6]. Yet, B mesons should decay to a kaon and two muons at the same rate at which they decay to a kaon and two electrons. Yet LHCb is seeing a difference in this rare beauty decay: B mesons seem to decay to muons 15 percent less often than they do to electrons.

It immediately resulted into a flurry of articles and papers announcing hints of new Physics, new particles and a fifth force (see [4] and for examples the papers it mentions); potentially a sign of the desperation of many in High energy particle Physics and Theoretical Physics; although supersymmetry may not immediately explain such results either; at least for other violations like in [5].

This result announcement come on top of other universality violation results like in [5,6] and its reference [15,16] (also not yet at the 5-sigma threshold) where for examples tau excesses would have similarly be observed. Note however that this paper will not discuss the tau excess and probably should wait the new LHCb and Belle experiments current in plan [1]. The experimentations were different as they studied interactions where lepton and anti-neutrino of the corresponding flavor were produced and neutrino related considerations may have to added. So we should not worry for now that these involved excess of the heaviest lepton (tau) versus the lightest (muons) instead of excess of electrons (lightest versus muons in [1].

3. SM_G to the rescue – An hypothesis

We suggest that SM_G, i.e. the SM with gravity non-negligible at the SM scales [7-9], something encountered in a multi-fold universe, could provide an explanation without requiring New Physics (understood in terms of adding new particles like leptoquark as in [1] and in the papers mentioned in [4] (or neutral vector bosons (Z’) or even extra Higgs boson), or forces). If we wanted to solely limit ourselves to SM_G, within a multi-fold universe or not, more thoughts are required to justify the deficit of muons besides stating the following: because of the mutual attraction between the entangled lepton and anti-lepton (due to entanglement if in a multi-fold universe [7,10] but with universal effect between the flavors, and due to gravity, in all cases – multi-fold or not), the propensity to have the W⁺ decay is reduced between the more massive pairs, even if only slightly. This could be enough to explain the muon deficit observed in [1].

4. Multi-fold and SMG to the rescue – a more detailed hypothesis

If we throw in multi-fold mechanisms, then the modeling of particles as microscopic black holes regularized as Qballs of condensed Higgs bosons [7,13,14], suggest that the same model (Qballs) applies to leptons as to quarks. Therefore, just as for QCD, where a proton can be art of its time a superposition of a neutron and a pion (see [11,12] and references within), the same could happen between the Qballs (of the different leptons and anti-leptons, i.e. all possible product of W⁺ decays) forming, all the time, within the see of Higgs in the Qball of the W⁺, before the decay finally takes place: when there is a stronger attraction between them, there is less energy benefits for them to form (they recombine more often something that is also systematic as we are talking of lepton and its anti-lepton). Even if very small, this effect should result into less decays into muon and anti-muon pairs that electron and positron pairs.

By the way, and without the same analysis, with respect to the other experimental results mentioned above [15,16], the leptons in the decay products are not particles and anti-particles. It is reasonable to expect that it reduces the suppression effects towards the heaviest leptons while still ensuring non universality of leptons beyond the weak interaction. Favorable energy balance may now favor the heaviest decay outcome.

To that effect it is also important to understand that strong interaction also have effects that render all the result hard to fully interpret. In [1], it is argue that they are well understood as equivalently playing a minimal role. We argue that the argument does not apply for gravity if we subscribed to SMG, even more in a multi-fold universe.

We also argue that such effects exist in all weak interactions. They just typically are hidden by strong interaction and other effects. Experiments as in [1] and [5,6] are situation where, as argued in [1], the other interactions dominate and hides (for now, for the limit of what we can measure) these effects.

Let us conclude by also adding that following [14], we know the significant impact of the Higgs field and bosons, and of gravity on the weak interaction.

The proposal here is just that: a proposal or hypothesis based on how we have seen SM_G and Multi-fold mechanism helping with SM challenges. More modeling and experiments are needed, first of all the determine if there was even an issue to start with. As discussed even just having SMG valid may suffice to motivate our proposal.

5. Conclusions

We have proposed how SM_G in general or, better yet, SM_G in a multi-fold universe could explain the observed apparent violations of lepton universality without requiring New Physics, understood as without requiring new particles or new forces.

The hypothesis is especially strong when it can rely on the multi-fold model if particles as regularized black holes as Qballs or solitons made of Higgs condensates. The idea relies on copying the sea of quarks and gluons of QCD to explain why leptons pairs of different masses may behave differently despite having a universal interaction with gauge / weak bosons.

Because of the relatively limited access to data and limited quantitative model still in the multi-fold theory, this proposal is really to be understood as just a proposal to bring forward the possibility and encourage discussions.

____

Cite as: Stephane H Maes, (2021), “New Physics with LHCb to explain loss of lepton universality, or just gravity?”, viXra:2103.0191v1, shmaesphysics.wordpress.com/20…, March 29, 2021.

____

References:

[1]: LHCb collaboration, (2021), “Test of lepton universality in beauty-quark decays”, arXiv:2103.11769v1 (arxiv.org/pdf/2103.11769.pdf).

[2]: CERN, (2021), “Intriguing new result from the LHCb experiment at CERN. The LHCb results strengthen hints of a violation of lepton flavour universality”, home.cern/news/news/physics/in…. Retrieved on March 23, 2021.

[3]: Daniel Garisto, (2021), “Unexplained Results Intrigue Physicists at World’s Largest Particle Collider Muons and electrons might not experience the same fundamental interactions, contrary to Standard Model predictions”, March 25, 2021. scientificamerican.com/article…. Retrieved on March 29, 2021.

[4]: Stephane H. Maes, (2021), ), “Comments on hints of new Physics”, shmaesphysics.wordpress.com/20… and following comments.

[5]: Clara Moskowitz (2015), “2 Accelerators Find Particles That May Break Known Laws of Physics. The LHC and the Belle experiment have found particle decay patterns that violate the Standard Model of particle physics, confirming earlier observations at the BaBar facility”, September 9, 2015. scientificamerican.com/article…. Retrieved on March 29, 2021.

[6]: Wikipedia, “Lepton”, September 9, 2015. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lepton. Retrieved on March 29, 2021.

[7]: Stephane H. Maes, (2020) “Quantum Gravity Emergence from Entanglement in a Multi-Fold Universe”, viXra:2006.0088v1, (June 9, 2020). (See also shmaesphysics.wordpress.com/20…).

[8]: Stephane Maes, (2020), “Web Site Tracking all Publications around the Multi-fold universe”, Navigation page listing all papers. shmaesphysics.wordpress.com/sh….

[9]: Stephane Maes, (2021), “Current Review – All Publications around the Multi-fold universe – February 2021”, osf.io/8b69k, shmaesphysics.wordpress.com/sh…, February 15, 2021. (More recent updates available at the URL).

[10]: Stephane H. Maes, (2020) “Quantum Gravity Emergence from Entanglement in a Multi-Fold Universe”, viXra:2006.0088v1, (June 9, 2020). (See also shmaesphysics.wordpress.com/20…).

[11]: Natalie Wolchover, (2021), “Decades-Long Quest Reveals Details of the Proton’s Inner Antimatter”, quantamagazine.org/protons-ant…. Retrieved on February 24, 2021.

[12]: Ethan Siegel, (2021), “What Rules The Proton: Quarks Or Gluons?”, forbes.com/sites/startswithaba…. Retrieved on March 18, 2021.

[13]: Stephane H Maes, (2021), “More on Multi-fold Particles as Microscopic Black Holes with Higgs Regularizing Extremality and Singularities”, shmaesphysics.wordpress.com/20…, February 25, 2021.

[14]: Stephane H Maes, (2020), “Multi-fold Gravity-Electroweak Theory and Symmetry Breaking”, shmaesphysics.wordpress.com/20…, March 16, 2021.

[15]: LHCb collaboration, (2015), “Measurement of the ratio of branching fractions B(B¯¯¯¯0→D∗+τ−ν¯¯¯τ)/B(B¯¯¯¯0→D∗+μ−ν¯¯¯μ)”, arXiv:1506.08614v2.

[16]: Belle Collaboration, (2015), “Measurement of the branching ratio of B¯→D(∗)τ−ν¯τ relative to B¯→D(∗)ℓ−ν¯ℓ decays with hadronic tagging at Belle”, arXiv:1507.03233v3.

[17]: Wikipedia, “Kerr–Newman metric”, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerr-New…. Retrieved for this paper on March 21, 2020.

I thank my generous supporters on Patreon. If you like my work, publications, and opinions, please consider joining them. This way, you can support this research work done totally independent from any institution. Use the contact form if you prefer to help by putting together a grant or other type of funding.

#Belle #Electron #GaugeBoson #HiggsBoson #HiggsField #leptonUniversality #leptons #LHCb #MultiFoldUniverse #muon #NewPhysics #ParticlesAsBlackHoles #Qball #QCD #QuantumGravity #Soliton #StandardModel #standardModelWithGravity #WBoson #WeakInteraction

Unexplained Results Intrigue Physicists at World's Largest Particle Collider

^{Dan Garisto (Scientific American)}

Shmaes - Physics

2020-06-15 04:54:43

Dualities or Analogies between Superstrings and Multi-fold Universes

Stephane H. Maes

June 14, 2020

Abstract:

Superstrings seem to somehow appear in multi-folds universes. [em][em]We compare the results and models of superstrings with the multi-fold mechanisms associated to EPR entanglement and discover that such multi-fold mechanism in a multi-fold universe: i) explain or clarify many superstring results, ii) provide analogies to superstring results that often change conjectures (e.g. AdS/CFT correspondence, ER=EPR, GR=QM) to facts or theorems in a multi-fold universe iii) position superstrings with respect to our spacetime iv) illustrates differences and v) makes suggestions on how to evolve superstrings theories and M-Theory, according to the multi-fold universe proposal and observations in the real universe, so far. We conclude with a call for collaboration.[/em][/em]

____

1. Introduction

The new preprint [1] proposes contributions to several open problems in physics like the reconciliation of General Relativity with Quantum Physics, explaining the origin of gravity proposed as emerging from quantum (EPR- Einstein Podolsky Rosen) entanglement between particles, detailing contributions to dark matter and dark energy and explaining other Standard Model mysteries without requiring New Physics beyond the Standard Model other than the addition of gravity to the Standard Model Lagrangian. All this is achieved in s multi-fold universe that may well model our real universe, which remains to be validated.

With the proposed model of [1], spacetime and Physics are modeled from Planck scales to quantum and macroscopic scales and semi classical approaches appear valid till very small scales. In [1], it is argued that spacetime is discrete, with a random walk-based fractal structure, fractional and noncommutative at, and above Planck scales (with a 2-D behavior and Lorentz invariance preserved by random walks till the early moments of the universe). Spacetime results from past random walks of particles. Spacetime locations and particles can be modeled as microscopic blackholes (Schwarzschild for photons and spacetime coordinates, and metrics between Reisner Nordstrom [24] and Kerr Newman [25] for massive and possibly charged particles – the latter being possibly extremal). Although surprising, [1] recovers results consistent with other like [32], while also being able to justify the initial assumptions of black holes from the gravity or entanglement model. The resulting gravity model recovers General Relativity at larger scale, as a 4-D process, with massless gravity, but also with massive gravity components at very small scale that make gravity significant these scales. Semi-classical models also work well till way smaller scales that usually expected.

Throughout the analysis, [1] finds numerous touch points with superstrings, despite coming from a complete different proposition, i.e. 1) not starting from General Relativity (GR) or the Hilbert Einstein Action adapted for higher dimensions (or variations and extensions) 2) no modeling strings and not starting from a string equation or a string action like the Nambu-Goto Action 3) not declaring any supersymmetry or supergravity invariance 4) in fact, delaying quantization as long as possible in the discussions of the multi-fold mechanisms.

In this paper, we remain at a high level of discussion of the analysis. It makes the points accessible to a wider audience and keeps the door open to further papers or discussions devoted to details of interest. Yet it requires the reader to review [1], as we do not revisit here all the details of the multi-fold mechanism or reconstruction of spacetime. The followings subsections are organized as a series of observations in [1] that relate to superstrings and conversely. [1] did not focus on presenting these facts as a comparison or as lessons learned for and from superstrings. Also, our analysis is not exhaustive. However, we hope that it will intrigue enough the reader to push him or her to dig deeper. Most of the more detailed (or entry point) references are provided in [1] and so every statement is not motivated here or presented with the most appropriate references. This paper is rather a story tale. “[1]” appears often, as a person or a model, to refer to the original arguments, analysis, mechanisms or proposals discussed in [1].

[1] is about a multi-fold universe. We discovered that the framework and mechanism of [1] have many touch points with superstrings, in terms of the resulting picture of the universe and specific properties or phenomena. [1] argues that it can model well our real space time and provides predictions and opportunities for falsifiability.

2. Selected duality highlights

2.1 Point particles, strings, world sheets and black holes

[1] works with a model where, from the beginning, particles are central to the analysis (at the difference of conventional QFT, which has many modeling problems with particles). The suitability of the approach comes from the strict rejection of any supra luminosity in a multi-fold universe defined by [1]. Accordingly, for example, Path Integrals must filter out any path that would have a portion space like with respect to another portion of the path. This is a key difference with conventional QFT. It avoids excessive spread of the wave functions of relativistic particles, and zeroes QFT correlations between space like regions. Of course, it is understood that particles are only tractable between their creation and annihilation and that their numbers change.

In addition, from the onset, a particle in [1] is associated to an uncertainty region, according to the uncertainty principle (and the hard no supra luminosity limit). It is not a point particle, but rather a ball of uncertainty. Within and around that region. This was the case at larger scale, even before determining that spacetime is discrete in a multi-fold universe. Spacetime reconstruction models show that spacetime, discrete as already mentioned, and particles are presented by microscopic black holes (possibly extremal for charged particles). The particle blackholes result from the structure of the effective potential surrounding every particle, as a result of the EPR entanglement of all the virtual particles that are emitted by the particle. Spacetime points are rather the result of the spacetime concretization by passage of particles following random walks. Massless carriers like photons are also Schwarzschild blackholes. All these are relevant only at very small scales, below the scales of typical quantum models. This model describes spacetime and gravitation as 2-D processes at very small scales and 4-D at larger scales. The spacetime is Lorentz invariant, thanks to the random walk-based spacetime reconstruction that generates a fractal structure and a non-commutative geometry. GR equation can be recovered as a result of the models of [1] (by computation of path integrals, or by Thermodynamics arguments). The mechanisms of multi-folds, the main feature proposed in [1], trigger additional structures (folds) when particles are (EPR) entangled so that additional paths can traverse the folds, where the EPR entangled particles can always meet as a same exit points. Doing so, all the activated folds (i.e. multi-folds) create attractive potentials in

in between the entangled particles (

per fold) towards their source or center the mass, depending of the use cases and movements (and masses involved e.g. massive or massless). When involving virtual particles emitted by a source of energy, this potential is reminiscent of gravity. It can also be looked as adding contributions of the Ricci curvature scalar R of the folds, from all matter or energy contributions, to build a new Ricci curvature scalar field R and, with the direction of attraction information, a new consistent Ricci curvature tensor. Doing so, for all sources of energy, recovers Einstein’s GR field equations (or Hilbert Einstein Action); which is amazing as invariance of surfaces (the real geometrical meaning behind the Hilbert Einstein Action) or variations of the Hilbert Einstein had, at no point, be postulated in [1] prior to that determination (something that can’t exactly be said the same way for strings). Also, the multi-folds have a spin-2 symmetry.

This, as well as the microscopic black hole models, indicates that semi-classical models can be used till way smaller scales that usually expected (if tuned to behaviors described in [1]). Doing so, we can see particles positions, in the presence of entanglement and gravity, will oscillate preferably along the geodesics.

It reminds of few string features, but in appearance only:

• Superstring theory models particles as little strings instead of point particles. In a multi-fold universe of [1], the strings could rather be seen as the result of how particles appear as they wiggles back and forth predominantly along geodesics of choice, as a result of gravity (due to entanglement). It directly relates to the discussion in [1] about a similar observation made in [2] on the horizon of black holes (and the different variations of Black Hole soft hairs theorems). In [1], particles appear with their uncertainty regions that are shaped like wiggling strings in the presence of gravity.
  
  • The length of the uncertainty walk on the geodesic is proportional to the energy of the particle. This is also the rule linking length and energy in string theory.

  
  

• At times, superstring theory models spacetime as the world sheets, building the manifold with these geodesics.
  
  • When looked this way, the Nambu-Goto Action, behind all the string models, extremizes the world sheet surfaces (as soap bubbles minimize their surfaces between supports – here, the different string lines at different time – see [3]). Therefore, this action is immediately equivalent to the Hilbert Einstein Action, which also extremize surfaces. It is therefore no surprise that Nambu-Goto and strings recover exactly GR (when computing linear GR perturbations, i.e. conventional gravitons), at any order, or that, even with variations or extensions, they always recover or include some forms of graviton. Modeling gravitons and matching GR series expansions became the motivation, claim of fame and the main selling point for (super)strings as a theory of gravity and a Theory of Everything (ToE). Historically, some scattering amplitudes proposed ad hoc and computed for mesons gave good results. They were later understood and visualized, as strings linking quarks and anti-quarks in mesons (with the strong interactions increasing when the string is stretched; it was prior to QCD). The Nambu-Goto Action formalized the physics that includes minimizing surface of the world sheet to model the dynamics. More details and history are available in [4]. The point is that, in retrospect, the apparition of the graviton, not trivial to compute, was actually obvious. So yes, string models include gravitons (graviton-like particles) but it is really just because of how the world sheets are defined and then linked to spacetime. The same analysis can be repeated about (D-)branes.
  • On the other hand, [1] does not start from a Hilbert Einstein Action (and variations or extensions) or from surface extremization Actions, or strings or analogous Physics. Yet by modeling EPR entanglement and a proposal to address the EPR paradox with multi-folds mechanisms, it ends up also with the GR field equation and the Hilbert Einstein Action (and spin-2 gravitons). One could argue that it is at least a similar feat as strings that should warrant some attention.
  • It also means that spacetime in a multi-fold universe can contain string world sheets or can be modeled by superstrings or branes: spacetime shares equivalent Actions.

  
  

2.2 Multi-fold universe and super string landscape and swampland

In a multi-fold universe, entanglements activate multi-folds outside [f1] the spacetime [1]. Multi-folds attach to pairs of entangled particles (real or virtual) and paths in these folds become available to path integrals of particles encountering a mapping to the folds. The result is the appearance in spacetime (in between the entangled particles) of an effective potential attractive towards the center of mass of mass and in . It is equivalent to positive curvature (additive) contributions.

[1] Goes out of its way to emphasize that:

• Folds do not have to be governed by the Hilbert Einstein Action. They just might.
• Multi-folds live outside spacetime in a AdS(5) space.
• Multi-folds attached to entangled particles are the source of gravity like effects and spin-2 symmetries. When quantized (i.e. when discretized in [1]), the multi-folds match quantas of spacetime: they are the gravitons and they live in AdS(5); not our spacetime. It is their effects that appears through the effective potentials (or reconstructed curvature field) that make it look like they could live in our spacetime. The mapping is what transposes the effect to spacetime. This models is what ensure normalizability (no divergences) at the difference of conventional QFT approaches. It also shows that curvature can also be considered as a visualization tool more than a physical geometric reality.
• Gravity and gravitons can be massless or massive. Massive gravity correspond to entanglement of massive virtual particles pairs emitted by an energy source (i.e. particle). This effect only exist at very small scales, where it can become significant.
  
  • Because of its bottom-up approach, multi-fold massive gravity does not suffer of the challenges and inconsistencies often met with a massive GR model [6]. Yet, we also know that such massive gravity can be made consistent [7]. However, note that [7] models massive gravity at large scale. This is not the result obtained in [1], which makes it matter only at very small scales, a fact easier to accept considering how GR has been repeatedly validated at very large scales.

  
  

• In general, additional entanglement also adds gravity like contributions.
• By construction, the background space can be modified from an initial condition by adding energy / matter to spacetime. These contributions are always with positive curvature. Spacetime is therefore either flat (without matter) or positively curved (unless if started with a negative initial condition for some reason). Negative curvature cannot be produced by the multi-fold mechanisms in [1] and so in [1], it is unphysical!

This matches interestingly many results in superstrings. To name a few:

• Gravitons are usually closed superstrings (bosonic loops of spin-2), that can live in AdS (+other dimensions) – and other spaces. It would explain why superstrings can model strong (strongly coupled) gravity.
• Superstrings models can exist in a large variety of ways (e.g. different configurations of the compact additional dimensions; usually characterized by different Calabi-Yau manifolds [23]). It led to the notions of string landscapes and swamplands where superstrings would be respectively viable and making physical sense, or not [19].
  
  • The string landscape is so far empty of model matching our universe, even if expected, or prayed to be populated by some … At least no model has been found so far that can be thought to be suitably related to our universe.
  • The string swampland is richly populated
  • More than 10^500 (or even 10^272000, or more) types of theories are to be evaluated and classified!

  
  

• It has been shown that superstrings cannot be consistent or stable in a universe with positive dark energy and / or positive curvature like our universe.

Let us compare.

Many of these top level points match amazingly well [1], as multi-folds are sets of spheres (i.e. closed), in AdS(5) (i.e. negative curvature space); while generation of negative curvatures is not possible in spacetime but can be in a tangent space where multi-folds (and superstrings) and gravitons live. From the point of view of [1], it is perfectly logical and expected that strings only live in a space with negative curvature (e.g. AdS(5) ++) and influence spacetime through holography or AdS/CFT correspondence (see next section). In [1] that effects comes from the mappings.

In [1], with a model of particles (and spacetime locations) modeled as microscopic black holes (surrounding them), AdS(5) is tangent to our spacetime at every such points (let’s not finesse on arguing about embedding space, tangent space or dual space). The microscopic black holes could also be seen as the sources and seeds of the multi-folds [8]. But they also could be entertained as the place where the strings characterizing the particles are attached to spacetime, hinting at the superstring model. That picture also evolves a bit the way that spacetime and world sheets or branes should relate. World sheet may not be the spacetime, but their growth match spacetime creation or updates/perturbation as do the multi-folds. This point of view may possibly help better recover macroscopic spacetime in superstrings, today, still a challenge.

The onset of folds due to entanglement is also hinted in superstrings and in Physics in general [8.9]. It shows that the ideas of [1] may appear surprising, but they were already hinted by many conventional Physics models!

We will discuss the requirement for positive curvature for superstring in the next subsection.

2.3 AdS / CFT Correspondence

With AdS(5) tangent to spacetime, gravity is living in AdS(5) and impacting spacetime via attractive effective potentials (or curvatures) resulting from the mappings between spacetimes and folds. With gravity factually weaker in our spacetime than the other interactions (at normal quantum, semi classical and classical scales), [1] has recovered the AdS/CFT correspondence conjecture and the holographic principle.

In [1], it is no more a conjecture! It is a fact. CFT can be replaced by QFT, because [1] argues that with a discrete spacetime, background independence and torsion (both features of the model in[1]), gravity effects are well behaved (no singularity, no divergence, i.e. renormalizable: it is by default normalized). Again gravity is in AdS(5), but its effects are in our spacetime. [1] matches and go way beyond what superstrings tell us with the AdS/CFT correspondence.

Our spacetime is the boundary of AdS(5) and gravity lives in AdS(5) with effects, through the multi-folds mappings, in spacetime. However, remember that multi-folds do not necessarily have to obey the Hilbert Einstein Action for this to work. They might. We will repeat it again and again.

[1] and superstrings can share a same view of key aspects of the universe!

2.4 ER=EPR conjecture

With AdS(5) tangent to spacetime, gravity is living in AdS(5) and impacting spacetime via attractive effective potentials (or curvatures) resulting from the mappings between spacetimes and folds. With gravity factually weaker in our spacetime than the other interactions (at normal quantum, semi classical and classical scales), [1] has recovered the AdS/CFT correspondence conjecture and the holographic principle.

In [1], it is no more a conjecture! It is a fact. CFT can be replaced by QFT, because [1] argues that with a discrete spacetime, background independence and torsion (both features of the model in[1]), gravity effects are well behaved (no singularity, no divergence, i.e. renormalizable: it is by default normalized). Again gravity is in AdS(5), but its effects are in our spacetime. [1] matches and go way beyond what superstrings tell us with the AdS/CFT correspondence.

Our spacetime is the boundary of AdS(5) and gravity lives in AdS(5) with effects, through the multi-folds mappings, in spacetime. However, remember that multi-folds do not necessarily have to obey the Hilbert Einstein Action for this to work. They might. We will repeat it again and again.

[1] and superstrings can share a same view of key aspects of the universe!

2.4 ER=EPR conjecture

The ER = EPR conjecture showed another duality between connected black holes (à la ER bridge) and entangled blackholes. it is immediately reminiscent of the folds and mappings between EPR entangled particles in [1]. [1] was developed without even knowing about ER=EPR, that was discovered when compiling relevant prior works.

ER=EPR usually models behaviors of black holes in AdS, where black holes have interesting properties or can be fully modeled. Yet traversability when the black holes are connected to form a wormhole is a problem: it often requires exotic matter, infinite time or the black holes or wormholes are unstable, especially when traversed. Multi-folds avoid these problems by not imposing Hilbert Einstein Action to define its dynamics.

[1] can allow paths of path integrals to traverse the folds. It is something that ER=EPR has not considered and therefore ER=EPR conjecture has missed, so far, the gravity generation (or modeling) impact of the approach. Our guess is that they did not pursue either because nobody made the connections of the plausible implications or because non-traversability when modeled by GR prevented paths from path integral to use the wormholes or travel through the connected black holes.

In fact, we also discovered, after publishing [1], that [10] proposed that, using the AdS/CFT correspondence and the holographic Schwinger effect at strong gravity coupling, and with superstrings living in AdS(5) (+ more dimensions), an entangled pairs of particles and anti-particles, quarks in their example, would automatically have a wormhole in AdS(5), along their world sheet, joining the two entangled particles (It is a superstring view of the world). It is the closest superstring and AdS/CFT endorsement of the multi-fold mechanisms that [1] proposes. That paper stopped short of all the consequences that result from the apparition of the wormhole. We also want to make sure that the reader remembers that, in [1] , we do not assume that the wormhole follows Hilbert Einstein type of action. Yet, this is a resounding illustration that what we propose was actually already contained or hinted in many models of conventional physics.

2.5 Other similarities and differences

GR=QM

The conjecture QR=QM [11], that “we’ll observe quantum gravity using quantum computers in a lab sometime in the next decade or so”. Somehow is seems very well aligned with [1] and one of its proposal for validation for multi-fold universe: [11] claims the above. [12] argues that quantum computing is universal and can be done by any type of entangled entities to obtain the same results. So indeed, gravity should appear not, as a simulation, but in between the entangled Qubits; because of the fundamental results obtained by [1] in terms of attraction between entangled systems. Of course, the question is when we will be able to detect that.

[1] concretizes, probably differently from what [11] really had in mind, how quantum computing will indeed allow us to observe quantum gravity!

As a note, [13] criticizes [11], but it may be a misunderstanding of what the author of GR=QM meant. From a Quantum computing and information point of view [12], our interpretation and outcome is what [11] meant! And it makes sense, at least in a context like [1].

Black Holes and Singularities

Superstrings have managed to address a whole bunch of singularity problems. Yet their models of black holes are essentially limited to AdS spaces. That may be useful to model wormholes and multi-folds for [1] if they were following GR derived equation (which, in [1], they might but don’t have to). The exotic properties and closed form solutions of AdS black holes help address discussions like traversability, stability, exotic matter and time like loops. Yet they are not very useful in our spacetime, or in a space with a positive curvature space like dS (de Sitter), or with a positive cosmological constant, as it seems that our universe is.

Interestingly, [1] also guarantee the absence of any gravity related singularity (i.e. in black holes and at the big bang or big crunch if it was to exists) because spacetime is discrete (so always at least on minimum length), because it can introduce torsion (at very small scales) within matter/energy that does not propagate but would prevent singularities [14] and probably also because of its dark energy and positive cosmological constant mechanisms ([1] may help explain these effects). As a result, it can support big bounces scenarios, if that was the cosmological evolution.

[1] also derives area laws for spacetime and for blackholes matching both blackhole theories and thermodynamics models for black holes, horizons and spacetime. For spacetime, these can be used to recover GR in a way well known since [15]. Several black hole paradoxes seem resolved, or at least well mitigated, in a multi-fold universe.

Positively curved spacetime

We live, apparently, in a flat or positively curved spacetime with dark energy (i.e. a positive cosmological constant) (Although this has been questioned, several times recently but with limited support [16]). On the other hand, it is now clear that superstrings cannot live in such a universe per [17]. These universes are part of the swampland.

The recently confirmed AdS instability for GR [18] is another indication that superstring can live in AdS but that our spacetime cannot be AdS. Otherwise, it would not be able to contain matter (macroscopically)! And yes, [1] states that matter are black holes but it is not exactly the intent of what [18] showed and why AdS is unstable under GR. In [1], this conclusions is not a result of instability: [1] does not and cannot apply to AdS, as it cannot physically generate negative curvature. An interesting consequence is the flip conclusion that matter does not exists (macroscopically) in AdS(5), the superstring universe. Therefore, besides gravitons, the other superstrings, appearing in superstring theories, do not describe particles in our space time, unless through D-branes world sheets or by connecting to our spacetime attached to particles that they characterizes . In [1] that would be connecting to spacetime through the microscopic black hole surrounding the particle and within its uncertainty region. And yes that uncertainty region may appear as a string per the above but is not, per this instability. More way to reconcile that with AdS/CFT correspondence are discussed in the speculative section 3.

[1] showed that it is ok that superstrings live in the tangent space with gravity impacting our spacetime via multi-folds and mapping. It is our version of AdS/CFT correspondence and holographic principle. In our view, it is a more sensible result than all the still on-going attempts to transform superstrings results in AdS to guess the results in dS or other positive curved spacetime à la de Sitter. That has never really worked… All this should clarify landscapes and swampland for superstrings [19].

Entanglement and Gravity

QFT and Superstrings do not model well particles as discussed in [1]. They models fields. As a result they also do not model well entanglement between individual particles (and strings). Their models and methods are only statistical (Thermodynamics) through correlations and entanglement entropies. That is in part why these approaches cannot see gravity emerging the same way as in [1].

[1] suggests that superstring theory should evolve to support explicit modeling of entanglement between strings, e.g. as in [1]. So far, and using the AdS/CFT correspondence conjecture, ER=EPR and [10] are examples of a first possible steps. Approaches like [9] are other ones. Lessons and approaches with multi-folds as in [1] and this paper are also an input.

Background independence

[1] is covariant and background independent both in its top down analysis (first part of [1]) and it reconstruction (bottom-up).

QFT and superstrings are not background independent. Many have argued that it is a major issue that creates complexity, divergences and renormalization issues. [1] agrees with these arguments.

The duality discussed here may inspire ways to address this problem in QFT and superstrings; albeit without a bottoms-up approach it is more challenging. Maybe superstring model should encompass a bottoms-up (re)constructive effort, where spacetime is built, not pre-supposed.

Strange (Discrete and Noncommutative yet Lorentz invariant) Geometries

Noncommutative geometries have been shown to appear in some superstring models. Noncommutative geometry often are associated to discrete spacetime, as in [1]. The non-commutativity is in fact a way to preserve Lorentz invariance; but its physical motivation can’t be cleanly explained by superstrings (they are rather only as math results).

[1] shows how Lorentz invariance of spacetime is the result of fractals produced by random walks, at very small scales, as paths of the path integrals. Doing so, produces a Lorentz invariant spacetime, that is discrete, and where noncommutative geometry expresses suitably the Lorentz invariance through the commutators (that render the position operators fuzzy). Interestingly, [1] derives the noncommutativity of the position operators in AdS(5), because of the dynamics of the multi-folds. As the holographic (mappings) effects in spacetime matches these dynamics, spacetime must also be discrete. This is a fantastic result and it implies, per our duality, that superstring theory should consider that the universe is discrete with random then noncommutative geometry.

These properties of a discrete spacetime were well known already through different reasoning [20,21]. Yet, its implications for superstring, while sometimes compatible, do not seem to have been seriously pursued. The physical explanation obtained by [1] is also very unexpected and had not been matched in [20,21] (i.e. they are not able to either why Lorentz invariant, it is rather respectively postulated or deducted from random distributions but then without explaining why random.) or other non-commutative, fractal or fractional spacetime theories! There are many theories and models proposing some of these features out there, typically without a detailed justification.

Supersymmetries, supergravity and more

[1] does not require or assume supersymmetries or supergravity. It would remain unaffected by their existence. Without requiring them, [1] avoids the problems of the absence of proton decays and absence of magnetic monopoles to name a few and yet still have options for an Ultimate Unification of interaction scenarios that survive the absence of these effects. [1] shows how gravity further precludes proton decay [5] and magnetic monopoles in multi-folds universes.

[1] treats AdS(5) as an external space. The extra dimensions of AdS(5) are not visible to us (only to paths of our constituting particles through curvature of the effect of attractive effective potential). It does not matter, if AdS(5) is complemented by additional compact dimensions to reach 10 or 11 dimensions, as needed respectively by superstrings and M-Theory. Being outside spacetime matters, as discussed in our footnote earlier: we can’t explain macroscopic ER bridges in spacetime: they are not exactly observed. It also helps with the notions of non-observability of entanglement [27]. It also explains non divergence and normalizability of the quantized gravity modeled in spacetime by [1].

3. Supersymmetry only in AdS(5)(++)?

This section is speculative and should be treated as such. We thought along time if this section should be added. We do not want to distract from the analysis above that shows all the touch points between multi-folds universe introduced in [1] and superstrings. Because this section is more speculative and provocative on what might or might not be, it may distract and become the focus of all the attention. We decided to go ahead and not push these considerations to another paper, because it is really part of the analysis and its implications. We hope that the reader will approach the section in the same spirit.

Maybe one should think about super partner particles differently, and it may be why they have never been observed: maybe super partners exist after all, but, like gravitons or multi-folds, they would only live in AdS(5), not in our spacetime. We already understand how gravitons relate both to our spacetime and AdS(5). As mentioned earlier, none other physical particle than the gravitons should live in the superstring space as AdS is unstable with matter. But nonphysical (e.g. virtual, or other concepts) might exist without problem and they are clearly encountered by superstring theories. This unconventional idea may then require new holographic principles if we expect super partners to have effects in our spacetime. Otherwise they only exist for the sanity of the superstrings but would be unphysical or unconnected to physical reality, which maybe that is what it is!

So, according to [1], multi-fold live outside our spacetime, in AdS(5). When quantized massive and massless gravitons live in AdS(5). This recovers a version of the AdS/CFT correspondence for multi-folds universes. If we exploit all the considerations on correspondence between superstrings and multi-fold mechanisms, it is natural to imagine that AdS(5) can of course by extended with multiple additional (compact) dimensions (which we will here conveniently denote as AdS{5)(++); it is all outside our spacetime anyway. AdS(5)(++) is the space where superstrings or M-theory live (with one more dimension). The (multi-) folds are not affected and their dynamic do not have to follow GR in AdS(5)(++): graviton can continue to behave the same even if they now are in AdS{5)(++).

Yet the multi-fold mechanism, with its mapping, brings some paths of the particle crossing the support domains of the mapping, in the fold. In [1] the fold is treated as a extension of spacetime; so physics is as in the conventional world, only the spacetime is curved and the folds are single tenant (i.e. single instance per particle: no interactions in the folds other than at entry and exit. But if we relax a bit that last assumption, one could see that paths on the folds also brings the particle in AdS(5)(++), where Physics is now dictated by superstring theory (and it could explain why AdS/CFT may model aspects of our spacetime physics in the bulk, as announced earlier).

For the sake of discussion, let’s see how that could happen and how could it play out. Two scenarios can maybe explain how some of these path would lead to strings:

1. because of uncertainties in our spacetime (and in the folds), the folds wiggle around tangent to spacetime. While the paths stays in their fold, the wiggling means that this implies wiggling around in AdS(5)(++), between the different positions of the fold spacetime.
2. at any point within the fold, the curvature effect results into an attractive effective potential felt in our spacetime. Then at the next time click, the fold evolves with the path. Yet if we consider an infinitesimal time with a given fold (at a given time), the path on the fold is a path left behind in AdS(5)(++).

In either cases (or combining both), these multi-folds of [1] leaves a myriad of tiny paths in AdS(5)(++). The particle (path) on it had all its physical properties with it. These could be seen (we have no better qualifier at this stage), as small strings in AdS(5)(++). These paths may be very small and proportional to the energy of the particle (in our spacetime) e.g. for option 2) or all of the same size, e.g. for 1)). In this model, it is clear that entanglement, and therefore gravity per [1], is responsible for the apparition of the tiny paths in AdS(5)(++): no entanglement or no gravity and no mapping exists to make this happen. If just considering our spacetime, it also shows how superstring can affix themselves to particles while wiggling in AdS{5)(++); if that was how particle in our spacetime get their properties, a claim solely from string theories.

When in AdS(5)(++), superstring Physics applies. Other particles exist (e.g. the super partners) depending on the superstring variant that is considered. They can interact with the tiny paths and do Physics with associated stringy Feynman diagrams. How that might in anyway be then reflected to our reality is anyone’s guess and for future work, as symmetries in our spacetime and conservation rules must be suitably handled. At least this way, it may not matter that magnetic monopoles do not exist; they can just exist in AdS(5)(++). The handling of proton decay depends on how the above is handled or if proton stability could be a landscape requirement. Or physics in AdS(5)(++), while tacking place has no effect at all on our spacetime… In fact, even the requirement for symmetry breaking may be relaxed, as in AdS(5)(++), super partners could have the same mass as particles in our spacetime. Or physics in AdS(5)(++), while tacking place, has no effect at all on our spacetime…

Ensuring that symmetries in our spacetime and conservation rules must be suitably handled could be achieved by prescribing that

1. only interactions where super partners or others are virtual string account.
   
   1. They can be modeled as reflected in our spacetime via the mappings (i.e. this way, the Feynman diagram has input and output with spacetime particles and the blob in between reflects the multi-folds and interactions in AdS(5)(++)). As far as we know, none of these have been ever observed so far.

   
   

2. supersymmetry accommodates not having proton decay, e.g. via gravity prevention of proton decay or supersymmetry conservation rules that amount to conservation of baryon and lepton numbers (not just their differences) or other mechanisms. This may include other prescriptions to protect other symmetries; but we do no

Of course, ii) is nontrivial but it would also bring conventional GUTs back in the race[1]. It is possible per [29,30,31]. This way, for superstrings: no proton decay, no magnetic monopoles (they are at best in AdS(5)(++)), no recurrent mass acquisition in our spacetime, and no never observed super partners (they are also in AdS(5)(+)). It is

These could be good criteria for the string landscape. The scheme above may not yet help for GUTs as the other effects including magnetic monopoles can’t be address if we can’t put the super partners outside our spacetime. What could be proposed for that is still unclear at this stage.

4. Conclusions

We believe that [1] makes a compelling case for the consistency of its multi-fold proposal. The present paper shows a duality between multi-fold universe and superstrings with an amazing amount of explanations and insights on what happens and what does not happen in superstrings, as well as what should be worth investigating to go to the next step and either converge superstrings with multi-fold universes or bring superstrings to the next level. It also helps programs like the AdS/CFT correspondence conjecture, the ER=EPR conjecture and GR=QM. As often, what are conjecture in superstrings are facts with a twist, or theorems in [1], or often offer some insight on what is meant or happening in superstrings with physical interpretation relating to spacetime. After all, unless spacetime and strings are suitably compartmentalized, as also proposed here, the fact that strings and matter live in different universes may hamper some superstring theories ambitions as ToEs (unless if our latest proposal for super partners resulted into something concrete and may be solves as a result also the issues of predicting proton decay or magnetic monopoles). AdS/CFT correspondence, as a conjecture, today may miss the oomph that [1] provides to close the deal.

Maybe [1] can also help with aspects of the landscape or even the elusive M-theory.

[1] also offers touch points with the superstrings evil twins (depending on those perspective – It is a figure of speech; we do not make judgement of which is what): Loop Quantum Gravity (LQG) and other spacetime construction approaches (e.g. [22]). For example, the reconstruction schemes and entanglement models and mechanisms of [1] are key input.

[1] shows also significant impact on the Standard Model, when we add gravity (especially the short scale massive contributions). It could contribute explanations to several famous open issues.

Despite all the energy out there, it is fair to say that the momentum behind quantum gravity, GUTs and ToEs, and that includes superstrings, has again waned. At least, it appears so from the outside.

We certainly would invite some opportunities to put it all together, as this paper started to do by positioning what [1] and its multi-folds mechanisms can offer to superstring, M-theory as quantum gravity in general. In fact [1], with its massive gravity contributions at small scale seems to offer a new alternative for a Unification of all the interactions by democratizing the effects of all interactions, at very small scales, instead of uber symmetry approaches à la Electroweak that first combined it with the strong interaction into GUTs [28]; something that has run into some significant snags.

Although quite different approaches, all the models depicts facettes of the required framework. Hopefully, this paper and [1] helped, and maybe these approaches can progress more collaboratively together?

---

[1] With for examples supersymmetry only for virtual particles (and no proton decay). Feasibility and implications have not been evaluated. It is just an idea.

____

Cite as: Stephane H Maes, (2020), “Dualities or Analogies between Superstrings and Multi-fold Universe”, viXra:2006.0178v1, shmaesphysics.wordpress.com/20…, June 14, 2020.

____

References: (most references come from popular science to make the discussion more approachable)

[1]: Stephane H. Maes, (2020) “Quantum Gravity Emergence from Entanglement in a Multi-Fold Universe”, viXra:2006.0088v1, (June 9, 2020).

[2]: G. ‘t Hooft, (1990), “The Black Hole Interpretation of String Theory”, Nuclear Physics B335 (1990) 138-154

[3]: Zwiebach, Barton (2003). “A First Course in String Theory”. Cambridge University Press.

[4]: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_…

[5]: Stephane H Maes, (2020), “Gravity Induced Anomalies Smearing in Standard Model so that Protons May Never Decay, Except in Black Holes “, viXra:2006.0128v1, shmaesphysics.wordpress.com/20…, June 14, 2020.

[6]: Claudia de Rham, (2014), “Massive Gravity”, arXiv:1401.4173v2

[7]: Claudia de Rham, Gregory Gabadadze, Andrew J. Tolley, (2010), “Resummation of Massive Gravity”, arXiv:1011.1232v2

[8]: ChunJun Cao, Sean M. Carroll, Spyridon Michalakis, (2016). “Space from Hilbert Space: Recovering Geometry from Bulk Entanglement”, arXiv:1606.08444v3.

[9]: van Raamsdonk, Mark (2010). “Building up spacetime with quantum entanglement”, Gen. Rel. Grav. 42 (14): 2323–2329. arXiv:1005.3035

[10]: Julian Sonner, (2013), “Holographic Schwinger Effect and the Geometry of Entanglement”, arXiv:1307.6850v3

[11]: Leonard Susskind, (2017). “Dear Qubitzers, GR=QM”, arXiv:1708.03040

[12]: Seth Lloyd, (2006), “Programming the Universe”, Alfred A. Knopf

[13]: motls.blogspot.com/2017/08/grq…

[14]: A. Trautman, (1973), “Spin and Torsion May avert Gravitational Singularities”, Nature Physical Science, ol. 142, 7-8.

[15]: Ted Jacobson, (1995), “Thermodynamics of Spacetime: The Einstein Equation of State”, arXiv:gr-qc/9504004v2.

[16]: mpls.ox.ac.uk/news/new-researc…

[17]: Georges Obied, Hirosi Ooguri, Lev Spodyneiko, Cumrun Vafa, (2018), “De Sitter Space and the Swampland”, arXiv:1806.08362v3.

[18]: Georgios Moschidis, (2018), “A proof of the instability of AdS for the Einstein–massless Vlasov system”, arXiv:1812.04268v1.

[19]: Cumrun Vafa, (2005), “The String Landscape and the Swampland”, arXiv:hep-th/0509212v2

[20]: S. Doplicher, K. Fredenhagen and J. E. Roberts, (1994), “Spacetime quantization induced by classical gravity”, Phys. Rev. B 331 (1994) 33.

[21]: Hooft, Gerard ’t, (2016), “How quantization of gravity leads to a discrete space-time”, J. Phys.: Conf. Ser. 701 012014

[22]: Johannes Thueringen, (2015), “Discrete quantum geometries and their effective dimension”, Ph.D. Thesis, Humboldt-Universitaet zu Berlin

[23]: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calabi%E…

[24]: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reissner…

[25]: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerr-New…

[26]: R. Moti, A. Shojai, “Traversability of quantum improved wormhole solution”, arXiv:2006.06190v1

[27]: Ning Bao and Jason Pollack and Grant N. Remmen, (2015), “Wormhole and entanglement (non-)detection in the ER=EPR correspondence”, arXiv:1509.05426.

[28]: Stephane H Maes, (2020), ”Ultimate Unification: Gravity-led Democracy vs. Uber-Symmetries”, shmaesphysics.wordpress.com/20… , June 16, 2020.

[29]: Jogesh C. Pati, (1996), “Baryon Non-Conservation in Unified Theories, in the Light of Supersymmetry and Superstrings”, arXiv:hep-ph/9611371v1

[30]: ncatlab.org/nlab/show/proton+d…

[31]: G. Lazarides, C. Panagiotakopoulos, Q. Shafi, (1993),”Supersymmetric Unification without Proton Decay”, arXiv:hep-ph/9306332v1

[32]: Burinskii, Alexander, (2008), “The Dirac-Kerr-Newman electron”, arXiv:0507109v4

---

[f1]: [1] could have decide to rather use wormholes (or folds) within spacetime (e.g. like ER bridges). All the mechanisms, models and features would remain valid, except that the AdS position (as tangent to spacetime and as in the AdS/CFT correspondence) may be different or more cumbersome to discuss and the analysis presented here may have to evolve a bit: superstring and multi-fold may lose, or have to adapt, some of their relationships detailed here. But, allowing this (in spacetime wormholes instead of outside spacetime) leads to two additional challenges: 1) folds probably would have to follow GR in our spacetime (maybe not but it is harder to argue). As explained in [1] that is a constraint that is limiting, yet not an impossibility. 2) ER bridges in our spacetime may be harder to comprehend when spanning macroscopic distances! Shouldn’t they be observable? (2) is why while equivalent in terms of most of the results, [1] did not decide to pursue that path and just to assume it as a less interesting particular case. Yet a pre-print post publication of [1], shows that traversable wormholes of very small diameters could be envisaged in our spacetime [26]. Without any idea, if they would be detectable or observable or how things would encounter them and interact with them, it is hard to say it if would make sense as “in spacetime” (multi-)folds. But, if they are undetectable and [26] is correct, they could be candidates for a variations of multi-fold universe were multi-folds would be built with such wormholes and paths could traverse them. For now, we do not explore further or support this variation of multi-folds. It may be for future work.

[f2]: With for examples supersymmetry only for virtual particles (and no proton decay). Feasibility and implications have not been evaluated. It is just an idea.

____

I thank my generous supporters on Patreon. [strong]If you like my work, publications, and opinions. please consider joining them. This way, you can support this research work done totally independent from any institution. Use the contact form if you prefer to help by putting together a grant or other type of funding.[/strong]

#AdS #CFTAdSCorrespondenceConjecture #dS #GeneralRelativity #GrandUnificationTheories #Gravity #HilbertEinsteinAction #LQG #magneticMonopole #protonDecay #QuantumGravity #StringLandscape #StringTheory #strings #Superstrings #Swampland #TheoryOfEverything

Contact

Don’t hesitate to reach out with the contact information below, or send a message using the form. Multi-fold Community, where you can submit your own related papers, and be linked here. (Apri…

^{Shmaes - Physics}

Multi-Fold Dark Matter Effects and Early Supermassive Black Holes

Stephane H. Maes

October 15, 2020

Abstract:

In a multi-fold universe, gravity emerges from entanglement through the multi-fold mechanisms. As a result, gravity-like effects appear in-between entangled particles or regions. No New Physics is introduced in terms of new particles beyond the Standard Model or modifying long range gravity: only the modeling of gravity as emerging from entanglement, in a multi-fold universe.

The discovery of early supermassive black holes raises questions of how they could have formed 13 billion years ago. In this paper, we propose a way that can contribute to an explanation in multi-fold universes, with multi-fold dark matter effects due to entanglement.

____

1. Introduction

The new preprint [1] proposes contributions to several open problems in physics like the reconciliation of General Relativity (GR) with Quantum Physics, explaining the origin of gravity proposed as emerging from quantum (EPR – Einstein Podolsky Rosen) entanglement between particles, detailing contributions to dark matter and dark energy and explaining other Standard Model mysteries without requiring New Physics beyond the Standard Model other than the addition of gravity to the Standard Model Lagrangian. All this is achieved in a multi-fold universe that may well model our real universe, which remains to be validated.

With the proposed model of [1], spacetime and Physics are modeled from Planck scales to quantum and macroscopic scales and semi classical approaches appear valid till very small scales. In [1], it is argued that spacetime is discrete, with a random walk-based fractal structure, fractional and noncommutative at, and above, Planck scales (with a 2-D behavior and Lorentz invariance preserved by random walks till the early moments of the universe). Spacetime results from past random walks of particles. Spacetime locations and particles can be modeled as microscopic blackholes (Schwarzschild for photons and spacetime coordinates, and metrics between Reisner Nordstrom [2] and Kerr Newman [3] for massive and possibly charged particles – the latter being possibly extremal). Although surprising, [1] recovers results consistent with other like [4], while also being able to justify the initial assumptions of black holes from the gravity or entanglement model. The resulting gravity model recovers General Relativity at larger scale, as a 4-D process, with massless gravity, but also with massive gravity components at very small scale that make gravity significant at these scales. Semi-classical models also work well till way smaller scales than usually expected.

[1,5] derived an explanation for Dark matter in a multi-fold universe, without requiring New Physics.

In this paper, we remain at a high level of discussion of the analysis and references are generic for the subjects. It makes the points accessible to a wider audience and keeps the door open to further papers or discussions devoted to details of interest. Yet, it requires the reader to review [1], as we do not revisit here all the details of the multi-fold mechanism or reconstruction of spacetime. More targeted references for all the material discussed here are compiled in [1].

2. Multi-Fold Explanation to Dark Matter

[1,5] recovers automatically dark matter with its model of attractive effective potential appearing between physical (real) entangled systems [6], at the difference of virtual ones that already account for gravity.

Accordingly emitted massless (or quasi massless, i.e. neutrinos) particles are entangled in pairs or with their source or intermediate systems. This account for extra gravity like attraction towards the center and / or halos around galaxies. It is illustrated in figure 1 (from [5]).

Figure 1: It illustrates how the different entanglements cases, discussed in the text, appear as dark matter with attraction towards the galaxy center and mass in the center or in halos. Green circles represent center of masses. (Reused from [5]).

[5] (see its figure 2) explains that it can also account for globular galaxies where no significant dark matter is detected.

[7,8] provided additional analyses of astronomical observations that challenged conventional dark matter theories. It shows that we can account for all the reported behaviors.

3. Early supermassive blackholes

[9,10] details the discovery of 83 supermassive blackholes 13 billions year old. It is unclear how they did form so early in the universe (i.e. within less than a billion year).

Following the discovery of early galaxies feeding such an early supermassive black hole [11], the author proposed that this is how such black hole grew. They would have formed within huge halos of dark matter that create both black holes and feeding galaxies.

[11] does not explain the source of the estimated M_{DM halo}∼10¹²⁻¹³ M_Ꙩ , that they believe was needed to form the black hole and its feeding galaxies; citing only expected early bias creating the necessary clumps of dark matter. References in [11], including [12], propose an hierarchical model: smaller black matter hallo meet and grow into larger structures but do not explain further. In fact results as in [12] only model younger systems.

4. Multi-fold dark matter effects Can seed as needed

We do not have ambition to detail here anything new, and useful, in terms of the genesis of blackholes, or galaxies. However, we want to present a motivation on why and how large dark matter clumps can occur early on. That’s it.

In an early multi-fold universe, one can expect lots of entanglement, analogous to initial dark matter halos, across an early region. It would be due to the random walks described in the spacetime reconstruction phase of [1]. Indeed, then, mostly new spacetime locations are created and entanglements exist for a while across spacetime locations, across region created or concretized by same or entangled particles. The effect is stronger than at later ages. As a result, it is possible to account for strong attractive effect analogous to dark matter. They can then account for the equivalent conventional dark matter mass involved.

5. Conclusions

We extended the use cases supported by the multi-fold dark matter models proposed in [1,5,7,8] to include support for formation of large dark matter halos and structure in an early multi-fold universe. Entanglement in early multi-fold universes can be strong among particles, spacetime points and spacetime point and their concretizing particles.

While this is by no means a validation of the multi-fold universe proposal, we consider that it is another supporting and corroborative hint that should encourage the community to seriously consider our proposed mechanisms and investigate seriously the proposal of attractive gravity-like effect between entangled systems [1,6].

____

Cite as: Stephane H Maes, (2020), ”Multi-Fold Dark Matter Effects and Early Supermassive Black Holes”, viXra:2105.0041v1, shmaesphysics.wordpress.com/20…, October 15, 2020.

____

References: (most references come from popular science to make the discussion more approachable)

[1]: Stephane H. Maes, (2020) “Quantum Gravity Emergence from Entanglement in a Multi-Fold Universe”, viXra:2006.0088v1, (June 9, 2020).

[2]: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reissner…

[3]: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerr-New…

[4]: Burinskii, Alexander, (2008), “The Dirac-Kerr-Newman electron”, arXiv:0507109v4

[5]: Stephane H Maes, (2020), ”Explaining Dark Matter Without New Physics?”, viXra:2007.0006v1, vixra.org/pdf/2007.0006v1.pdf or https://shmaesphysics.wordpress.com/2020/06/19/explaining-dark-energy-small-cosmological-constant-and-inflation-without-new-physics/, June 21, 2020.

[6]: Stephane H Maes, (2020), “Gravity-like Attractions and Fluctuations between Entangled Systems?”, shmaesphysics.wordpress.com/20…, June 24, 2020.

[7]: Stephane H Maes, (2020), “Multi-Fold Universe Dark Matter Successful Explanation and the “Too Thin Universe” but “Too Strong Gravity Lensing by Galaxy Clusters””, shmaesphysics.wordpress.com/20…, September 14, 2020.

[8]: Stephane H Maes, (2020), ”Multi-Fold Universe Dark Matter Effects Survive Low-Mass Galaxies with Dark Matter Deficits and Excesses”, shmaesphysics.wordpress.com/20…, October 14, 2020.

[9]: Jack Ryan, (2019), “Astronomers discover 83 supermassive black holes at the edge of the universe”, cnet.com/news/astronomers-disc…. Retrieved on October 1, 2020.

[10]: Yoshiki Matsuoka, et al., (2019), “Discovery of the First Low-Luminosity Quasar at z > 7”, arXiv:1901.10487v1

[11]: Marco Mignoli, Roberto Gilli, Roberto Decarli, Eros Vanzella, Barbara Balmaverde, Nico Cappelluti, Letizia P. Cassarà, Andrea Comastri, Felice Cusano, Kazushi Iwasawa, Stefano Marchesi, Isabella Prandoni, Cristian Vignali, Fabio Vito, Giovanni Zamorani, Marco Chiaberge, Colin Norman, (2020), “The web of the Giant: spectroscopic confirmation of a Large Scale Structure around the z=6.31 quasar SDSS J1030+0524”, arXiv:2009.00024v2

[12]: Debora Sijacki, Volker Springel, Martin G. Haehnelt, (2009), “Growing the first bright quasars in cosmological simulations of structure formation”, arXiv:0905.1689v2

I thank my generous supporters on Patreon. If you like my work, publications, and opinions, please consider joining them. This way, you can support this research work done totally independent from any institution. Use the contact form if you prefer to help by putting together a grant or other type of funding.

#bigBang #BlackHoles #DarkMatter #DarkMatterHalos #EarlyUniverse #Entanglement #GeneralRelativity #Gravity #multiFoldDarkMatterEffects #MultiFoldUniverse #QuantumGravity #SupermassiveBlackHoles #z7Redshift

Shmaes - Physics

2020-06-21 09:21:03

Explaining Dark Matter Without New Physics?

Stephane H. Maes

June 21, 2020

Abstract:

In a multi-fold universe, gravity emerges from entanglement through the multi-fold mechanisms. As a result, gravity-like effects appear in between entangled particles or regions. When applied to astrophysics, these effects are analogous to additional matter within or around galaxies. This way, we recover behaviors that match expected and observed dark matter effects, when present or missing. No New Physics is introduced in terms of new particles beyond the Standard Model or modifying long range gravity: only the modeling of gravity as emerging from entanglement in a multi-fold universe.

____

1. Introduction

The new preprint [1] proposes contributions to several open problems in physics like the reconciliation of General Relativity (GR) with Quantum Physics, explaining the origin of gravity proposed as emerging from quantum (EPR – Einstein Podolsky Rosen) entanglement between particles, detailing contributions to dark matter and dark energy and explaining other Standard Model mysteries without requiring New Physics beyond the Standard Model other than the addition of gravity to the Standard Model Lagrangian. All this is achieved in a multi-fold universe that may well model our real universe, which remains to be validated.

With the proposed model of [1], spacetime and Physics are modeled from Planck scales to quantum and macroscopic scales and semi classical approaches appear valid till very small scales. In [1], it is argued that spacetime is discrete, with a random walk-based fractal structure, fractional and noncommutative at, and above, Planck scales (with a 2-D behavior and Lorentz invariance preserved by random walks till the early moments of the universe). Spacetime results from past random walks of particles. Spacetime locations and particles can be modeled as microscopic blackholes (Schwarzschild for photons and spacetime coordinates, and metrics between Reisner Nordstrom [2] and Kerr Newman [3] for massive and possibly charged particles – the latter being possibly extremal). Although surprising, [1] recovers results consistent with other like [4], while also being able to justify the initial assumptions of black holes from the gravity or entanglement model. The resulting gravity model recovers General Relativity at larger scale, as a 4-D process, with massless gravity, but also with massive gravity components at very small scale that make gravity significant at these scales. Semi-classical models also work well till way smaller scales than usually expected.

In this paper, we remain at a high level of discussion of the analysis and references are generic for the subjects. It makes the points accessible to a wider audience and keeps the door open to further papers or discussions devoted to details of interest. Yet, it requires the reader to review [1], as we do not revisit here all the details of the multi-fold mechanism or reconstruction of spacetime. More targeted references for all the material discussed here are compiled in [1].

2. Attractive Potential Between Entangled particles

The key proposal in [1] is a mechanism of multi-folds designed to address the EPR paradox. It is shown that, with such a mechanism, (EPR) entanglement creates an attractive potential between entangled particles that behaves like gravity.

When involving virtual particles emitted around a source of energy, we recover GR equations (and the Hilbert Einstein action) at classical (and semi-classical scales). At very small scales, there are additional contributions of massive virtual particles that generate additional contributions.

Entanglements between particles create additional contributions expected to behave like additional gravity contributions or fluctuations that we expect to see for example near macroscopically entangled material like superconductors [10].

The effective potentials can be seen as in

(or in

when it can be integrated over a region (uncertainty region or bundle of entangled particles. For Gravity, the integration goes over [r,infinity), for all the previous sent virtual pairs), where r is the distance between particle and center of mass or source).

The effects due to entanglement are very small in general at macroscopic scales; yet, just like for gravity, they add up when considering the combined effect across a galaxy.

3. The Dark matter problem

It has been extensively shown that dark matter, i.e. matter that has mass or energy and interacts with other matter only (or mostly) through gravity (at least long range), is required to explain behavior of the universe, in particular the rotational velocities of most galaxies [5,6]. Without dark matter, they would disintegrate, considering the amount of normal matter observed or modeled. Dark matter is expected to constitute 85% of the total matter in the universe. Many models confirm its existence with good consistency across the methods used to estimate or validate its effects.

Today, however, Physics cannot account for, or explain, the origin of dark matter. Proposed tentative solutions (to explain or avoid dark matter) range from changes to gravity with for examples modifications of the long-range behavior of (newton) gravity (e.g. MOND), large scale massive gravity versions of GR, additional long range bulk spacetime entanglement effects[fn1] in (entropic) gravity models, or proposing actual candidates for dark matter like black holes or particles most of the time new and associated to New Physics (see [5] for an overview).

Dark energy is another mysterious content of our universe [6,7]. [8] shows how the multi-fold mechanisms proposed in [1] can contribute to an explanation of the dark energy.

4. EPR Entanglement in Multi-fold Universe: A Source for Dark Matter

In [1], entangled EPR pairs create attractive gravity like potential in between them towards the center of mass of these particles (and variations for multi-partite, nonhierarchical, entanglement).

Virtual pairs emitted by energy or matter contribute to gravity with the model of [1]. Any other entanglement between particles, especially real particle entanglement, is not counted in conventional gravity. These entanglements appear as additional gravity contributions.

Entanglement can be, as shown in figure 1:

• (1) Between particles emitted by stellar or other objects and these objects.
• (2) Between pairs of entangled particles moving in opposite directions.
• (3) Between surrounding matter or particles entangled with the above.

Figure 1: It illustrates how the different entanglements cases, discussed in the text, appear as dark matter with attraction towards the galaxy center and mass in the center or in halos. Green circles represent center of masses.

In all cases, the sources or centers of mass are located within the galaxy (especially in the center) and in surrounding halos. It matches the models for dark matter. The effect is a combination of cold and hot dark matter, but it always appear as cold matter. The dominant contributing particles involved in entanglement are photons and neutrinos. Of course, other cosmic radiations also contribute.

It is also well known that dark matter present some challenges for conventional explanations based on modified gravity or on particles because there are cases of galaxies where no or very little dark matter is inferred (See [9] for an example – more references can be found in [1]). It is hard to explain gravity laws or particles that would be sometimes be modified or sometimes be there; but not always.

It is not a problem with the multi-folds mechanism of [1].

Figure 2: In globular cases, with enough matter surrounding, entanglement may be destroyed before it has the desired effects, therefore giving the impression of missing dark matter.

In the model of [1], if matter is distributed (e.g. Globular galaxy – see Figure 2) in a way that intercept most particles early and disentangle them on their way out of a galaxy region, the effect weakens or disappears… It matches the few galaxy examples that miss dark matter.

Tthis model and explanation is therefore able to account for dark matter, at least partially (till quantitatively estimated), and that is qualitatively consistent with observations; including when dark matter would be observed as missing.

The arguments in [1] are only qualitative, not yet quantitative. More work is needed to see if quantitative estimates make sense and may suffice to explain dark energy. Of course, other effects can also play along.

Also, this analysis is for a Multi-fold universe as in [1]. [1] details arguments and ways to check its relationship with the real universe. Besides properties that can be experimentally verified (in the future because of the macroscopic weakness of gravity and gravity like effects for entangled systems), [1] shows how the multi-fold mechanisms and behaviors are in many aspects in today’s conventional physics, that, at times, anticipates the behaviors modeled of a multi-fold universe. In addition, [1] explains many results obtained in gravity, quantum mechanics, General Relativity, superstring theory, Loop Quantum Gravity and the AdS/CFT correspondence conjecture. All these works attempt to come up with models for the real universe. It is at least a good sign that [1] may provide an interesting model of the real universe.

Our proposal has no equivalent or variations for a non multi-fold universe: the source of dark matter effects come directly from the multi-folds mechanism as proposed in [1] and the resulting attraction towards the source or center of mass as a result of entanglement. Even other models, that link entanglement and gravity, may not help as the multi-fold universe do, as none have clearly identified such a gravity-like attraction as a result of entanglement. Any model where gravity appears between entangled particles could support the proposal from this paper.

5. Conclusions

We believe that [1] makes a compelling case for the consistency of its multi-fold proposal. The present paper shows how the mechanisms of multi-fold universes can help address the challenges with dark matter as well as the situation where it is believed to be missing.

Combined with [8], it is remarkable that the mechanism of [1] can contribute to effects like inflation, small cosmological constant and dark energy and now dark matter; that it be present or missing.

While steps in the right direction in terms of validating [1], future work should aim at providing quantitative estimates to further determine viability of the proposal or completeness of the explanation, versus just contributing to what happens, which would already be satisfying.

The proposed explanation of dark matter is also an attractive validation candidate for the proposal that entanglement generates gravity like contributions [1,10].

____

Cite as: Stephane H Maes, (2020), ”Explaining Dark Matter Without New Physics?”, viXra:2007.0006, or shmaesphysics.wordpress.com/20…, June 21, 2020.

Note: The web version (here) is tracked at shmaesphysics.wordpress.com/20…. A mistake in many references instead provided the URL to the dark energy paper. It is regrettable and will be corrected in the future for all upcoming papers and revisions.

____

References: (most references come from popular science to make the discussion more approachable)

[1]: Stephane H. Maes, (2020) “Quantum Gravity Emergence from Entanglement in a Multi-Fold Universe”, viXra:2006.0088v1, (June 9, 2020).

[2]: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reissner…

[3]: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerr-New…

[4]: Burinskii, Alexander, (2008), “The Dirac-Kerr-Newman electron”, arXiv:0507109v4

[5]: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_mat…

[6]: B. Clegg (2019), “Dark Matter and Dark Energy: The Hidden 95% of the Universe”, Icon Books Ltd

[7]: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_ene…

[8]: Stephane H Maes, (2020), ”Explaining Dark Energy, Small Cosmological Constant and Inflation Without New Physics?”, shmaesphysics.wordpress.com/20…, June 19, 2020.

[9]: Shany Danieli, Pieter van Dokkum, Charlie Conroy, Roberto Abraham, and Aaron J. Romanowsky, (2019), “Still Missing Dark Matter: KCWI High-resolution Stellar Kinematics of NGC1052-DF2”, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, Volume 874, Number 2

[10]: Stephane H Maes, (2020), “Entanglement Concretizes Time in a Multi-fold Universe”, shmaesphysics.wordpress.com/20…, June 28, 2020.

[11]: Erik P. Verlinde (2010), “On the Origin of Gravity and the Laws of Newton”, arXiv:1001.0785

[12]: Erik Verlinde, (2016), “Emergent Gravity and the Dark Universe”, arXiv:1611.02269v2

---

[fn1]: These notions, as proposed in [11,12], are fundamentally different effects from what is proposed in [1]. [1] considers effects between particles. Entropic bulk entanglement are postulated as statistical effects between spacetime regions. Of course, [1] may be an enabler or an explanation for such effect; or not. It does not really matter within the scope of this paper.

____

September 15 2020: Check [Stephane H Maes, (2020), “Multi-Fold Universe Dark Matter Successful Explanation and the “Too Thin Universe” but “Too Strong Gravity Lensing by Galaxy Clusters””, shmaesphysics.wordpress.com/20…, September 14, 2020.] for more recent obeservation explained with our approach (and problematic for conventional approaches).

____

I thank my generous supporters on Patreon. [strong]If you like my work, publications, and opinions, please consider joining them. This way, you can support this research work done totally independent from any institution. Use the contact form if you prefer to help by putting together a grant or other type of funding.[/strong]

#Astrophysics #DarkMatter #Entanglement #GeneralRelativity #Gravity #MultiFoldUniverse #QuantumGravity #StandardModel

Contact

Don’t hesitate to reach out with the contact information below, or send a message using the form. Multi-fold Community, where you can submit your own related papers, and be linked here. (Apri…

^{Shmaes - Physics}

Multi-Fold Universe Dark Matter Effects Survive Low-Mass Galaxies with Dark Matter Deficits and Excesses

Stephane H. Maes

October 14, 2020

Abstract:

In a multi-fold universe, gravity emerges from entanglement through the multi-fold mechanisms. As a result, gravity-like effects appear in-between entangled particles or regions. No New Physics is introduced in terms of new particles beyond the Standard Model or modifying long range gravity: only the modeling of gravity as emerging from entanglement, in a multi-fold universe.

The observations of the existence of low mass galaxies, with excess of dark matter, in some cases, and with deficits in dark matters in others, were presented as proof that dark matter exists as cold dark matter. This paper shows that multi-fold dark matter effects of entanglement can explain the observations and are not in any ways weakened. Of course, it is to be added with the other examples, where our models explain dark matter, and galaxy behaviors, better than conventional explanations, and without requiring New Physics.

____

1. Introduction

The new preprint [1] proposes contributions to several open problems in physics like the reconciliation of General Relativity (GR) with Quantum Physics, explaining the origin of gravity proposed as emerging from quantum (EPR – Einstein Podolsky Rosen) entanglement between particles, detailing contributions to dark matter and dark energy and explaining other Standard Model mysteries without requiring New Physics beyond the Standard Model, other than the addition of gravity to the Standard Model Lagrangian. All this is achieved in a multi-fold universe that may well model our real universe; which remains to be validated.

With the proposed model of [1], spacetime and Physics are modeled from Planck scales to quantum and macroscopic scales and semi classical approaches appear valid till very small scales. In [1], it is argued that spacetime is discrete, with a random walk-based fractal structure, fractional and noncommutative at, and above, Planck scales (with a 2-D behavior and Lorentz invariance preserved by random walks till the early moments of the universe). Spacetime (concretized) results from past random walks of particles. Spacetime locations and particles can be modeled as microscopic blackholes (Schwarzschild for photons and spacetime coordinates, and metrics between Reisner Nordstrom [2] and Kerr Newman [3] for massive and possibly charged particles – the latter being possibly extremal). Although surprising, [1] recovers results consistent with other like [4], while also being able to justify the initial assumptions of black holes from the gravity or entanglement model. The resulting gravity model recovers General Relativity at larger scale, as a 4-D process, with massless gravity, but also with massive gravity components at very small scale that make gravity significant at these scales. Semi-classical models also work well till way smaller scales than usually expected.

[1,5] derived an explanation for Dark matter in a multi-fold universe, without requiring New Physics.

In this paper, we remain at a high level of discussion of the analysis and references are generic for the subjects. It makes the points accessible to a wider audience and keeps the door open to further papers or discussions devoted to details of interest. Yet, it requires the reader to review [1], as we do not revisit here all the details of the multi-fold mechanism or reconstruction of spacetime. More targeted references for all the material discussed here are compiled in [1].

2. Multi-Fold Explanation to Dark Matter

[1,5] recovers automatically dark matter with its model of attractive effective potential appearing between physical (real) entangled systems [6], at the difference of virtual ones that already account for gravity.

Accordingly emitted massless (or quasi massless, i.e. neutrinos) particles are entangled in pairs or with their source or intermediate systems. This account for extra gravity like attraction towards the center and / or halos around galaxies. It is illustrated in figure 1 (from [5]).

Figure 1: It illustrates how the different entanglements cases, discussed in the text, appear as dark matter with attraction towards the galaxy center and mass in the center or in halos. Green circles represent center of masses. (Reused from [5]).

[5] (see its figure 2) explains that it can also account for globular galaxies where no significant dark matter is detected.

[7] provided additional analyses of astronomical observations that challenged conventional dark matter theories. It shows that we can account for all the reported behaviors.

3. Low-Mass Galaxies with Deficits or Excess of Dark Matter

In 2019, low-mass galaxies have been observed with respectively:

• Excess of dark matter with respect to the typical 5 to 1 ratio [8,9,10,12]
• Deficit of dark matter [11,12]

[12], a popular science article, provides a perfect summary of the discoveries and the associated problem. Low masses are assumed to result from interactions with other galaxies that resulted into expelling, i.e. losing, a large number of stars and gas or being expelled and later recombined into a diffuse galaxy. If dark matter were cold matter, then we can expect that they remain with the main galaxy from where stars were expelled (because rather living in halos around the galaxies the matter would not have been influenced and expelled the same way). At best, a smaller amount would have been expelled. On the other hand, the expelled stars that then recombined into a diffuse galaxy would not have come along with much dark matter.

As a result, the observation of the two types of galaxies (with excess and deficit of inferred dark matter) is presented by many, including [12] as proof that dark matter exists and is in the form of cold dark matter.

Never mind the fact that the envisages scenarios could also have resulted into purer dark matter galaxies as expelled galaxies (recombining dark matter). These are not really observable, or tracked, today unless through gravitational lensing and other universe mass density estimates. They may in fact be part of some of the conventional explanations that could be advanced for the effects discussed in [7].

4. Not only cold dark matter in multi-fold universes

Figure 2: It shows the excess of entanglement per normal matter on the left side and the deficit on the right side for expelled matter recombined into a galaxy. The entanglement effects create the dark matter effects analogous to conventional cold matter.

Following [5], we see that expelled matter will at best generate its own entanglement and not benefit of the rest of the original galaxy effects and history (all the particles out there still with systems in the galaxy or still attracting towards the galaxy center.

So expelled matter will have (at least for a while) only little entanglement effects and hence weaker than expected multi-fold dark matter effects.

On the other hand, the “mother galaxy” will continue to have all these (historical) entangled particles (particles to particles and particles to galaxy systems) attracting towards it, despite having possibly way less matter. Therefore they will present stronger multi-fold dark matter effects.

It is illustrated in Figure 2.

Figure 2: Show the excess of entanglement per normal matter on the left side and the deficit on the right side for expelled matter recombined into a galaxy. The entanglement effects create the dark matter effects analogous to conventional cold matter.

As multi-fold dark matter effects are what the conventional papers call dark matter, the multi-fold dark matter is as suited, and validated, by the observations and explanations of section 3, as cold dark matter.

5. Conclusions

We extended the use cases supported by the multi-fold dark matter models proposed in [1,5,7]. These allowed us to explain, and survive, the new observations that suggest that the observation of low mass galaxies with respectively excess or deficits of dark matter. Entanglement in multi-fold universes work as well.

The model survived the apparently challenge as well as the dominant explanation based on cold matter, that is touted out there . While this is by no means a validation of the multi-fold universe proposal, we consider that it is another supporting and corroborative hint that should encourage the community to seriously consider our proposed mechanisms, and investigate seriously the proposal of attractive gravity-like effect between entangled systems [1,6].

____

Cite as: Stephane H Maes, (2020), ”Multi-Fold Universe Dark Matter Effects Survive Low-Mass Galaxies with Dark Matter Deficits and Excesses”, viXra:2105.0042v1, shmaesphysics.wordpress.com/20…, October 14, 2020.

____

References: (most references come from popular science to make the discussion more approachable)

[1]: Stephane H. Maes, (2020) “Quantum Gravity Emergence from Entanglement in a Multi-Fold Universe”, viXra:2006.0088v1, (June 9, 2020).

[2]: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reissner…

[3]: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerr-New…

[4]: Burinskii, Alexander, (2008), “The Dirac-Kerr-Newman electron”, arXiv:0507109v4

[5]: Stephane H Maes, (2020), ”Explaining Dark Matter Without New Physics?”, viXra:2007.0006v1, vixra.org/pdf/2007.0006v1.pdf or https://shmaesphysics.wordpress.com/2020/06/19/explaining-dark-energy-small-cosmological-constant-and-inflation-without-new-physics/, June 21, 2020.

[6]: Stephane H Maes, (2020), “Gravity-like Attractions and Fluctuations between Entangled Systems?”, shmaesphysics.wordpress.com/20…, June 24, 2020.

[7]: Stephane H Maes, (2020), “Multi-Fold Universe Dark Matter Successful Explanation and the “Too Thin Universe” but “Too Strong Gravity Lensing by Galaxy Clusters””, shmaesphysics.wordpress.com/20…, September 14, 2020.

[8]: Pieter van Dokkum, Asher Wasserman, Shany Danieli, Roberto Abraham, Jean Brodie, Charlie Conroy, Duncan A. Forbes, Christopher Martin, Matt Matuszewski, Aaron J. Romanowsky, Alexa Villaume, (2019), “Spatially-resolved stellar kinematics of the ultra diffuse galaxy Dragonfly 44. I. Observations, kinematics, and cold dark matter halo fits”, arXiv:1904.04838v2

[9]: Wikipedia, “Segue 1”, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Segue_1. Retrieved on October 14, 2020

[10]: Wikipedia, “Segue 3”, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Segue_3. Retrieved on October 14, 2020

[11]: Shany Danieli, Pieter van Dokkum, Charlie Conroy, Roberto Abraham, Aaron J. Romanowsky, (2019), “Still Missing Dark Matter: KCWI High-Resolution Stellar Kinematics of NGC1052-DF2”, arXiv:1901.03711v2

[12]: Ethan Siegel at al., (2020), “These Two Galaxies Can’t Both Exist Without Dark Matter”, forbes.com/sites/startswithaba…. Retrieved on October 13, 2020

I thank my generous supporters on Patreon. If you like my work, publications, and opinions, please consider joining them. This way, you can support this research work done totally independent from any institution. Use the contact form if you prefer to help by putting together a grant or other type of funding.

#coldDarkMatter #DarkMatter #Entanglement #GalaxiesWithDeficitOfDarkMatter #galaxiesWithExcessOfDarkMatter #Gravity #multiFoldDarkMatterEffects #MultiFoldUniverse #QuantumGravity #StandardCosmologicalModel #StandardModel

Shmaes - Physics

2020-06-21 09:21:03

Explaining Dark Matter Without New Physics?

Stephane H. Maes

June 21, 2020

Abstract:

In a multi-fold universe, gravity emerges from entanglement through the multi-fold mechanisms. As a result, gravity-like effects appear in between entangled particles or regions. When applied to astrophysics, these effects are analogous to additional matter within or around galaxies. This way, we recover behaviors that match expected and observed dark matter effects, when present or missing. No New Physics is introduced in terms of new particles beyond the Standard Model or modifying long range gravity: only the modeling of gravity as emerging from entanglement in a multi-fold universe.

____

1. Introduction

The new preprint [1] proposes contributions to several open problems in physics like the reconciliation of General Relativity (GR) with Quantum Physics, explaining the origin of gravity proposed as emerging from quantum (EPR – Einstein Podolsky Rosen) entanglement between particles, detailing contributions to dark matter and dark energy and explaining other Standard Model mysteries without requiring New Physics beyond the Standard Model other than the addition of gravity to the Standard Model Lagrangian. All this is achieved in a multi-fold universe that may well model our real universe, which remains to be validated.

With the proposed model of [1], spacetime and Physics are modeled from Planck scales to quantum and macroscopic scales and semi classical approaches appear valid till very small scales. In [1], it is argued that spacetime is discrete, with a random walk-based fractal structure, fractional and noncommutative at, and above, Planck scales (with a 2-D behavior and Lorentz invariance preserved by random walks till the early moments of the universe). Spacetime results from past random walks of particles. Spacetime locations and particles can be modeled as microscopic blackholes (Schwarzschild for photons and spacetime coordinates, and metrics between Reisner Nordstrom [2] and Kerr Newman [3] for massive and possibly charged particles – the latter being possibly extremal). Although surprising, [1] recovers results consistent with other like [4], while also being able to justify the initial assumptions of black holes from the gravity or entanglement model. The resulting gravity model recovers General Relativity at larger scale, as a 4-D process, with massless gravity, but also with massive gravity components at very small scale that make gravity significant at these scales. Semi-classical models also work well till way smaller scales than usually expected.

In this paper, we remain at a high level of discussion of the analysis and references are generic for the subjects. It makes the points accessible to a wider audience and keeps the door open to further papers or discussions devoted to details of interest. Yet, it requires the reader to review [1], as we do not revisit here all the details of the multi-fold mechanism or reconstruction of spacetime. More targeted references for all the material discussed here are compiled in [1].

2. Attractive Potential Between Entangled particles

The key proposal in [1] is a mechanism of multi-folds designed to address the EPR paradox. It is shown that, with such a mechanism, (EPR) entanglement creates an attractive potential between entangled particles that behaves like gravity.

When involving virtual particles emitted around a source of energy, we recover GR equations (and the Hilbert Einstein action) at classical (and semi-classical scales). At very small scales, there are additional contributions of massive virtual particles that generate additional contributions.

Entanglements between particles create additional contributions expected to behave like additional gravity contributions or fluctuations that we expect to see for example near macroscopically entangled material like superconductors [10].

The effective potentials can be seen as in

(or in

when it can be integrated over a region (uncertainty region or bundle of entangled particles. For Gravity, the integration goes over [r,infinity), for all the previous sent virtual pairs), where r is the distance between particle and center of mass or source).

The effects due to entanglement are very small in general at macroscopic scales; yet, just like for gravity, they add up when considering the combined effect across a galaxy.

3. The Dark matter problem

It has been extensively shown that dark matter, i.e. matter that has mass or energy and interacts with other matter only (or mostly) through gravity (at least long range), is required to explain behavior of the universe, in particular the rotational velocities of most galaxies [5,6]. Without dark matter, they would disintegrate, considering the amount of normal matter observed or modeled. Dark matter is expected to constitute 85% of the total matter in the universe. Many models confirm its existence with good consistency across the methods used to estimate or validate its effects.

Today, however, Physics cannot account for, or explain, the origin of dark matter. Proposed tentative solutions (to explain or avoid dark matter) range from changes to gravity with for examples modifications of the long-range behavior of (newton) gravity (e.g. MOND), large scale massive gravity versions of GR, additional long range bulk spacetime entanglement effects[fn1] in (entropic) gravity models, or proposing actual candidates for dark matter like black holes or particles most of the time new and associated to New Physics (see [5] for an overview).

Dark energy is another mysterious content of our universe [6,7]. [8] shows how the multi-fold mechanisms proposed in [1] can contribute to an explanation of the dark energy.

4. EPR Entanglement in Multi-fold Universe: A Source for Dark Matter

In [1], entangled EPR pairs create attractive gravity like potential in between them towards the center of mass of these particles (and variations for multi-partite, nonhierarchical, entanglement).

Virtual pairs emitted by energy or matter contribute to gravity with the model of [1]. Any other entanglement between particles, especially real particle entanglement, is not counted in conventional gravity. These entanglements appear as additional gravity contributions.

Entanglement can be, as shown in figure 1:

• (1) Between particles emitted by stellar or other objects and these objects.
• (2) Between pairs of entangled particles moving in opposite directions.
• (3) Between surrounding matter or particles entangled with the above.

Figure 1: It illustrates how the different entanglements cases, discussed in the text, appear as dark matter with attraction towards the galaxy center and mass in the center or in halos. Green circles represent center of masses.

In all cases, the sources or centers of mass are located within the galaxy (especially in the center) and in surrounding halos. It matches the models for dark matter. The effect is a combination of cold and hot dark matter, but it always appear as cold matter. The dominant contributing particles involved in entanglement are photons and neutrinos. Of course, other cosmic radiations also contribute.

It is also well known that dark matter present some challenges for conventional explanations based on modified gravity or on particles because there are cases of galaxies where no or very little dark matter is inferred (See [9] for an example – more references can be found in [1]). It is hard to explain gravity laws or particles that would be sometimes be modified or sometimes be there; but not always.

It is not a problem with the multi-folds mechanism of [1].

Figure 2: In globular cases, with enough matter surrounding, entanglement may be destroyed before it has the desired effects, therefore giving the impression of missing dark matter.

In the model of [1], if matter is distributed (e.g. Globular galaxy – see Figure 2) in a way that intercept most particles early and disentangle them on their way out of a galaxy region, the effect weakens or disappears… It matches the few galaxy examples that miss dark matter.

Tthis model and explanation is therefore able to account for dark matter, at least partially (till quantitatively estimated), and that is qualitatively consistent with observations; including when dark matter would be observed as missing.

The arguments in [1] are only qualitative, not yet quantitative. More work is needed to see if quantitative estimates make sense and may suffice to explain dark energy. Of course, other effects can also play along.

Also, this analysis is for a Multi-fold universe as in [1]. [1] details arguments and ways to check its relationship with the real universe. Besides properties that can be experimentally verified (in the future because of the macroscopic weakness of gravity and gravity like effects for entangled systems), [1] shows how the multi-fold mechanisms and behaviors are in many aspects in today’s conventional physics, that, at times, anticipates the behaviors modeled of a multi-fold universe. In addition, [1] explains many results obtained in gravity, quantum mechanics, General Relativity, superstring theory, Loop Quantum Gravity and the AdS/CFT correspondence conjecture. All these works attempt to come up with models for the real universe. It is at least a good sign that [1] may provide an interesting model of the real universe.

Our proposal has no equivalent or variations for a non multi-fold universe: the source of dark matter effects come directly from the multi-folds mechanism as proposed in [1] and the resulting attraction towards the source or center of mass as a result of entanglement. Even other models, that link entanglement and gravity, may not help as the multi-fold universe do, as none have clearly identified such a gravity-like attraction as a result of entanglement. Any model where gravity appears between entangled particles could support the proposal from this paper.

5. Conclusions

We believe that [1] makes a compelling case for the consistency of its multi-fold proposal. The present paper shows how the mechanisms of multi-fold universes can help address the challenges with dark matter as well as the situation where it is believed to be missing.

Combined with [8], it is remarkable that the mechanism of [1] can contribute to effects like inflation, small cosmological constant and dark energy and now dark matter; that it be present or missing.

While steps in the right direction in terms of validating [1], future work should aim at providing quantitative estimates to further determine viability of the proposal or completeness of the explanation, versus just contributing to what happens, which would already be satisfying.

The proposed explanation of dark matter is also an attractive validation candidate for the proposal that entanglement generates gravity like contributions [1,10].

____

Cite as: Stephane H Maes, (2020), ”Explaining Dark Matter Without New Physics?”, viXra:2007.0006, or shmaesphysics.wordpress.com/20…, June 21, 2020.

Note: The web version (here) is tracked at shmaesphysics.wordpress.com/20…. A mistake in many references instead provided the URL to the dark energy paper. It is regrettable and will be corrected in the future for all upcoming papers and revisions.

____

References: (most references come from popular science to make the discussion more approachable)

[1]: Stephane H. Maes, (2020) “Quantum Gravity Emergence from Entanglement in a Multi-Fold Universe”, viXra:2006.0088v1, (June 9, 2020).

[2]: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reissner…

[3]: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerr-New…

[4]: Burinskii, Alexander, (2008), “The Dirac-Kerr-Newman electron”, arXiv:0507109v4

[5]: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_mat…

[6]: B. Clegg (2019), “Dark Matter and Dark Energy: The Hidden 95% of the Universe”, Icon Books Ltd

[7]: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_ene…

[8]: Stephane H Maes, (2020), ”Explaining Dark Energy, Small Cosmological Constant and Inflation Without New Physics?”, shmaesphysics.wordpress.com/20…, June 19, 2020.

[9]: Shany Danieli, Pieter van Dokkum, Charlie Conroy, Roberto Abraham, and Aaron J. Romanowsky, (2019), “Still Missing Dark Matter: KCWI High-resolution Stellar Kinematics of NGC1052-DF2”, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, Volume 874, Number 2

[10]: Stephane H Maes, (2020), “Entanglement Concretizes Time in a Multi-fold Universe”, shmaesphysics.wordpress.com/20…, June 28, 2020.

[11]: Erik P. Verlinde (2010), “On the Origin of Gravity and the Laws of Newton”, arXiv:1001.0785

[12]: Erik Verlinde, (2016), “Emergent Gravity and the Dark Universe”, arXiv:1611.02269v2

---

[fn1]: These notions, as proposed in [11,12], are fundamentally different effects from what is proposed in [1]. [1] considers effects between particles. Entropic bulk entanglement are postulated as statistical effects between spacetime regions. Of course, [1] may be an enabler or an explanation for such effect; or not. It does not really matter within the scope of this paper.

____

September 15 2020: Check [Stephane H Maes, (2020), “Multi-Fold Universe Dark Matter Successful Explanation and the “Too Thin Universe” but “Too Strong Gravity Lensing by Galaxy Clusters””, shmaesphysics.wordpress.com/20…, September 14, 2020.] for more recent obeservation explained with our approach (and problematic for conventional approaches).

____

I thank my generous supporters on Patreon. [strong]If you like my work, publications, and opinions, please consider joining them. This way, you can support this research work done totally independent from any institution. Use the contact form if you prefer to help by putting together a grant or other type of funding.[/strong]

#Astrophysics #DarkMatter #Entanglement #GeneralRelativity #Gravity #MultiFoldUniverse #QuantumGravity #StandardModel

Contact

Don’t hesitate to reach out with the contact information below, or send a message using the form. Multi-fold Community, where you can submit your own related papers, and be linked here. (Apri…

^{Shmaes - Physics}

Viable Lattice Spacetime and Absence of Quantum Gravitational Anomalies in a Multi-fold Universe

Stephane H. Maes

December 4, 2020

Abstract:

In a multi-fold universe, gravity emerges from Entanglement through the multi-fold mechanisms. As a result, gravity-like effects appear in between entangled particles that they be real or virtual. Long range, massless gravity results from entanglement of massless virtual particles. Entanglement of massive virtual particles leads to massive gravity contributions at very smalls scales. Multi-folds mechanisms also result into a spacetime that is discrete, with a random walk fractal structure and non-commutative geometry that is Lorentz invariant and where spacetime nodes and particles can be modeled with microscopic black holes. All these recover General relativity at large scales and semi-classical model remain valid till smaller scale than usually expected. Gravity can therefore be added to the Standard Model. This can contribute to resolving several open issues with the Standard Model (SM) without new Physics other than gravity. These considerations hints at a even stronger relationship between gravity and the Standard Model.

The Nielsen Ninomiya theorem predicts incompatibility of the conventional Standard Model with 4D discrete, lattice spacetimes per the Nielsen Ninomiya theorem, because of the weak interaction and the neutrino chiral asymmetries in SM. A priori, it would be problematic for the viability of the multi-fold universe reconstruction if it were to represent the real universe, and support or recover the Standard Model, as in the Standard Model with gravity, that is not negligible at the Standard Model scales (SM_G). It would also invalidate our lattice-based claims of proof of the Mass gap for Yang Mills theories. Even more problematic, quantum gravitational anomalies would obstruct entanglement: quantum entanglement would not be possible in a discrete 4D universe. It simply would destroy, as impossible and inconsistent, the multi-fold mechanisms and the multi-fold spacetime reconstruction.

This paper discusses the consistency of multi-fold models with respect to these issues, as well as the implications for gravitational anomalies in multi-fold universes. The resolution relies on gravity induced flips of chiral fermions in multi-fold universes, that we already used to explain the neutrino mass and absence of proton decay observations. The resulting (spontaneous) chiral symmetry breaking handles consistency concerns with the weak interaction on lattices, and problems with Dirac fermion doubling in QCD. The gravitational anomaly cancellations, or smearing, also directly relate to the feasibility of simulations, e.g. Monte Carlo simulations of multi-fold universes, or even the possibility that the universe itself could be a simulation.

Finally, the paper also derives non-invariance of the weak hypercharge under non-negligible gravity is also an important new result of SM_G, a results that does not change anything to observable weak interaction physics.

____

1. Introduction

The new preprint [1] proposes contributions to several open problems in physics like the reconciliation of General Relativity (GR) with Quantum Physics, explaining the origin of gravity proposed as emerging from quantum (EPR- Einstein Podolsky Rosen) entanglement between particles, detailing contributions to dark matter and dark energy and explaining other Standard Model mysteries without requiring New Physics beyond the Standard Model other than the addition of gravity to the Standard Model Lagrangian. All this is achieved in a multi-fold universe that may well model our real universe, which remains to be validated.

With the proposed model of [1], spacetime and Physics are modeled from Planck scales to quantum and macroscopic scales and semi classical approaches appear valid till very small scales. In [1], it is argued that spacetime is discrete, with a random walk-based fractal structure, fractional and noncommutative at, and above Planck scales (with a 2-D behavior and Lorentz invariance preserved by random walks till the early moments of the universe). Spacetime results from past random walks of particles. Spacetime locations and particles can be modeled as microscopic black holes (Schwarzschild for photons and spacetime coordinates, and metrics between Reisner Nordstrom [2] and Kerr Newman [3] for massive, and possibly charged, particles – the latter being possibly extremal). Although surprising, [1] recovers results consistent with other like [4], while also being able to justify the initial assumptions of black holes from the gravity or entanglement model in a multi-fold universe. The resulting gravity model recovers General Relativity at larger scale, as a 4-D process, with massless gravity, but also with massive gravity components at very small scale that make gravity significant at these scales. Semi-classical models also turn out to work well till way smaller scales that usually expected.

The present paper discusses the implications of multi-fold mechanisms and SMG, on chiral fermions, especially neutrinos, and how this relates to the Nielsen Ninomiya no-go theorem for 4D lattices and to quantum gravitational anomalies. As a result, the consistency of multi-fold models can be ascertained: even number of chiral fermion species, doubling of Dirac fermions in QCD and compatibility with the weak interaction.

2. The Nielsen Ninomiya No-Go Theorem

The Nielsen Ninomiya No-Go Theorem is summarized in [5] and detailed with different proofs and reasoning to motivate it in [6-9]. Accordingly, a lattice for an even dimensional (e.g. 4D) spacetime, requires the same number of species (including all quantum number) of left and right-handed chiral fermions (i.e., massless Weyl fermions) on the lattice with certain assumptions (action periodic at boundary, local, translation invariant and Hermitian action including exact conservation of discrete valued quantum number(s) (chiral charge in a finite region). Locality also constraints the type of anomalies that the theory can entertain it cannot support nonlocal anomalies which do not result into the no-go situations.

The main implication seems to be that the weak interaction and therefore the Standard Model (SM) cannot be implemented or simulated on a lattice, at least without violating one of the assumptions mentioned above. Indeed in the conventional SM, right-handed neutrinos and left-handed anti-neutrinos are missing, and the remaining charged fermions are assumed Weyl fermions, for the weak interaction, with different hypercharges associated to right and left-handed Weyl fermions; something forbidden by the theorem. Because it interacts only with left-handed fermions, the weak interaction therefore expected to not be implementable on a lattice.

Also, a Dirac fermion doubling problem is encountered by lattice QCD; preventing its simulation of chiral symmetric QCD over lattices and therefore another potential inconsistency with a discrete spacetime.

Note that although derived with a regular lattice the Nielsen Ninomiya No-Go Theorem holds, or is expected to hold, in the case an “amorphous” lattice.

3. A priori concerns with the Nielsen Ninomiya No-Go Theorem in a Multi-fold Universe

If the theorem were true in a (4D) multi-fold universe, we are confronted with the following problems, to name a few:

• The multi-fold universe reconstruction models would lead to a universe with a spacetime (discrete, fractal with random walk, Lorentz invariant and non-commutative) incompatible with SM [1]. The random walk fractal spacetime can be seen as fitting the amorphous lattice situation or a regular lattice with (many) missing (not yet concretized [1]) nodes.
• Our extended model for SM_G, see the latest development at [12], that includes non-interacting (in flight) right-handed neutrinos, and otherwise no need for sterile neutrinos or Majorana neutrinos, seems to fall apart [1,10,11,13].

4. Multi-fold salvation

It turns out that our chirality flip mechanisms [1,10,11, 13,14,31] and its use to associate masses to the neutrinos implies that the neutrino is a Dirac fermion, even if its right-handed may always be in flight / at the entry points of the multi-folds. As a result, there are no Weyl fermions post Higgs mechanism and electroweak symmetry breaking: a multi-fold spacetime can be discrete, and remain compatible with the weak interaction and SM_G.

Indeed and in addition, the chirality flips apply to all the fermions involved in weak (or electroweak) interactions, meaning that in the presence of gravity, chiral symmetry is broken for the weak interaction and the weak hypercharge is not conserved. Yet, as weak interactions only occur with left-handed fermions, this has no apparent effects: the non-conservation event do not impact interactions that do conserve weak hypercharge. The non-invariance of the weak hypercharge in the presence of gravity able to switch chirality is a new result.

Such a (spontaneous) break of the chiral symmetry, also ensure the absence of Dirac fermion doubling in QCD [5-8,29,30] and explains strong interaction confinement. The consistency of a discrete spacetime is also essential to the Yang Mills mass gap problem solution we proposed [21]. These QCD considerations will be further discussed, and expanded, in a future paper.

5. Quantum Gravitational Anomalies

As also mentioned in [6], the same number of Weyl fermion of each chirality species also cancels quantum chiral / axial gravitational anomalies for gravity that acts as QED à la Adler–Bell–Jackiw for fermions in a QED fields [14-17,27,28], because of cancelling contributions from the different chiral fermion loops (we do not discuss non-local anomalies here). It has several consequences:

• It confirms the anomaly smearing due to gravity that we proposed in [13], with a different path to derive the same outcome: the lepton and baryon number chiral anomalies are canceled and so these symmetries are harder to violate in SMG. We used this to justify the absence of observed proton decay. Conventional approach would probably be more comfortable with the reasoning of this paper.
• It has been argued that gravitational anomalies obstruct entanglement from existing in 4D spacetime [18]! With our result, the gravitational anomaly is canceled and entanglement is possible. This is rather critical as without it, the whole multi-fold theory would have been totally moot, and entanglement would not exist in the real universe.

Note that this does not affect the neutral pion decay into two photons modeled in [27] and observed experimentally [14], that constitutes the main observation of chiral anomalies involves primarily charged meson (charged Kaon/anti-kaons) or charged baryons/anti-baryons (protons) loops, in the chiral loops and anomalies due to the π⁰ electromagnetic field. The broken chirality symmetry of the QCD vacuum ensure non-zero contributions, in fact, something independent of the fermions involved. This is not affected by the reasoning presented in this paper that does not necessarily cancel these effects. However, in the already mentioned future QCD paper, we expect to tie together the vacuum chiral symmetry breaking of QCD, confinement, the mass gap problem and gravity, and to provide microscopic explanations for the spontaneous chiral symmetry breaking of the QCD vacuum.

6. Monte Carlo and other simulations

As a side note, the elimination of quantum gravitational anomalies, modeled by analogy with thermal quantum Hall conductance effect, where similar anomalies are encountered, avoids the typical problem of negative sign in Monte Carlo simulations and the huge computational complexities that result [19-21]. Note that the elimination of the gravitational loop does not affect other physical situations where such anomalies are encountered like in particular 2D and 4D thermal quantum Hall conductance effects.

The reasoning presented here does not necessarily imply that anomalies are smeared by eliminating chiral fermions in solid states / condensed material physics: these involve quasi particles and different phenomena (e.g. [19,24,25]. This is especially important as these effects can be seen as a unique 4D spacetime effect, demonstrating direct a 4D spacetime, and so, in itself, of interest to anybody trying to confirm experimentally that our real universe has a 4D spacetime.

Multi-fold universes can be numerically simulated and, if that is what you would like to dream of, it could still possible that we would live in a simulation As the problems of simulation might not require intractable large amount of computing that the sign problem could otherwise create [19].

7. Conclusions

We have shown that the multi-fold model and SM_G, the standard model with non-negligible gravity at it scale, maintain consistency when it comes to chirality and discrete spacetime in a 4D multi-fold universe spacetime: there is no chiral fermion doubling problem on a discrete multi-fold spacetime, neutrinos and weak interactions à la SM, can coexist. The mass gap problem is indeed resolved in a multi-fold universe [21], and right-handed neutrinos can exist in flight due to gravitational induced chirality flips in a discrete multi-fold spacetime [1,10,11,13,31].

Also, we derived non-invariance of the weak hypercharge under non-negligible gravity that can flip chirality as in [1,31]. It is also an important new result of SM_G, a results that does not change anything to observable weak interaction physics as no weak interaction takes place with the right-handed fermions.

In fact, in a 4D multi-fold universe spacetime, there are no Adler–Bell–Jackiw -like gravitational anomalies, because of fermion chirality flips due to gravity, which smear or prevent such anomalies. Monte Carlo simulations do not have to run amok on such anomalies and therefore the idea that our universe may be a simulation also remains possible, something that we do not advocate but that certainly also relates to previous papers on modeling the universe as a neural network [22,23].

As we will discuss in upcoming papers, the handling of the Nielsen Ninomiya No-Go Theorem with gravity has farther reaching impact on the understanding QCD and generic Yang Mills confinement, spontaneous symmetry breaking and resolution of the mass gap problem, that is not just in a multi-fold universe.

____

Cite as: Stephane H Maes, (2020), “Viable Lattice Spacetime and Absence of Quantum Gravitational Anomalies in a Multi-fold Universe”, viXra:2205.0143v1, shmaesphysics.wordpress.com/20…, December 4, 2020.

____

References:

[1]: Stephane H. Maes, (2020), “Quantum Gravity Emergence from Entanglement in a Multi-Fold Universe”, viXra:2006.0088v1, vixra.org/pdf/2006.0088v1.pdf (June 9, 2020).

[2]: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reissner…

[3]: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerr-New…

[4]: Burinskii, Alexander, (2008), “The Dirac-Kerr-Newman electron”, arXiv:0507109v4

[5]: Wikipedia, “Nielsen–Ninomiya theorem”, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nielsen%…. Retrieved on December 2, 2020.

[6]: Nielsen, H.B.; Ninomiya, M. (1981), “A no-go theorem for regularizing chiral fermions”, Phys. Lett., B105: 219

[7]: Nielsen, H.B.; Ninomiya, M. (1981), “Absence of neutrinos on a lattice: (I). Proof by homotopy theory”, Nucl. Phys., B185: 20

[8]: Nielsen, H.B.; Ninomiya, M. (1981), “Absence of neutrinos on a lattice: (II). Intuitive topological proof”, Nucl. Phys., B193: 173

[9]: Friedan, D. (1982), “A Proof of the Nielsen-Ninomiya Theorem”, Commun. Math. Phys., 85: 481

[10]: Stephane H Maes, (2020), ”Right-handed neutrinos? Mass? Ask Gravity”, viXra:2007.0018v1, shmaesphysics.wordpress.com/20…, June 23, 2020.

[11]: Stephane H Maes, (2020), “No Conventional Sterile Neutrinos In a Multi-fold Universe: just SM_G business as usual”, viXra:2103.0202v1, shmaesphysics.wordpress.com/20…, October 1, 2020.

[12]: Stephane H. Maes, (2020), “Web Site Tracking all Publications around the Multi-fold universe” -Navigation page listing all papers, shmaesphysics.wordpress.com/sh….

[13]: Stephane H Maes, (2020), “Gravity Induced Anomalies Smearing in Standard Model so that Protons May Never Decay, Except in Black Holes“, viXra:2006.0128v1, shmaesphysics.wordpress.com/20…, June 13, 2020.

[14]: Wikipedia, “Chiral anomaly”, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiral_a…, Retrieved on June 6, 2020.

[15]: Roman W. Jackiw (2008), “Axial anomaly”, Scholarpedia, 3(10):7302.

[16]: Alvarez-Gaumé, Luis, Edward Witten (1984), “Gravitational Anomalies”, Nucl. Phys. B. 234 (2): 269.

[17]: Luis Alvarez-Gaume, (1984), “Gravitational Anomalies”, in G. ’t Hooft, A. Jaffe, H. Lehmann, P. K. MitterI, M. Singer, R. Stora , eds, “Progress in Gauge Field Theory”, Part of the NATO ASI Series book series (NSSB, volume 115)

[18]: Masataka Watanabe, (2016), “Quantum Information Theory of The Gravitational Anomaly”, Asian Winter School of Strings, OIST, Okinawa, Japan, 9 Jan., 2016

[19]: Ringel, Zohar and Kovrizhin, Dmitry L., (2017), “Quantized gravitational responses, the sign problem, and quantum complexity”, Science Advances, vol. 3, issue 9

[20]: Wikipedia, “Numerical sign problem”, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numerica…, Retrieved on December 2, 2020.

[21]: Stephane H Maes, (2020), “Progress on Proving the Mass gap for Yang Mills and Gravity (maybe it’s already proved…)”, viXra:2006.0155v1, shmaesphysics.wordpress.com/20…, June 12, 2020.

[22]: Stephane H Maes, (2020), “Implicit Multi-Fold Mechanisms in a Neural Network Model of the Universe”, viXra:2012.0191v1, shmaesphysics.wordpress.com/20…, September 12, 2020.

[23]: Stephane H Maes, (2020), “Interpretation of “Neural Network as the World””, viXra:2012.0197v1, shmaesphysics.wordpress.com/20…, September 14, 2020.

[24]: Oded Zilberberg, Sheng Huang, Jonathan Guglielmon, Mohan Wang, Kevin Chen, Yaacov E. Kraus, Mikael C. Rechtsman, (2017), “Photonic topological pumping through the edges of a dynamical four-dimensional quantum Hall system”, arXiv:1705.08361v1

[25]: Michael Lohse, Christian Schweizer, Hannah M. Price, Oded Zilberberg, Immanuel Bloch, (2017), ” Exploring 4D Quantum Hall Physics with a 2D Topological Charge Pump”, rXiv:1705.08371v1

[26]: Stephane H Maes, (2020), “Multi-fold Higgs Fields and Bosons”, viXra:2204.0146, shmaesphysics.wordpress.com/20…, November 6, 2020.

[27]: Adler, S. L. (1969). “Axial-Vector Vertex in Spinor Electrodynamics”, Physical Review. 177 (5), 2426–2438

[28]: William A. Bardeen, (2000), “Anomalies”, in P. Breitenlohner and Dieter Maison (Eds), “Quantum Field Theory”. Springer, 2000.

[29]: Heinz J. Rothe, (2005), “Lattice Gauge Theories. An Introduction”, World Scientific, 3rd Edition.

[30]: David Tong, (2018), “Gauge Theory”, Cambridge U., damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/tong/gaug….

[31]: Stephane H Maes, (2020), “Can Chirality Flips Occur in a Multi-Fold Universe? What About Conservation Laws?”, viXra:2204.0152v1, shmaesphysics.wordpress.com/20…, December 6, 2020.

I thank my generous supporters on Patreon. If you like my work, publications, and opinions, please consider joining them. This way, you can support this research work done totally independent from any institution. Use the contact form if you prefer to help by putting together a grant or other type of funding.

#4DQuantumHallConductance #4DSpacetime #AdlerBellJackiwAnomalies #anomalies #anomaliesSmearing #anomalyCancelation #chiralAnomalies #ChiralFermion #chiralityFlip #confinement #Dirac #discrete #discreteLattice #Entanglement #fractal #Gravity #gravityInducedChiralityFlips #helicityFlip #lorentzInvariant #massGap #MonteCarlo #multiFoldConsistency #MultiFoldUniverse #NielsenNinomiya #nonCommutative #protonDecays #QCD #quantumAnomalies #QuantumGravity #QuantumHallEffect #rightHandedNeutrinos #SignProblem #Simulation #spacetimeReconstruction #spontaneousChiralSymmetryBreaking #StandardModel #standardModelWithGravity #WeakInteraction #WeylFermion

Shmaes - Physics

2020-06-22 02:46:07

Right-handed neutrinos? Mass? Ask Gravity

Stephane H. Maes

June 21, 2020

Abstract:

In a multi-fold universe, gravity emerges from Entanglement through the multi-fold mechanisms. As a result, gravity-like effects appear in between entangled particles that they be real or virtual. Long range, massless gravity results from entanglement of massless virtual particles. Entanglement of massive virtual particles leads to massive gravity contributions at very smalls scales. Multi-folds mechanisms also result into a spacetime that is discrete, with a random walk fractal structure and non-commutative geometry that is Lorentz invariant and where spacetime nodes and particles can be modeled with microscopic black holes. All these recover General relativity at large scales and semi-classical model remain valid till smaller scale than usually expected. Gravity can therefore be added to the Standard Model. This can contribute to resolving several open issues with the Standard Model. In particular with chirality flips of fermion induced by gravity, right-handed neutrinos (and left-handed anti-neutrinos) can appear in flight and now acquire mass when encountering Higgs bosons; two mysteries can be explained in one shot in a multi-fold universe.

____

1. Introduction

The new preprint [1] proposes contributions to several open problems in physics like the reconciliation of General Relativity (GR) with Quantum Physics, explaining the origin of gravity proposed as emerging from quantum (EPR- Einstein Podolsky Rosen) entanglement between particles, detailing contributions to dark matter and dark energy and explaining other Standard Model mysteries without requiring New Physics beyond the Standard Model other than the addition of gravity to the Standard Model Lagrangian. All this is achieved in a multi-fold universe that may well model our real universe, which remains to be validated.

With the proposed model of [1], spacetime and Physics are modeled from Planck scales to quantum and macroscopic scales and semi classical approaches appear valid till very small scales. In [1], it is argued that spacetime is discrete, with a random walk-based fractal structure, fractional and noncommutative at, and above, Planck scales (with a 2-D behavior and Lorentz invariance preserved by random walks till the early moments of the universe). Spacetime results from past random walks of particles. Spacetime locations and particles can be modeled as microscopic black holes (Schwarzschild for photons and spacetime coordinates, and metrics between Reisner Nordstrom [2] and Kerr Newman [3] for massive and possibly charged particles – the latter being possibly extremal). Although surprising, [1] recovers results consistent with other like [4], while also being able to justify the initial assumptions of black holes from the gravity or entanglement model. The resulting gravity model recovers General Relativity at larger scale, as a 4-D process, with massless gravity, but also with massive gravity components at very small scale that make gravity significant these scales. Semi-classical models also work well till way smaller scales that usually expected.

In this paper, we remain at a high level of discussion of the analysis and references are generic for the subjects. It makes the points accessible to a wider audience and keeps the door open to further papers or discussions devoted to details of interest. Yet, it requires the reader to review [1], as we do not revisit here all the details of the multi-fold mechanism or reconstruction of spacetime. More targeted references for all the material discussed here are compiled in [1].

2. SM_G : The Standard Model with Multi-Fold Gravity

[1] proposes that in a multi-fold universe, the Lagrangian is complemented by terms associated to gravity and entanglement (in the form of the sum of the attractive effective potentials) [1].

(1)

The effect of gravity can be seen through the attractive potential contributions of all the energy sources. It can also been seen as expressing the Standard Model Lagrangian in curved spacetime (semi-classical point of view), now considered valid till small scales.

EPR entanglement is not believed to often play a significant role, except in dark matter use cases [5]. The last term is all other “New Physics” terms and we will consider it to be null.

3. Chirality and Helicity flips induced by Gravity

In a curved spacetime, the chirality (or helicity) of massless fermions flips back and forth [6].

In the presence of gravity (with perturbative graviton models), the chirality of massive fermions flips [7]. Additional torsion further contribute to such flips [8]. [1] generates torsion within matter due to the effect of uncertainty on the multi-folds.

These effects have already been analyzed as the reason why gravity can smear the anomalies of baryon and lepton number symmetries and therefore potentially ensure the absence of proton decay, except possibly in extreme conditions within black holes [9].

Note that in the literature, it is also argued that chirality would not flip for massless fermion [7], at the difference of [6]. We believe that the latter is more correct as [7] relies on linearization of gravity, a process that does not work well and that is not giving a correct analysis compared to how gravity is explained in [1] and we know that gravity is not weak any more at very smalls scales, especially due to the massive gravity contributions.

4. The Right-handed Neutrino and its Left-handed anti particles

We recommend the following reference as entry point to neutrinos [10].

Neutrinos exist with different flavors and oscillate in flight between these flavors to change flavor and masses. They always interact in a specific flavor with the corresponding mass. Only left-handed neutrinos and right-handed anti neutrinos seem to interact (i.e. when not in flight).

So far, only left-handed neutrinos and right-handed anti-neutrinos have been observed. It is unknown if what happens or happened to the particles with opposite chirality. Do they exist?

5. The Neutrino mass problem

As a result of the absence of these opposite chirality neutrinos cannot interact with the Higgs Boson (which flips chirality). Therefore it is known in the standard model how neutrino have acquired their observed mass (that is now established to by non-zero).

Many theories have been proposed, usually with New Physics, to explain try to the mass. None have been validated so far. They involve hypothesis of seesaw mechanism, Majorana neutrinos (i.e. neutrino as its own self anti-particle), an additional sterile neutrino and a whole bunch of super partners proposals. An overview can be found in [11].

Numerous experiments have been proposed to try to validate on model or another with for example the search for Neutrino-less Double Beta-Decay (e.g. to determine if neutrinos are Majorana particles). It is fair to say that nothing conclusive has been observed so far!

At the light of [1], the reasoning above for SM_G, and [9], we suspect that all these efforts may be going in the wrong direction…

Indeed, if we consider that gravity is present, then in flight particles can flip chirality in addition to oscillating in mass and flavors. So Higgs interactions are now possible in flight, which is how and when bumps with Higgs boson take place -a different situation form particle to particle interactions (also flipping chiralities, to be then flip back to observable chiralities by gravity, before any of all the other types of interaction can take place), which means mass acquisition as conventionally understood for fermions in the Standard Model can occur in flight for neutrinos (also why it is inflight that we can find the neutrino mass eigenstates). Masses are small, because available interaction time with Higgs bosons is small.

It resolves in one shot both the questions of the existence of right-handed neutrinos (and left-handed antineutrinos) as well as the origin of the (low) mass of the neutrinos. All is achieved within the context of the Standard Model with Gravity, in a multi-fold universe, and without the need of New Physics.

Also, this analysis is for a Multi-fold universe as in [1]. [1] details arguments and ways to check its relationship with the real universe. Besides properties that can be experimentally verified (in the future because of the macroscopic weakness of gravity and gravity like effects for entangled systems), [1] shows how the multi-fold mechanisms and behaviors are in many aspects in today’s conventional physics, that, at times, anticipates the behaviors modeled of a multi-fold universe. In addition, [1] explains many results obtained in gravity, quantum mechanics, General Relativity, superstring theory, Loop Quantum Gravity and the AdS/CFT correspondence conjecture. All these works attempt to come up with models for the real universe. It is at least a good sign that [1] may provide an interesting model of the real universe.

Other theories showing that gravity is relevant at the level of the standard model, can repeat the chirality flip argument, even with no relation to multi-fold universe and mechanisms or to gravity emergence from entanglement. So our model here is generic: if we add gravity to Standard Model with a model keeping it non negligible at the Standard Model scales, then right-handed neutrinos and left-handed anti neutrinos exist in flight, only left-handed neutrinos and right-handed anti neutrinos interact in general; but the existence of both chirality in flight ensures mass acquisition via the Higgs mechanism.

Note however that If our model here is not validated by experience, it would not invalidate the multi-fold mechanism and the proposal that gravity emerges from entanglement as detailed in [1]. The analysis builds on [1], as a consequence of it, but it is not a condition for validation of multi-fold universes.

5. Conclusions

We believe that [1] makes a compelling case for the consistency of its multi-fold proposal. The present paper shows how the mechanisms of multi-fold universes can help address the challenges of explaining the mass of the neutrinos without New Physics.

We explain the fate of right-handed neutrinos and left-handed anti neutrinos: they exist, but only in flight where they can interact with the Higgs. Why it only exist in flight is still an open issue. And the low mass of the neutrinos results from the usual Higgs mechanism, while in flight. The mass is low because only little time is available for mass acquisition and bumping with Higgs bosons). The model works for multi-fold universe as well as in any situation where gravity is non negligible and added to the Standard Model.

This along with similar results in [1] and [9], make a strong case for more seriously considering the implications of adding gravity to the Standard Model to obtain SM_G, as a way to contribute to addressing open issues and offer better alternatives to New Physics speculations. This goes hand in hand with recognizing that this also implies the need to seriously consider that gravity may not always be negligible at the Standard Model scales as proposed in [1].

____

Cite as: Stephane H Maes, (2020), ”Right-handed neutrinos? Mass? Ask Gravity”, viXra:2007.0018v1, shmaesphysics.wordpress.com/20…, June 23, 2020.

____

References: (most references come from popular science to make the discussion more approachable)

[1]: Stephane H. Maes, (2020) “Quantum Gravity Emergence from Entanglement in a Multi-Fold Universe”, viXra:2006.0088v1, (June 9, 2020).

[2]: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reissner…

[3]: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerr-New…

[4]: Burinskii, Alexander, (2008), “The Dirac-Kerr-Newman electron”, arXiv:0507109v4

[5]: Stephane H Maes, (2020), ”Explaining Dark Matter Without New Physics?”, viXra:2006.0261v1, shmaesphysics.wordpress.com/20…, June 21, 2020.

[6]: Carlos Mergulhao Jr., (1995), “Neutrino Helicity Flip in a Curved Space-tlme”, General Relativity and Gravitation, volume 27, pages 657–667.

[7]: R. Aldrovandi, G. E. A. Matsas, S. F. Novaes, D. Spehler, (1994), ” Fermion Helicity Flip in Weak Gravitational Fields”, arXiv:gr-qc/9404018v1

[8]: Soumitra SenGupta, Aninda Sinha, (2001), ” Fermion helicity flip by parity violating torsion”, arXiv:hep-th/0102073v2.

[9]: Stephane H Maes, (2020), “Gravity Induced Anomalies Smearing in Standard Model so that Protons May Never Decay, Except in Black Holes “, viXra:2006.0128v1, shmaesphysics.wordpress.com/20…, June 13, 2020.

[10]: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino

[11]: M.C. Gonzalez-Garcia and M. Yokoyama, (2019), “14. Neutrino Masses, Mixing, and Oscillations”, in M. Tanabashi et al. (Particle Data Group), Phys. Rev. D 98, 030001 (2018) and (2019) update.

---

I thank my generous supporters on Patreon. [strong]If you like my work, publications, and opinions, please consider joining them. This way, you can support this research work done totally independent from any institution. Use the contact form if you prefer to help by puting together a grant or other type of funding.[/strong]

#Chirality #ChiralitySymmetry #Entanglement #Gravity #Helicity #HiggsMechanism #MajoranaParticle #MassProblem #MultiFoldUniverse #NeutrinoMass #Neutrinos #NewPhysics #QuantumGravity #SeesawMechanism #StandardModel #symmetryBreaking

Contact

Don’t hesitate to reach out with the contact information below, or send a message using the form. Multi-fold Community, where you can submit your own related papers, and be linked here. (Apri…

^{Shmaes - Physics}

How the ER = EPR, GR = QM and AdS/CFT correspondence conjectures, can be explained in multi-fold theory, along with the E/G conjecture. A call to the Physics Community!

Stephane H. Maes

November 28, 2021

V2 with this latest title was published December 28, 2021

Abstract:

This paper is a call to the Physics community, to all those interested in ER = EPR, GR = QM and the AdS/CFT correspondence conjecture, you should consider how the multi-fold theory and the E/G conjecture explain and realize them in a multi-fold universe.

In a multi-fold universe, gravity emerges from Entanglement through the multi-fold mechanisms. As a result, gravity-like effects appear in between entangled particles, that they be real or virtual. Long range, massless gravity results from entanglement of massless virtual particles. Entanglement of massive virtual particles leads to massive gravity contributions at very smalls scales. Multi-folds mechanisms also result into a spacetime that is discrete, with a random walk fractal structure and non-commutative geometry that is Lorentz invariant and where spacetime nodes and particles can be modeled with microscopic black holes. All these recover General Relativity (GR) at large scales and semi-classical models remain valid till smaller scale than usually expected. Gravity can therefore be added to the Standard Model resulting into what we defined as SM_G. This can contribute to resolving several open issues with the Standard Model without New Physics other than gravity, i.e. no new particles or forces. These considerations hints at an even stronger relationship between gravity and the Standard Model.

This paper provides references to how AdS(5), the AdS/CFT correspondences, ER=EPR and GR=QM conjectures are encountered in a multi-fold universe and explained microscopically. It leads to the E/G conjecture, that gravity and entanglement explain one another even in our real universe. Outside multi-fold theories, the main additions that we provide and lead to the new interpretation, e.g. the E/G conjecture, come from i) multi-fold mechanisms that allow path integrals to include traversing of the multi-fold, something typically not considered with the wormholes models prevalent with these other conjecture because of transferability challenges in the real universe ii) a SM_G model where in-flight right-handed neutrinos suddenly allow for wormhole to be traversed and look like multi-fold even in our real universe.

1. Introduction

The multi-fold paper [1] proposes contributions to several open problems in physics, like the reconciliation of General Relativity (GR) with Quantum Physics, explaining the origin of gravity proposed as emerging from quantum (EPR- Einstein Podolsky Rosen) entanglement between particles, detailing contributions to dark matter and dark energy, and explaining other Standard Model mysteries without requiring New Physics beyond the Standard Model other than the addition of gravity to the Standard Model Lagrangian. All this is achieved in a multi-fold universe that may well model our real universe, which remains to be validated.

With the proposed model of [1], spacetime and Physics are modeled from Planck scales to quantum and macroscopic scales and semi-classical approaches appear valid till very small scales. In [1], it is argued that spacetime is discrete, with a random walk-based fractal structure, fractional and noncommutative at, and above Planck scales (with a 2-D behavior and Lorentz invariance preserved by random walks till the early moments of the universe). Spacetime results from past random walks of particles. Spacetime locations and particles can be modeled as microscopic black holes (Schwarzschild for photons and concretized spacetime coordinates, and metrics between Reisner Nordstrom [2] and Kerr Newman [3] for massive and possibly charged particles – the latter being possibly extremal). Although possibly surprising, [1] recovers results consistent with others (see [4] and its references), while also being able to justify the initial assumptions of black holes from the gravity or entanglement model in a multi-fold universe. The resulting gravity model recovers General Relativity at larger scale, as a 4D process, with massless gravity, but also with massive gravity components at very small scale that make gravity non-negligible at these scales. Semi-classical models also turn out to work well till way smaller scales that usually expected.

In this paper, we make a call to the Physics community to pay attention at how like the AdS/CFT correspondence, the ER = EPR and the GR = QM conjectures are encountered and modeled in the multi-fold theory [1,9]: it should, if nothing else, inspire some progress with these conjectures.

The paper is intentionally short to maintain the focus on the call to the Physics community, instead of the details that can be found in the references.

2. Core multi-fold message

The results of [1] lead to the E/G conjecture: in a multi-fold universe, entanglement is gravity and gravity is entanglement. In other words, entanglement creates gravity effects and gravity results from entanglement effects. The conjecture is that this statement applies also to our real universe [8].

This result is really essential and the holy grail in our view of work like the AdS/CFT correspondence conjecture, the ER = EPR conjecture and the GR = QM conjecture. From a multi-fold point of view, all these works have so far blocked on challenges with the traversability of wormholes, something that multi-fold mechanisms avoid, while the multi-fold theory also seems to resolve wormhole traversability with the right role played in SM_G [1] by in-flight right-handed neutrinos[2]. We suggest focusing on [1,5,6,8,10] for more details. The proposed references answer much of these issues in surprising ways.

Outside multi-fold theories, the main additions that we provide and lead to the new interpretation, e.g. the E/G conjecture, come from i) multi-fold mechanisms [1] that allow path integrals to include traversing of the multi-fold, something typically not considered with the wormholes models prevalent with these other conjecture because of transferability challenges in the real universe ii) a SM_G model where in-flight right-handed neutrinos suddenly allow for wormhole to be traversed and look like multi-fold even in our real universe [8].

More details on the multifold theory and latest developments can be tracked at [7,9].

3. Conclusions

This short paper calls the community of Physics to realize that the multi-fold theory has led to interesting, (mostly qualitative) developments that may help progress and complement or provide a new setting for conjectures like the AdS/CFT correspondence conjecture, the ER = EPR conjecture and the GR = QM conjecture. We recommend that this be investigated and encourage discussions, reviews and collaborations.

Of course we want to also emphasize that the multi-fold theory is also of interest to High Energy Particle Physics, with the SM_G, the standard model with gravity not negligible at its scale [1,7,9]; to quantum gravity, especially in the context of superstrings, supersymmetry, LQG and asymptotic safety and to cosmology with its model for multi-fold dark matter, dark energy and inflation effects [1] and the related papers tracked in [7,9].

As announced, the paper was intentionally kept short to maintain the focus on the call to the Physics community, instead of the details that can be found in the references.

____

Cite as: Stephane H Maes, (2021), “How the ER = EPR, GR = QM and AdS/CFT correspondence conjectures, can be explained in multi-fold theory, along with the E/G conjecture. A call to the Physics Community!”, viXra:2111.0144v2, shmaesphysics.wordpress.com/20…, December 28, 2021.

____

(V1 was submitted on November 28, 2021, but should not be used anymore. Only the title was corrected.)

____

References:

[1]: Stephane H. Maes, (2020) “Quantum Gravity Emergence from Entanglement in a Multi-Fold Universe”, viXra:2006.0088v1, (June 9, 2020). (See also shmaesphysics.wordpress.com/20…).

[2]: Wikipedia, “Reissner–Nordström metric”, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reissner…. Retrieved on March 21, 2020.

[3]: Wikipedia, “Kerr–Newman metric”, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerr-New…. Retrieved on March 21, 2020.

[4]: Stephane H Maes, (2021), “More on Multi-fold Particles as Microscopic Black Holes with Higgs Regularizing Extremality and Singularities”, shmaesphysics.wordpress.com/20…, February 25, 2021.

[5]: Stephane H Maes, (2020), “Circular Arguments in String and Superstring Theory from a Multi-fold Universe Perspective”, viXra:2103.0195v1, shmaesphysics.wordpress.com/20…, October 5, 2020.

[6]: Stephane H Maes, (2021), “Right-handed Neutrinos and Traversable Wormholes: the key to entanglement, gravity and multi-folds extensions to ER=EPR?”, shmaesphysics.wordpress.com/20…/, April 3, 2021.

[7]: Stephane Maes, (2020), “Web Site Tracking all Publications around the Multi-fold universe”, Navigation page listing all papers. shmaesphysics.wordpress.com/sh….

[8]: Stephane H Maes, (2020), “The E/G conjecture: entanglement is gravity and gravity is entanglement”, viXra:2010.0139v1, shmaesphysics.wordpress.com/20…, October 15, 2020.

[9]: Stephane H Maes, (2021), ”The Multi-fold Theory: A synopsis”, viXra:2112.0144v1, shmaesphysics.wordpress.com/20…, December 24, 2021. Note that additional links will always be available at shmaesphysics.wordpress.com/20… to track the latest and interim versions of the synopsis, as they may be published under different tittle or URL/publication numbers.

[1] See [1,7,9] for a discussion of SM_G, the standard model with non-negligible gravity effects at the scale of SM.

[2] We hope that the growing communities interested and believing in these conjectures can read and understand how our work validate, with twists these conjecture. The twist being the machinery of the multi-fold theory, in a multi-fold universe.

____

I thank my generous supporters on Patreon. If you like my work, publications, and opinions, please consider joining them. This way, you can support this research work done totally independent from any institution. [strong]Use the contact form if you prefer to help by putting together a grant or other type of funding.[/strong]

#AdS5_ #AdSCFTCorrespondence #call #Collaboration #conjectures #Dualities #EGConjecture #Entanglement #EntanglementIsGravityAndGravityIsEntanglement #EREPR #GeneralRelativity #GRQM #Gravity #GravityFluctuations #multiFold #MultiFoldUniverse #Physics #PhysicsCommunity #QuantumGravity #StandardModel #standardModelWithGravity #Superstrings #Supersymmetry #traversability #wormhole

Shmaes - Physics

2020-10-15 07:21:34

The E/G conjecture: entanglement is gravity and gravity is entanglement

Stephane H. Maes

October 15, 2020

Abstract:

We postulate the E/G conjecture for the real universe: entanglement is gravity and gravity is entanglement. In other words, entanglement creates gravity effects and gravity results from entanglement effects.

E/G conjecture is a factual duality in multi-fold universes. With its close match and recovery of other superstring-based conjectures, we argue that it plays at the minimum an equivalent role as mathematical model, or as model of the real universe.

___

1. Introduction and Context

Strings, superstrings, supergravity and supersymmetry are mathematical framework. Therefore they are mathematically valid that they be physical or not. Just as AdS/CFT correspondences conjecture seems to mathematically work in many contexts (physical or mathematical). This is despite an unphysical model.

2. E/G conjecture and E/G duality

The same is true for the multi-fold model. It works in a multi-fold universe. But it is also a mathematical model. We do not know if it is physical or not, even if we wish and have hints that it may be physical.

It may explains why conjectures like holographic duality, AdS/CFT correspondences conjecture, ER=EPR conjecture, GR=QM conjecture (whatever that one really is) seems to fit so well aspects of the real world. See [4] for a list of relevant conjecture that we found relevant.

We believe that the same is true between the multi-fold universe and the real universe, in case multi-fold universes do not match the real universe

Therefore, we can propose a new key conjecture (factual in multi-fold universe and hints already by many aspects in the real universe): “Entanglement is gravity and gravity is entanglement” in the real universe. We propose to call this the E/G conjecture.

If multi-fold universes model the real universe, the conjecture becomes a fact: the E/G (factual) duality.

3. Derivation

The E/G conjecture is based on and derived from the reasoning above, [1] and all the material in [2]:

• Multi-fold mechanisms between EPR entangled systems create attractive effective potential, or effective curvature in the region between the entangled systems [1]. It could be recovered also from the ER=EPR conjecture if the wormholes were traversable, which may possibly be the case.
  
  • There are exception for hierarchical entanglements [1] that match the ER=EPR requirements for associating ER to entangled systems (see[1,3]).

  
  

• Entanglements between virtual particle pairs emitted by a particle or energy source generate gravity-like attractive effective potential, or effective curvature in the region between the entangled systems [1]. It can be used to recover GR and more [5].
• [1,2] discuss many resulting effects that:
  
  • Could explain standard model issues
  • Could explain standard cosmological model issues and observations

  
  

• We also positioned the model with respect to superstrings, supersymmetry, and lots of their associated conjecture that are recovered, with variations. It can also explain some of aspects of these theories, by understanding their relations to the multi-fold models [1, 6 – 11, 3].
• On this basis, we believe that multi-fold are mathematical models consistent with these conventional models. Hence the E/G conjecture.

As compiled in [1], other works have previously argued such links between entanglement and gravity (e.g. [12-14]) ; but typically with fully explaining its physical origin, but rather showing hints or statistical argument in its favor. Confusion in these work also exist between entity entanglement or spacetime entanglement etc. Some derive hints of curvature of spacetime as a result. Other make gravity and MOND emerge from entanglement.

4. Conclusions

In the real universe, we propose the E/G conjecture that Entanglement is gravity and gravity is entanglement, meaning Entanglement creates gravity effects and gravity results from entanglement effects.

In multi-fold universes, the conjecture is a factual duality: Entanglement generates gravity-like effects and gravity is the result of entanglement between virtual particles.

____

Cite as: Stephane H Maes, (2020), “The E/G conjecture: entanglement is gravity and gravity is entanglement”, viXra:2010.0139v1, shmaesphysics.wordpress.com/20…, October 15, 2020.

____

References:

[1]: Stephane H. Maes, (2020) “Quantum Gravity Emergence from Entanglement in a Multi-Fold Universe”, viXra:2006.0088v1, (June 9, 2020).

[2]: Stephane H. Maes, (2020), “Web Site Tracking all Publications around the Multi-fold universe”, Navigation page listing all papers. shmaesphysics.wordpress.com/sh….

[3]: Hrant Gharibyan, Robert F. Penna, (2013), “Are entangled particles connected by wormholes? Support for the ER=EPR conjecture from entropy inequalities”, arXiv:1308.0289v1

[4]: Stephane H Maes, (2020), “Circular Arguments in String and Superstring Theory from a Multi-fold Universe Perspective”, shmaesphysics.wordpress.com/20… , October 5, 2020.

[5]: Stephane H Maes, (2020), ”Massless and Massive Multi-Gravity in a Multi-fold Universe”, viXra:2010.0095v1, shmaesphysics.wordpress.com/20…, June 19, 2020.

[6]: Stephane H Maes, (2020), “Dualities or Analogies between Superstrings and Multi-fold Universe”, viXra:2006.0178v1, shmaesphysics.wordpress.com/20…, June 14, 2020.

[7]: Stephane H Maes, (2020), “Ultimate Unification: Gravity-led Democracy vs. Uber-Symmetries”, viXra:2006.0211v1, shmaesphysics.wordpress.com/20…, June 16, 2020.

[8]: Stephane H Maes, (2020), ”Superstrings Encounter of the Second, Third or Fourth Types?”, shmaesphysics.wordpress.com/20…, July 5, 2020.

[9]: Stephane H Maes, (2020), “Tracking Down The Standard Model With Gravity In Multi-Fold Universes”, shmaesphysics.wordpress.com/20…, August 20, 2020.

[10]: Stephane H Maes, (2020), “Area Laws Between Multi-Fold Universes and AdS”, shmaesphysics.wordpress.com/20…, August 10, 2020.

[11]: Stephane H Maes, (2020), “Multi-fold Gravitons In-N-Out Spacetime”, shmaesphysics.wordpress.com/20…, July 27, 2020, (posted September 6, 2020)

[12]: van Raamsdonk, Mark (2010). “Building up spacetime with quantum entanglement”. Gen. Rel. Grav. 42 (14): 2323–2329. arXiv:1005.3035

[13]: ChunJun Cao, Sean M. Carroll, Spyridon Michalakis, (2016). “Space from Hilbert Space: Recovering Geometry from Bulk Entanglement”, arXiv:1606.08444v3

____

I thank my generous supporters on Patreon. If you like my work, publications, and opinions, please consider joining them. This way, you can support this research work done totally independent from any institution. Use the contact form if you prefer to help by putting together a grant or other type of funding.

#AdSCFTCorrespondence #EGConjecture #EGFactualDuality #Entanglement #EntanglementIsGravityAndGravityIsEntanglement #EREPR #GeneralRelativity #GRQM #Gravity #HolographicDuality #multiFold #MultiFoldUniverse #QuantumPhysics #realUniverse #StringTheory #Supergravity #Superstrings #Supersymmetry

Contact

Don’t hesitate to reach out with the contact information below, or send a message using the form. Multi-fold Community, where you can submit your own related papers, and be linked here. (Apri…

^{Shmaes - Physics}

Can Chirality Flips Occur in a Multi-Fold Universe? What About Conservation Laws?

Stephane H. Maes

December 6, 2020

See instead updated version at https://shmaesphysics.wordpress.com/2022/08/20/can-chirality-flips-occur-in-a-multi-fold-universe-what-about-conservation-laws-ii/, viXra:2204.0152v2.

Abstract:

In a multi-fold universe, gravity emerges from Entanglement through the multi-fold mechanisms. As a result, gravity-like effects appear in between entangled particles that they be real or virtual. Long range, massless gravity results from entanglement of massless virtual particles. Entanglement of massive virtual particles leads to massive gravity contributions at very smalls scales. Multi-folds mechanisms also result into a spacetime that is discrete, with a random walk fractal structure and non-commutative geometry that is Lorentz invariant and where spacetime nodes and particles can be modeled with microscopic black holes. All these recover General relativity at large scales and semi-classical model remain valid till smaller scale than usually expected. Gravity can therefore be added to the Standard Model. This can contribute to resolving several open issues with the Standard Model (SM) without new Physics other than gravity. These considerations hint at a even stronger relationship between gravity and the Standard Model.

In past papers, we have argued that chirality flips can occur in the presence of non-negligible gravitational effects. In multi-fold universes, it led us propose mechanisms to justify the absence of proton decay and the possible existence in flight of right-handed neutrinos and left-handed anti-neutrinos. However, we based these proposals on helicity flips at scales above mass acquisition by the Higgs mechanisms. We did not discuss the obvious implications on conservation of the weak hypercharge or weak isospin. This paper does so.

____

1. Introduction

The new preprint [1] proposes contributions to several open problems in physics like the reconciliation of General Relativity (GR) with Quantum Physics, explaining the origin of gravity proposed as emerging from quantum (EPR- Einstein Podolsky Rosen) entanglement between particles, detailing contributions to dark matter and dark energy and explaining other Standard Model (SM) mysteries without requiring New Physics beyond the Standard Model other than the addition of gravity to the Standard Model Lagrangian. All this is achieved in a multi-fold universe that may well model our real universe, which remains to be validated.

With the proposed model of [1], spacetime and Physics are modeled from Planck scales to quantum and macroscopic scales, and semi classical approaches appear valid till very small scales. In [1], it is argued that spacetime is discrete, with a random walk-based fractal structure, fractional and noncommutative at, and above, Planck scales (with a 2-D behavior and Lorentz invariance preserved by random walks till the early moments of the universe). Spacetime results from past random walks of particles. Spacetime locations, and particles, can be modeled as microscopic black holes (minimal Schwarzschild for photons and spacetime coordinates, and metrics between Reisner Nordstrom [2] and Kerr Newman [3] for massive and possibly charged particles – the latter being possibly extremal). Although surprising, [1] recovers results consistent with other like [4], while also being able to justify the initial assumptions of black holes from the gravity, or entanglement model, in a multi-fold universe. The resulting gravity model recovers General Relativity at larger scale, as a 4-D process, with massless gravity, but also with massive gravity components at very small scale that make gravity significant at these scales. Semi-classical models also turn out to work well till way smaller scales than usually expected.

The present paper revisits, and completes, the analysis and implications of chirality flips due to gravity in multi-fold universes versus more conventional helicity flips. These chirality flips are behind the proposals made in [1,5-9], and therefore the derivations of the SM_G (Standard Model with non-negligible gravity at its scale) properties that differ or clarify the SM.

In this paper, we remain at a high level of discussion of the analysis and references are generic for the subjects. It makes the points accessible to a wider audience and keeps the door open to further papers or discussions devoted to details of interest. Yet, it requires the reader to review [1], as we do not revisit here all the details of the multi-fold mechanisms or reconstruction of spacetime. More targeted references for all the material discussed here are compiled in [1] and derived papers.

2. Conventional helicity flips vs. chirality flips

As discussed in [1,5-9], we relied on [10-12] to show how helicity can be flipped by gravity (curved space in semiclassical mode or linearized conventional gravitons). {10-12] did not agree on the behavior for massless chiral fermions; the discrepancies were interpreted in [1,5,6] to the difference between semi-classical and quantized approximations, and on that basis favored [10], with helicity flips also in the massless cases.

For massless (Weyl) fermions, helicity flips are equivalent to chirality flips. Based on the reasoning, if a massless chiral fermion interacts with gravity, its chirality will flip back and forth.

3. Problems with chirality flips

Chirality flips due to interaction with the Higgs boson confer mass to the fermions. As left-handed and right-handed fermions have different quantum numbers for the weak isospin and weak hypercharge, these appear not conserved. They are because of the Higgs bosons, in the vacuum carrying the difference required to conserve these quantum numbers.

If massless Weyl fermion have their helicity flipped, a priori, no candidate is involved to preserve conservation of weak isospin and weak hypercharge.

4. Gravity induced chirality flips in multi-fold universes

In [9], we proposed a scenario whereby every concretized spacetime location is associated to Higgs fields through Higgs boson microscopic black holes. As a results, even when interacting with gravity (curved spacetime or effective potential) instead of Higgs bosons, there is always an associated (set of) Higgs bosons where a Weyl fermion is located when chirality flips. The Higgs boson can carry or provide the deltas in weak isospin and weak hypercharge; essentially as in conventional Higgs interactions and chirality flips can take place as envisaged in [1,5-9].

5. Conclusions

We have completed the model of fermion chirality flips in multi-fold universe due to gravity. The model of Higgs microscopic black holes at any concretized spacetime location derived in [9] enables chirality flips of chiral fermions in between the mass generation interactions with the Higgs boson. Of course, post chirality flips helicity flips can also take place with the massive fermions.

Proposals for right-handed neutrinos [6,7,9] and absence of proton decay due to stronger lepton and baryon number symmetries [5] remain valid.

____

Remember that there is an updated version at https://shmaesphysics.wordpress.com/2022/08/20/can-chirality-flips-occur-in-a-multi-fold-universe-what-about-conservation-laws-ii/, viXra:2204.0152v2, to be cited as: Stephane H Maes, (2022), “Can Chirality Flips Occur in a Multi-Fold Universe? What About Conservation Laws? II”, viXra:2204.0152v2, shmaesphysics.wordpress.com/20…, August 20, 2022.

Cite this older version as: Stephane H Maes, (2020), “Can Chirality Flips Occur in a Multi-Fold Universe? What About Conservation Laws?”, viXra:2204.0152v1, shmaesphysics.wordpress.com/20…, December 6, 2020.

____

References: (most references come from popular science to make the discussion more approachable)

[1]: Stephane H. Maes, (2020), “Quantum Gravity Emergence from Entanglement in a Multi-Fold Universe”, viXra:2006.0088v1, vixra.org/pdf/2006.0088v1.pdf (June 9, 2020).

[2]: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reissner…

[3]: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerr-New…

[4]: Burinskii, Alexander, (2008), “The Dirac-Kerr-Newman electron”, arXiv:0507109v4

[5]: Stephane H Maes, (2020), “Gravity Induced Anomalies Smearing in Standard Model so that Protons May Never Decay, Except in Black Holes “, viXra:2006.0128v1, shmaesphysics.wordpress.com/20…, June 13, 2020.

[6]: Stephane H Maes, (2020), ”Right-handed neutrinos? Mass? Ask Gravity”, viXra:2007.0018v1, shmaesphysics.wordpress.com/20…, June 23, 2020.

[7]: Stephane H Maes, (2020), “No Conventional Sterile Neutrinos In a Multi-fold Universe: just SMG business as usual”, viXra:2103.0202v1, shmaesphysics.wordpress.com/20…, October 1, 2020.

[8]: Stephane H Maes, (2020), “Tracking Down The Standard Model With Gravity In Multi-Fold Universes”, viXra:2011.0208v1, shmaesphysics.wordpress.com/20…, August 20, 2020.

[9]: Stephane H Maes, (2020), “Multi-fold Higgs Fields and Bosons”, viXra:2204.0146v1, shmaesphysics.wordpress.com/20…, November 6, 2020.

[10]: Carlos Mergulhao Jr., (1995), “Neutrino Helicity Flip in a Curved Space-tlme”, General Relativity and Gravitation, volume 27, pages 657–667.

[11]: R. Aldrovandi, G. E. A. Matsas, S. F. Novaes, D. Spehler, (1994), ” Fermion Helicity Flip in Weak Gravitational Fields”, arXiv:gr-qc/9404018v1

[12]: Soumitra SenGupta, Aninda Sinha, (2001), ” Fermion helicity flip by parity violating torsion”, arXiv:hep-th/0102073v2.

I thank my generous supporters on Patreon. If you like my work, publications, and opinions, please consider joining them. This way, you can support this research work done totally independent from any institution. Use the contact form if you prefer to help by putting together a grant or other type of funding.

#BaryonNumber #Chirality #chiralityFlip #conservation #conservationLaws #Entanglement #Gravity #helicityFlip #HiggsInMultiFolds #LeptonNumber #MassGeneration #MultiFoldUniverse #protonDecay #QuantumGravity #rightHandedNeutrinos #sterileNeutrinos #vev #weakHypercharge #weakIsospin

Shmaes - Physics

2020-06-12 21:03:46

Protons may never decay, except in black holes

Protons may never decay, except in black holes

S. Maes

June 12, 2010

Replaced and superseded by: Stephane H. Maes, (2020), ” Gravity Induced Anomalies Smearing in Standard Model so that Protons may never decay, except in black holes “, shmaesphysics.wordpress.com/20…, June 13, 2020.

____

I thank my generous supporters on Patreon. [strong]If you like my work, publications, and opinions, please consider joining them. This way, you can support this research work done totally independent from any institution. Use the contact form if you prefer to help by putting together a grant or other type of funding.[/strong]

Contact

Don’t hesitate to reach out with the contact information below, or send a message using the form. Multi-fold Community, where you can submit your own related papers, and be linked here. (Apri…

^{Shmaes - Physics}

Can Chirality Flips Occur in a Multi-Fold Universe? What About Conservation Laws? II

Stephane H. Maes

V2- August 20, 2022

(Updated from the December 6, 2020 version that is at shmaesphysics.wordpress.com/20… )

Abstract:

In a multi-fold universe, gravity emerges from Entanglement through the multi-fold mechanisms. As a result, gravity-like effects appear in between entangled particles, whether they be real or virtual. Long range, massless gravity results from entanglement of massless virtual particles. Entanglement of massive virtual particles leads to massive gravity contributions at very smalls scales. Multi-folds mechanisms also result into a spacetime that is discrete, with a random walk fractal structure and non-commutative geometry that is Lorentz invariant and where spacetime nodes and particles can be modeled with microscopic black holes. All these recover General relativity at large scales and semi-classical model remain valid till smaller scale than usually expected. Gravity can therefore be added to the Standard Model. This can contribute to resolving several open issues with the Standard Model (SM) without new Physics other than gravity. These considerations hint at a even stronger relationship between gravity and the Standard Model.

In past papers, we have argued that chirality flips can occur in the presence of non-negligible gravitational effects. In multi-fold universes, it led us to propose mechanisms to justify the absence of proton decay and the possible existence in flight of right-handed neutrinos and left-handed anti-neutrinos. However, we based these proposals on helicity flips at scales above mass acquisition by the Higgs mechanisms. We did not discuss the obvious implications on conservation of the weak hypercharge or weak isospin. This paper does so.

Text added on 8/20/22: The chirality flips of massless particles above the multi-fold gravity electroweak symmetry breaking energy scale can be attributed to spacetime orientation fluctuations, as particle appear.

____

1. Introduction

The new preprint [1] proposes contributions to several open problems in physics like the reconciliation of General Relativity (GR) with Quantum Physics, explaining the origin of gravity proposed as emerging from quantum (EPR- Einstein Podolsky Rosen) entanglement between particles, detailing contributions to dark matter and dark energy and explaining other Standard Model (SM) mysteries without requiring New Physics beyond the Standard Model other than the addition of gravity to the Standard Model Lagrangian. All this is achieved in a multi-fold universe that may well model our real universe, which remains to be validated.

With the proposed model of [1], spacetime and Physics are modeled from Planck scales to quantum and macroscopic scales, and semi classical approaches appear valid till very small scales. In [1], it is argued that spacetime is discrete, with a random walk-based fractal structure, fractional and noncommutative at, and above, Planck scales (with a 2-D behavior and Lorentz invariance preserved by random walks till the early moments of the universe). Spacetime results from past random walks of particles. Spacetime locations, and particles, can be modeled as microscopic black holes (minimal Schwarzschild for photons and spacetime coordinates, and metrics between Reisner Nordstrom [2] and Kerr Newman [3] for massive and possibly charged particles – the latter being possibly extremal). Although surprising, [1] recovers results consistent with other like [4], while also being able to justify the initial assumptions of black holes from the gravity, or entanglement model, in a multi-fold universe. The resulting gravity model recovers General Relativity at larger scale, as a 4-D process, with massless gravity, but also with massive gravity components at very small scale that make gravity significant at these scales. Semi-classical models also turn out to work well till way smaller scales than usually expected.

The present paper revisits, and completes, the analysis and implications of chirality flips due to gravity in multi-fold universes versus more conventional helicity flips. These chirality flips are behind the proposals made in [1,5-9], and therefore the derivations of the SM_G (Standard Model with non-negligible gravity at its scale) properties that differ or clarify the SM.

In this paper, we remain at a high level of discussion of the analysis and references are generic for the subjects. It makes the points accessible to a wider audience and keeps the door open to further papers or discussions devoted to details of interest. Yet, it requires the reader to review [1], as we do not revisit here all the details of the multi-fold mechanisms or reconstruction of spacetime. More targeted references for all the material discussed here are compiled in [1] and derived papers.

2. Conventional helicity flips vs. chirality flips

As discussed in [1,5-9], we relied on [10-12] to show how helicity can be flipped by gravity (curved space in semiclassical mode or linearized conventional gravitons). [10-12] did not agree on the behavior for massless chiral fermions; the discrepancies were interpreted in [1,5,6] to the difference between semi-classical and quantized approximations, and on that basis favored [10], with helicity flips also in the massless cases.

For massless (Weyl) fermions, helicity flips are equivalent to chirality flips. Based on the reasoning, if a massless chiral fermion interacts with gravity, its chirality will flip back and forth.

3. Problems with chirality flips

Chirality flips due to interaction with the Higgs boson confer mass to the fermions. As left-handed and right-handed fermions have different quantum numbers for the weak isospin and weak hypercharge, these appear not conserved. They are because of the Higgs bosons, in the vacuum carrying the difference required to conserve these quantum numbers.

If massless Weyl fermion have their helicity flipped, a priori, no candidate is involved to preserve conservation of weak isospin and weak hypercharge.

4. Gravity induced chirality flips in multi-fold universes

In [9], we proposed a scenario whereby every concretized spacetime location is associated to Higgs fields through Higgs boson microscopic black holes. As a results, even when interacting with gravity (curved spacetime or effective potential) instead of Higgs bosons, there is always an associated (set of) Higgs bosons where a Weyl fermion is located when chirality flips. The Higgs boson can carry or provide the deltas in weak isospin and weak hypercharge; essentially as in conventional Higgs interactions and chirality flips can take place as envisaged in [1,5-9].

Text added on 8/20/22: In order to support the arguments presented in [1,5-7], respectively for the absence of proton decay, along with serious conservation of the Baryon and Lepton numbers, and the existence of a massive right-handed neutrinos, we really only care for the massless case at energy scales above the multi-fold gravity electroweak symmetry breaking energy scale. This way, we do not have to fully decide between [10] and [11,12], while keeping the same conclusion.

Indeed, above the multi-fold gravity electroweak symmetry breaking energy scale, spacetime is not oriented [13,14], and with local quantum particle fluctuations, when pairs of particles and anti-particles appear, locally and temporarily orient spacetime, with say rotation of particle fluctuations: when they appear and microscopic black holes rotate, they provide a local orientation of spacetime. That is equivalent to helicity flips. And they need to occur with the massless Weyl components before mass acquisition. Per [15], 4D spacetime properties like helicity, impact quantum numbers from the locally embedding 7D spacetime through multi-fold space tome mater induction and scattering. As a result, the model is consistent: local flips of spacetime orientation amount to chirality flips for massless particles above the multi-fold gravity electroweak symmetry breaking energy scale.

In terms of conservation charges, such flips in the orientation of spacetime can be handled, as discussed in section 4. Indeed, the orientation of spacetime comes from rotation of Higgs condensates [13,14].

5. Conclusions

We have completed the model of fermion chirality flips in multi-fold universe due to gravity. The model of Higgs microscopic black holes at any concretized spacetime location derived in [9] enables chirality flips of chiral fermions in between the mass generation interactions with the Higgs boson. Of course, post chirality flips helicity flips can also take place with the massive fermions.

With the mechanisms above gravity electroweak symmetry breaking energy scales, proposals for right-handed neutrinos [6,7,9] and absence of proton decay due to stronger lepton and baryon number symmetries [5] remain valid.

____

Cite as: Stephane H Maes, (2022), “Can Chirality Flips Occur in a Multi-Fold Universe? What About Conservation Laws? II”, viXra:2204.0152v2, shmaesphysics.wordpress.com/20…, August 20, 2022.

(See the older version 1 at shmaesphysics.wordpress.com/20…. )

____

References: (most references come from popular science to make the discussion more approachable)

[1]: Stephane H. Maes, (2020), “Quantum Gravity Emergence from Entanglement in a Multi-Fold Universe”, viXra:2006.0088v1, vixra.org/pdf/2006.0088v1.pdf (June 9, 2020). (See also shmaesphysics.wordpress.com/20…).

[2]: Wikipedia, “Reissner–Nordström metric”, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reissner…. Retrieved on March 21, 2020.

[3]: Wikipedia, “Kerr–Newman metric”, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerr-New…. Retrieved on March 21, 2020.

[4]: Burinskii, Alexander, (2008), “The Dirac-Kerr-Newman electron”, arXiv:0507109v4

[5]: Stephane H Maes, (2020), “Gravity Induced Anomalies Smearing in Standard Model so that Protons May Never Decay, Except in Black Holes “, viXra:2006.0128v1, shmaesphysics.wordpress.com/20…, June 13, 2020.

[6]: Stephane H Maes, (2020), ”Right-handed neutrinos? Mass? Ask Gravity”, viXra:2007.0018v1, shmaesphysics.wordpress.com/20…, June 23, 2020.

[7]: Stephane H Maes, (2020), “No Conventional Sterile Neutrinos In a Multi-fold Universe: just SMG business as usual”, viXra:2103.0202v1, shmaesphysics.wordpress.com/20…, October 1, 2020.

[8]: Stephane H Maes, (2020), “Tracking Down The Standard Model With Gravity In Multi-Fold Universes”, viXra:2011.0208v1, shmaesphysics.wordpress.com/20…, August 20, 2020.

[9]: Stephane H Maes, (2020), “Multi-fold Higgs Fields and Bosons”, viXra:2204.0146v1, shmaesphysics.wordpress.com/20…, November 6, 2020.

[10]: Carlos Mergulhao Jr., (1995), “Neutrino Helicity Flip in a Curved Space-tlme”, General Relativity and Gravitation, volume 27, pages 657–667.

[11]: R. Aldrovandi, G. E. A. Matsas, S. F. Novaes, D. Spehler, (1994), ” Fermion Helicity Flip in Weak Gravitational Fields”, arXiv:gr-qc/9404018v1

[12]: Soumitra SenGupta, Aninda Sinha, (2001), ” Fermion helicity flip by parity violating torsion”, arXiv:hep-th/0102073v2.

References added on August 20, 2022

[13]: Stephane H Maes, (2021), “More on Multi-fold Particles as Microscopic Black Holes with Higgs Regularizing Extremality and Singularities”, shmaesphysics.wordpress.com/20…, February 25, 2021.

[14]: Stephane H Maes, (2021), “Multi-fold Gravity-Electroweak Theory and Symmetry Breaking”, shmaesphysics.wordpress.com/20…, March 16, 2021.

[15]: Stephane H. Maes, (2022), “Justifying the Standard Model U(1) x SU(2) x SU(3) Symmetry in a Multi-fold Universe”, shmaesphysics.wordpress.com/20…, August 8, 2022.

I thank my generous supporters on Patreon. If you like my work, publications, and opinions, please consider joining them. This way, you can support this research work done totally independent from any institution. Use the contact form if you prefer to help by putting together a grant or other type of funding.

#BaryonNumber #Chirality #chiralityFlip #conservation #conservationLaws #Entanglement #Gravity #GravityElectroweak #helicityFlip #HiggsInMultiFolds #LeptonNumber #MassGeneration #MultiFoldUniverse #protonDecay #QuantumGravity #rightHandedNeutrinos #sterileNeutrinos #vev #weakHypercharge #weakIsospin

Shmaes - Physics

2020-12-07 23:45:07

Can Chirality Flips Occur in a Multi-Fold Universe? What About Conservation Laws?

Stephane H. Maes

December 6, 2020

See instead updated version athttps://shmaesphysics.wordpress.com/2022/08/20/can-chirality-flips-occur-in-a-multi-fold-universe-what-about-conservation-laws-ii/, viXra:2204.0152v2.

Abstract:

In a multi-fold universe, gravity emerges from Entanglement through the multi-fold mechanisms. As a result, gravity-like effects appear in between entangled particles that they be real or virtual. Long range, massless gravity results from entanglement of massless virtual particles. Entanglement of massive virtual particles leads to massive gravity contributions at very smalls scales. Multi-folds mechanisms also result into a spacetime that is discrete, with a random walk fractal structure and non-commutative geometry that is Lorentz invariant and where spacetime nodes and particles can be modeled with microscopic black holes. All these recover General relativity at large scales and semi-classical model remain valid till smaller scale than usually expected. Gravity can therefore be added to the Standard Model. This can contribute to resolving several open issues with the Standard Model (SM) without new Physics other than gravity. These considerations hint at a even stronger relationship between gravity and the Standard Model.

In past papers, we have argued that chirality flips can occur in the presence of non-negligible gravitational effects. In multi-fold universes, it led us propose mechanisms to justify the absence of proton decay and the possible existence in flight of right-handed neutrinos and left-handed anti-neutrinos. However, we based these proposals on helicity flips at scales above mass acquisition by the Higgs mechanisms. We did not discuss the obvious implications on conservation of the weak hypercharge or weak isospin. This paper does so.

____

1. Introduction

The new preprint [1] proposes contributions to several open problems in physics like the reconciliation of General Relativity (GR) with Quantum Physics, explaining the origin of gravity proposed as emerging from quantum (EPR- Einstein Podolsky Rosen) entanglement between particles, detailing contributions to dark matter and dark energy and explaining other Standard Model (SM) mysteries without requiring New Physics beyond the Standard Model other than the addition of gravity to the Standard Model Lagrangian. All this is achieved in a multi-fold universe that may well model our real universe, which remains to be validated.

With the proposed model of [1], spacetime and Physics are modeled from Planck scales to quantum and macroscopic scales, and semi classical approaches appear valid till very small scales. In [1], it is argued that spacetime is discrete, with a random walk-based fractal structure, fractional and noncommutative at, and above, Planck scales (with a 2-D behavior and Lorentz invariance preserved by random walks till the early moments of the universe). Spacetime results from past random walks of particles. Spacetime locations, and particles, can be modeled as microscopic black holes (minimal Schwarzschild for photons and spacetime coordinates, and metrics between Reisner Nordstrom [2] and Kerr Newman [3] for massive and possibly charged particles – the latter being possibly extremal). Although surprising, [1] recovers results consistent with other like [4], while also being able to justify the initial assumptions of black holes from the gravity, or entanglement model, in a multi-fold universe. The resulting gravity model recovers General Relativity at larger scale, as a 4-D process, with massless gravity, but also with massive gravity components at very small scale that make gravity significant at these scales. Semi-classical models also turn out to work well till way smaller scales than usually expected.

The present paper revisits, and completes, the analysis and implications of chirality flips due to gravity in multi-fold universes versus more conventional helicity flips. These chirality flips are behind the proposals made in [1,5-9], and therefore the derivations of the SM_G (Standard Model with non-negligible gravity at its scale) properties that differ or clarify the SM.

In this paper, we remain at a high level of discussion of the analysis and references are generic for the subjects. It makes the points accessible to a wider audience and keeps the door open to further papers or discussions devoted to details of interest. Yet, it requires the reader to review [1], as we do not revisit here all the details of the multi-fold mechanisms or reconstruction of spacetime. More targeted references for all the material discussed here are compiled in [1] and derived papers.

2. Conventional helicity flips vs. chirality flips

As discussed in [1,5-9], we relied on [10-12] to show how helicity can be flipped by gravity (curved space in semiclassical mode or linearized conventional gravitons). {10-12] did not agree on the behavior for massless chiral fermions; the discrepancies were interpreted in [1,5,6] to the difference between semi-classical and quantized approximations, and on that basis favored [10], with helicity flips also in the massless cases.

For massless (Weyl) fermions, helicity flips are equivalent to chirality flips. Based on the reasoning, if a massless chiral fermion interacts with gravity, its chirality will flip back and forth.

3. Problems with chirality flips

Chirality flips due to interaction with the Higgs boson confer mass to the fermions. As left-handed and right-handed fermions have different quantum numbers for the weak isospin and weak hypercharge, these appear not conserved. They are because of the Higgs bosons, in the vacuum carrying the difference required to conserve these quantum numbers.

If massless Weyl fermion have their helicity flipped, a priori, no candidate is involved to preserve conservation of weak isospin and weak hypercharge.

4. Gravity induced chirality flips in multi-fold universes

In [9], we proposed a scenario whereby every concretized spacetime location is associated to Higgs fields through Higgs boson microscopic black holes. As a results, even when interacting with gravity (curved spacetime or effective potential) instead of Higgs bosons, there is always an associated (set of) Higgs bosons where a Weyl fermion is located when chirality flips. The Higgs boson can carry or provide the deltas in weak isospin and weak hypercharge; essentially as in conventional Higgs interactions and chirality flips can take place as envisaged in [1,5-9].

5. Conclusions

We have completed the model of fermion chirality flips in multi-fold universe due to gravity. The model of Higgs microscopic black holes at any concretized spacetime location derived in [9] enables chirality flips of chiral fermions in between the mass generation interactions with the Higgs boson. Of course, post chirality flips helicity flips can also take place with the massive fermions.

Proposals for right-handed neutrinos [6,7,9] and absence of proton decay due to stronger lepton and baryon number symmetries [5] remain valid.

____

Remember that there is an updated version athttps://shmaesphysics.wordpress.com/2022/08/20/can-chirality-flips-occur-in-a-multi-fold-universe-what-about-conservation-laws-ii/, viXra:2204.0152v2, to be cited as: Stephane H Maes, (2022), “Can Chirality Flips Occur in a Multi-Fold Universe? What About Conservation Laws? II”, viXra:2204.0152v2, shmaesphysics.wordpress.com/20…, August 20, 2022.

Cite this older version as: Stephane H Maes, (2020), “Can Chirality Flips Occur in a Multi-Fold Universe? What About Conservation Laws?”, viXra:2204.0152v1, shmaesphysics.wordpress.com/20…, December 6, 2020.

____

References: (most references come from popular science to make the discussion more approachable)

[1]: Stephane H. Maes, (2020), “Quantum Gravity Emergence from Entanglement in a Multi-Fold Universe”, viXra:2006.0088v1, vixra.org/pdf/2006.0088v1.pdf (June 9, 2020).

[2]: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reissner…

[3]: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerr-New…

[4]: Burinskii, Alexander, (2008), “The Dirac-Kerr-Newman electron”, arXiv:0507109v4

[5]: Stephane H Maes, (2020), “Gravity Induced Anomalies Smearing in Standard Model so that Protons May Never Decay, Except in Black Holes “, viXra:2006.0128v1, shmaesphysics.wordpress.com/20…, June 13, 2020.

[6]: Stephane H Maes, (2020), ”Right-handed neutrinos? Mass? Ask Gravity”, viXra:2007.0018v1, shmaesphysics.wordpress.com/20…, June 23, 2020.

[7]: Stephane H Maes, (2020), “No Conventional Sterile Neutrinos In a Multi-fold Universe: just SMG business as usual”, viXra:2103.0202v1, shmaesphysics.wordpress.com/20…, October 1, 2020.

[8]: Stephane H Maes, (2020), “Tracking Down The Standard Model With Gravity In Multi-Fold Universes”, viXra:2011.0208v1, shmaesphysics.wordpress.com/20…, August 20, 2020.

[9]: Stephane H Maes, (2020), “Multi-fold Higgs Fields and Bosons”, viXra:2204.0146v1, shmaesphysics.wordpress.com/20…, November 6, 2020.

[10]: Carlos Mergulhao Jr., (1995), “Neutrino Helicity Flip in a Curved Space-tlme”, General Relativity and Gravitation, volume 27, pages 657–667.

[11]: R. Aldrovandi, G. E. A. Matsas, S. F. Novaes, D. Spehler, (1994), ” Fermion Helicity Flip in Weak Gravitational Fields”, arXiv:gr-qc/9404018v1

[12]: Soumitra SenGupta, Aninda Sinha, (2001), ” Fermion helicity flip by parity violating torsion”, arXiv:hep-th/0102073v2.

---

I thank my generous supporters on Patreon. If you like my work, publications, and opinions, please consider joining them. This way, you can support this research work done totally independent from any institution. Use the contact form if you prefer to help by putting together a grant or other type of funding.

#BaryonNumber #Chirality #chiralityFlip #conservation #conservationLaws #Entanglement #Gravity #helicityFlip #HiggsInMultiFolds #LeptonNumber #MassGeneration #MultiFoldUniverse #protonDecay #QuantumGravity #rightHandedNeutrinos #sterileNeutrinos #vev #weakHypercharge #weakIsospin

Contact

Don’t hesitate to reach out with the contact information below, or send a message using the form. Multi-fold Community, where you can submit your own related papers, and be linked here. (Apri…

^{Shmaes - Physics}

“Quantum Gravity Emergence from Entanglement in a Multi-Fold Universe”: 2D or 2+1D spacetime at small scales

Stephane H. Maes[1]

March 20, 2021

Abstract:

This short note presents a clarification to statements provided in our paper “Quantum Gravity Emergence from Entanglement in a Multi-Fold Universe”, with respect to the dimensional reduction of quantum gravity proposed by ‘t Hooft.

____

1. Motivations

In [1], and subsequent multi-fold theory papers, e.g. [2], tracked in [3,4], we stated that G. ‘t Hooft proposed that gravity behaves as if it had 2D degrees of freedom [5]. Multiple readers asked about this, as [5] explicitly states 2+1D.

2. Clarifications

Yes, [5] recovered degrees of freedom associated to a 2+1D spacetime, which may appear inconsistent with our statements made in [1,2].

We should have been clearer that 2+1D in [5] indeed implies 2D spacetime at very small scales. Indeed if at these scales, all particle are massless (e.g. because we are above the electroweak energy scale), their speed is fixed at c. The resulting process is therefore 2D.

In fact, it is consistent with most quantum gravity theories per [6].

____

Cite as: Stephane H Maes, (2021), ““Quantum Gravity Emergence from Entanglement in a Multi-Fold Universe”: 2D or 2+1D spacetime at small scales”, viXra:2103.0142, shmaesphysics.wordpress.com/20…, March 20, 2021.

____

References:

[1]: Stephane H. Maes, (2020), “Quantum Gravity Emergence from Entanglement in a Multi-Fold Universe”, viXra:2006.0088v1, vixra.org/pdf/2006.0088v1.pdf (June 9, 2020). (See also shmaesphysics.wordpress.com/20…).

[2]: Stephane H Maes, (2020), “Renormalization and Asymptotic Safety of Gravity in a Multi-Fold Universe: More Tracking of the Standard Model at the Cost of Supersymmetries, GUTs and Superstrings”, viXra:2102.0137v1, shmaesphysics.wordpress.com/20…, September 18, 2020.

[3]: Stephane Maes, (2020), “Web Site Tracking all Publications around the Multi-fold universe”, Navigation page listing all papers. shmaesphysics.wordpress.com/sh….

[4]: Stephane Maes, (2021), “Current Review – All Publications around the Multi-fold universe – February 2021”, osf.io/8b69k, shmaesphysics.wordpress.com/sh…, February 15, 2021. (More recent updates available at the URL).

[5]: G. ‘t Hooft, (1993), “Dimensional Reduction in Quantum Gravity”, arXiv:gr-qc/9310026v2.

[6]: Steven Carlip, (2010), “The Small Scale Structure of Spacetime“, arXiv:1009.1136v1.

I thank my generous supporters on Patreon. [strong]If you like my work, publications, and opinions, please consider joining them. This way, you can support this research work done totally independent from any institution. Use the contact form if you prefer to help by putting together a grant or other type of funding.[/strong]

#2D #4D #AsymptoticSafe #CFT #DiscreteSpacetime #Entanglement #GeneralRelativity #LorentzInvariance #MultiFoldUniverse #nonCommutative #QuantumGravity #QuantumPhysics #randomWalk #renormalizable #spacetimeReconstruction

Particles of The Standard Model In Multi-Fold Universes

Stephane H. Maes

November 4, 2020

Abstract:

In a multi-fold universe, gravity emerges from Entanglement through the multi-fold mechanisms. As a result, gravity-like effects appear in between entangled particles that they be real or virtual. Long range, massless gravity results from entanglement of massless virtual particles. Entanglement of massive virtual particles leads to massive gravity contributions at very smalls scales. Multi-folds mechanisms also result into a spacetime that is discrete, with a random walk fractal structure and non-commutative geometry that is Lorentz invariant and where spacetime nodes and particles can be modeled with microscopic black holes. All these recover General relativity at large scales and semi-classical model remain valid till smaller scale than usually expected. Gravity can therefore be added to the Standard Model. This can contribute to resolving several open issues with the Standard Model without new Physics other than gravity. These considerations hints at a even stronger relationship between gravity and the Standard Model.A subsequent analysis described how embedding a multi-fold universe in a 7D unconstrained, i.e. non compact, Kaluza-Klein (KK) flat spacetime can induce the standard model in the multi-fold spacetime.

In this paper, we illustrate how computations previous derived by others in the context of a more cabalistic model can be reused and adapted to hint at extracting, from 7D unconstrained KK flat spacetime containing the multi-fold universe, many particles of the Standard Model, and very closely predicting their masses and charges. Illustrating and progressing concretely our previous assertions.

With the model of our previous papers and the results obtained in this paper, the way that multi-fold mechanisms repurpose KK and other models result while avoiding many of their problems or gaps in physical interpretations; further weights in for the pertinence of multi-fold models in Physics.

Our approach may also have found a duality hidden behind the Unified GEM theory in a multi-fold universe.

____

1. Introduction

The paper [1] proposes contributions to several open problems in physics like the reconciliation of General Relativity (GR) with Quantum Physics, explaining the origin of gravity proposed as emerging from quantum (EPR- Einstein Podolsky Rosen) entanglement between particles, detailing contributions to dark matter and dark energy and explaining other Standard Model mysteries without requiring New Physics beyond the Standard Model other than the addition of gravity to the Standard Model Lagrangian. All this is achieved in a multi-fold universe that may well model our real universe, which remains to be validated.

With the proposed model of [1], spacetime and Physics are modeled from Planck scales to quantum and macroscopic scales and semi classical approaches appear valid till very small scales. In [1], it is argued that spacetime is discrete, with a random walk-based fractal structure, fractional and noncommutative at, and above Planck scales (with a 2-D behavior and Lorentz invariance preserved by random walks till the early moments of the universe). Spacetime results from past random walks of particles. Spacetime locations and particles can be modeled as microscopic black holes (Schwarzschild for photons and spacetime coordinates, and metrics between Reisner Nordstrom [2] and Kerr Newman [3] for massive and possibly charged particles – the latter being possibly extremal). Although surprising, [1] recovers results consistent with other like [4], while also being able to justify the initial assumptions of black holes from the gravity or entanglement model in a multi-fold universe. The resulting gravity model recovers General Relativity at larger scale, as a 4-D process, with massless gravity, but also with massive gravity components at very small scale that make gravity significant at these scales. Semi-classical models also turn out to work well till way smaller scales that usually expected.

The present paper presents how one can, heuristically, derive the mass of many Standard Model particles with an approximation of a multi-fold universe embedded in a flat 7D unconstrained KK spacetime.

In this paper, we remain at a high level of discussion of the analysis and references are generic for the subjects. It makes the points accessible to a wider audience and keeps the door open to further papers or discussions devoted to details of interest. Yet, it requires the reader to review [1], as we do not revisit here all the details of the multi-fold mechanisms or reconstruction of spacetime. More targeted references for all the material discussed here are compiled in [1] and derived papers.

2. Unified GEM Theory

In the abstract, we refer to the GEM (Gravity-Electromagnetism) unification theory, because it is a model that has not be widely exposed to the Physics community, rightfully so considering its many assertions that are hard to follow or motivate as rigorously as usually demanded by the community. It seems to have rather been published and discussed in Plasma engineering and other aero spatial engineering circles. The latter have had they doses of controversies with Physics. As such, it raises much more skepticism, including ours.

In fact we do not want to evangelize this model; but rather just borrow its numerological computations and results adapted to multi-fold universes in 7D unconstraint KK flat spacetime.

But to do so we need a little bit of introduction to the GEM unification theory. As most useful review references, for our needs, we refer to [5,6].

[5] presents the original plasma analysis and analogy between a traditional model for gravity and a model where particles movements take place as drift of a spatially varying electromagnetic Poynting field and where subsequent pressures, against particle cross sections, match gravity effects. It makes two considerations:

• At very high energy (very small scale), that Gravity fields are equivalent to a spatially varying Poynting, such that the geometry of space requires self-cancelation of ultra-strong electromagnetic fields.
  
  • Absence of such observations are attributed to a vacuum with cells of locally random high electromagnetic fields generating a consistent Poynting field but cancelling on average across cells. This maintains Lorentz invariance of the vacuum.
  • The handwaved interpretation is that at very small frequencies, these large electromagnetic fields would create spacetime while at lower frequencies they are the conventional electromagnetic fields.

  
  

• At very small scales or very high frequencies, electrons and protons become equivalent (except for opposite charge signs). It would be fundamentally due to the plasma effects and the considerations that a sea of plasma particle can modify the perceived size or mass of the particles and screening their electrostatic properties. In Physics of Plasmas, it is modeled with the Debye length [13].

Playing with these considerations, [5] shows recovery, within the Plasma universe, of quantum uncertainties for gravity, models vacuum and its fluctuations, recovers correct estimates for the proton to electron mass ratio, of the fine structure constant α and of the Newton gravity constant G, or even of the CMB radiation temperature. When considering all the strange dualities and numerology considered by others when it comes to particle physics, very small-scale physics and quantum gravity, these results warrant pursuing further the analogies, even if just as what-ifs.

Along that vein, building on [5], [6] proposes additional refinements to the model, including refining the Newton gravity constant G estimates mentioned above: instead of just modeling the universe as a plasma, it adds a fifth compact dimension, à la KK, that it uses to map a charge as distance (an analogy to KK theory) and to introduce scattering, in 4D, on geometrical objects that live in 5D. The scattering model is based on classical Mie scattering resonances, and higher order resonance scenarios. Doing so, the model recovers particles and their mass and charges including the proton and neutron [14] masses , proton as composed on 3 quarks, gluons, meson

η_c, (and as such the strong interaction), W^±, Z⁰ (and as such the weak interaction), and Higgs boson (predicted at 124 GeV, before discovery of the Higgs boson – although their numerological exercises have also provided a 127.69 GeV as a more recent estimate [14]) as well as a neutral particle around ~21MeV (M*, a never observed particle that would be the outcome of the convergence of proton and electrons) and more. All these particles would be excitations of the plasma vacuum and/or resonance with 5D objects.

These amazing results, even if originally built on strange justifications, especially with its focus on protons and electrons as the key elements emerging from the vacuum plasma, allegedly motivated by the dominance of hydrogen in the universe, hint, independently from the induced space – time -matter models [7-9] (i.e. flat 5+D non compact KK flat spacetime), at how 5D geometrical objects can produce the SM particles as we predicted in [10].

Of course, it is and could be dismissed as another case of a theory built on numerology coincidences as many have been encountered in physics, especially high energy physics. But could it rather be another consequence of the dualities that also appear all over small scale / high energy Physics.

(*) Note: [em]Our references to the Unified GEM Theory, in general, and the many additional considerations in [14] and other unified GEM papers, force us to again caution the reader about these publications. In fact, we mention [14], because we assert estimate updates only found in [14], but we do not encourage investing too much in this reference, unless the readers understand that it is either just a numerological exercise or is willing to consider an associated duality, that we haven’t spent time validating or explaining at this stage. Again we are just happy to show that this exercise extracts particle estimates from the multi-fold 7D induces space time matter theory as already predicted in [10]. Extracting a duality, if any exists, is for future work, even if the next section may actually provide the bases for explaining the validity such a duality[/em].

3. Appropriation for a Multi-fold universe in 7D unconstrained KK flat spacetime

Without endorsing the Unified GEM theory, let us see if we can justify the assumptions of the GEM unification theory for a multi-fold universe. Indeed, we believe that its Mie and higher-level scattering considerations in 5D could be relevant to, at the minimum, illustrate the analysis initiated in [10].

Regarding the Unified GEM Theory principles, the model only needs to work at very small scales. So instead of arguments for a duality gravity ≡ EM, and/or the universe, or should we say spacetime in this case, is like a plasma of proton and electron (This is why duality is not obvious), we will rather consider the interior of a neutron, with a quark gluon plasma inside (with electron also randomly present in the plasma as now well known in quantum physics e.g. with all the effects of the Lamb Shift). When about to decay into a proton, the neutron could be seen as a plasma of quarks, (anti) neutrinos and electrons; at least at times. Inside the neutron at very small scales, gravity induced curvature of spacetime would be entirely driven by electromagnetic contributions (as strong and electroweak effects converge per UU) and so that EM and gravity effects cancel as in the Unified GEM Theory unification principles. Doing so, we may have justified the Unified GEM theory, yet we stick to our (*) caveat. In any case, our discussion here seems a better reasoning for explaining the focus on proton and electron as a plasma (vacuum) universe for the numerology exercises as in GEM unification theory. It works for protons also of course; that it be when formed by neutron decay, but also later due to the QCD physics inside a proton as discussed for example in [18]. [this last sentence was added on 11/14/21]. The analysis essentially extends to any hadron (particle composed of quarks). If we wanted to repeat the analysis to the vacuum (or spacetime), we may also make describe it as part of vacuum fluctuations (relying on the democratization discovered with the Ultimate Unification (UU) analysis [1,15] to focus on electron and protons) as in [6]: therefore, the vacuum can also be seen as such a plasma which satisfy the same principles and, per UU: in a multi-fold universe, the UU model implies that all particles become essentially the same in terms of the interaction that they carry and their charges and mass (which will become massless at small enough scales). So the approximation that, at very small scales, electron and proton converge as apparent particles in the plasma, of same size and mass, could hold; and the unified GEM theory, no matter how it looks, may indeed suitably characterize very small scale spacetime, SM_G (the standard model where gravity is considered as non-negligible at its scales, e.g. see [1]) and quantum gravity. Note that without UU, e.g. if the real universe is not multi-fold, the extension to all particles and vacuum/spacetime maybe more tenuous.

Eventually in a multi-fold universe, every particle feels locally, due to uncertainty, the multi-folds in a 7D spacetime which holds for the interactions with 5D objects [10]. As multi-folds are essentially a set of folds that have spin-2 symmetry, 7D space is mostly felt as 3 times 1D when it comes to the degrees of freedom. They usually see the multi-folds they created, which can be seen here as providing also Mie and higher order scattering and therefore can reuse the approximations of [6] (just for that part). And with particle propagating along a 1D path, ne can argue that the dominant effect felt by a particle in a 4D multi-fold universe is 5D.

Also, 7D adds 3 degrees of freedom therefore modeling the colors of QCD (Added on 11/14/21: but without effect on flavors, that is rather handled by SM_G [19]). Also, one could envisage that one of the new particles (or some of them) could be a mixture of neutrinos (tau neutrino or a mix) with both chiralities but only the left-handed neutrino interacting, a single chirality (hence confused as spin 0 in [6]) or two particles with respectively left and right handed chirality (M* and M**)[1]. This neutrino encounter is our speculation based on the estimated mass (i.e. mass upper bound for tau neutrino [16]). If it was the case, then every SM particle is covered by the interactions with 5D objects or as resonance or excitations. Quite a potential result!

Of course, our multi-fold theory is not the Unified GEM theory. So, in the multi-fold version, the plasma hypothesis only explains some quantities used to bootstrap the model and hint at the geometry derived from 5D (in fact 7D but 5D is the dominant effect)) geometrical objects as predicted in [10]. Yet, the analysis presented here certainly goes a long way to also assuage our unease with the motivations in GEM unification theory presented in [5,6,14].

On that basis, we have shown that is possible to repeat the approximations and numerology of [5,6], based on multi-fold universe. Doing so confirm the possibility of finding 7D geometrical objects that model the SM, or SM_G (Standard Model with gravity non-negligible at its scales [1], which naturally can result from the multi-fold models with impact compiled across the papers in [16]) particles in a multi-fold universe spacetime. This conclusions was the objective of the present paper.

Of course, we still want to aim at deriving the actual 7D objects in 7D unconstrained KK flat spacetime that model each of the SM particles. This is for future work. Note on 11/14/21: the work presented in [20] goes a long way to further understand such solutions in a 4D multi-fold universe.

4. Conclusions

We have provided an approximation where many (all if we accept the neutrino proposal and that the other missing ones are the result of other quark combinations and that missing elementary particles are just other excitations – [14] shows that explicitly with the muon as such an excitation) of the SM particles can be modeled in a multi-fold universe by geometrical objects in a 7D unconstrained KK flat spacetime that embeds the multi-fold universe. Doing so, we validated such a thesis from [10] and the original hypothesis behind space-time-matter theory [7-9].

We believe that even if based on approximate models and concerning hypotheses, as well as rather numerology, the result is a significant step reinforcing the relevancy of both multi-fold universes and SM_G.

We also may have encountered the neutrino and postulated an explanation for the sole physical visibility of the right-handed neutrino.

While it was not a claim nor an objective of the paper, we may have also uncovered an interesting duality validating aspects of the Unified GEM theory model for a multi-fold universe.

____

Cite as: Stephane H. Maes, (2020), “Particles of The Standard Model In Multi-Fold Universes”, viXra:2111.0071v1, shmaesphysics.wordpress.com/20…, November 4, 2020.

____

References: (most references come from popular science to make the discussion more approachable)

[1]: Stephane H. Maes, (2020), “Quantum Gravity Emergence from Entanglement in a Multi-Fold Universe”, viXra:2006.0088v1, vixra.org/pdf/2006.0088v1.pdf (June 9, 2020).

[2]: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reissner…

[3]: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerr-New…

[4]: Burinskii, Alexander, (2008), “The Dirac-Kerr-Newman electron”, arXiv:0507109v4

[5]: John E. Brandenburg, (1992),”Unification of Gravity and Electromagnetism in the Plasma Universe”, IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON PLASMA SCIENCE, VOL. 20, NO. 6, DECEMBER 1992

[6]: John E. Brandenburg, (2016), “The GEM (Gravity-EM)Theory : the Unification of the Strong, EM , Weak ,and Gravity Forces of Nature”, Journal of Multidisciplinary Engineering Science Studies (JMESS), Vol. 2 Issue 7, July – 2016

[7]: Paul S Wesson, (1999), “Space – Time – Matter: Modern Kaluza-Klein Theory”, World Scientific Pub Co.

[8]: Paul S Wesson, (2006), “Five-dimensional Physics: Classical And Quantum Consequences of Kaluza-klein Cosmology”, World Scientific Pub Co.

[9]: Paul S. Wesson and James M. Overduin, (2018), “Principles of Space-Time-Matter: Cosmology, Particles and Waves in Five Dimensions”, World Scientific Pub Co.

[10]: Stephane H Maes, (2020), “Tracking Down The Standard Model With Gravity In Multi-Fold Universes”, shmaesphysics.wordpress.com/20…, August 20, 2020.

[11]: Stephane H Maes, (2020), ”Right-handed neutrinos? Mass? Ask Gravity”, viXra:2007.0018v1, shmaesphysics.wordpress.com/20…, June 23, 2020.

[12]: Stephane H Maes, (2020), “No Conventional Sterile Neutrinos In a Multi-fold Universe: just SMG business as usual”, shmaesphysics.wordpress.com/20…, October 1, 2020.

[13], Wikipedia, “Debye length”, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debye_le…. Retrieved on November 2, 2020.

[14]: John Brandenburg, (2016), “The GEM Unification Theory. Extending the Standard Model to Include Gravitation”, Lambert Academic Publishing. (*) Please see the caveat in section 3.

[15]: Stephane H Maes, (2020), ”Ultimate Unification: Gravity-led Democracy vs. Uber-Symmetries”, viXra:2006.0211v1, shmaesphysics.wordpress.com/20…, June 16, 2020.

[16]: Stephane H. Maes, (2020), “Web Site Tracking all Publications around the Multi-fold universe” -Navigation page listing all papers, shmaesphysics.wordpress.com/sh….

[17]: Wikipedia, “Standard Model”, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard…. Retrieved on October 10, 2019.

References added 11/14/21:

[18]: Ethan Siegel, (2021), “What Rules The Proton: Quarks Or Gluons?”, forbes.com/sites/startswithaba…. Retrieved on March 18, 2021.

[19]: Stephane H Maes, (2020), “Gravity Dictates the Number of Fermion Generations: 3”, viXra:2007.0068v1, shmaesphysics.wordpress.com/20…, June 24, 2020.

[20]: Stephane H Maes, (2021), “More on Multi-fold Particles as Microscopic Black Holes with Higgs Regularizing Extremality and Singularities”, shmaesphysics.wordpress.com/20…, February 25, 2021.

____

[1] As a rather purely speculative idea, it is possible that the right-handed neutrino chirality itself be always present rather in the multi-folds (not in 7D as chirality is undefined in 5D or 7D), therefore not interacting other than with the Higgs and left-handed neutrinos when these enter the folds at the entry points. That would explain its absence for all purpose except contributing to the mass of the left-handed neutrino mass, as proposed in [11,12]. Determining if such an interpretation is sensible is for future work. Note added on 11/14/21: explanations of these considerations can be found in future papers [21-23].

____

I thank my generous supporters on Patreon. [strong]If you like my work, publications, and opinions, please consider joining them. This way, you can support this research work done totally independent from any institution. Use the contact form if you prefer to help by puting together a grant or other type of funding.[/strong]

#5D #7D #Electron #Entanglement #etaC #GEMUnificationTheory #gluon #GravityElectromagnetism #HiggsBoson #InducedSpaceTimeMatter #KaluzaKlein #leftHandedNeutrinos #MultiFoldUniverse #NeutrinosMassProblems #neutron #PiMeson #Plasma #Proton #Quarks #rightHandedNeutrinos #scattering #spaceTimeMatterInductionAndScattering #StandardModel #standardModelWithGravity #WBoson #ZBoson

Shmaes - Physics

2020-06-22 02:46:07

Right-handed neutrinos? Mass? Ask Gravity

Stephane H. Maes

June 21, 2020

Abstract:

In a multi-fold universe, gravity emerges from Entanglement through the multi-fold mechanisms. As a result, gravity-like effects appear in between entangled particles that they be real or virtual. Long range, massless gravity results from entanglement of massless virtual particles. Entanglement of massive virtual particles leads to massive gravity contributions at very smalls scales. Multi-folds mechanisms also result into a spacetime that is discrete, with a random walk fractal structure and non-commutative geometry that is Lorentz invariant and where spacetime nodes and particles can be modeled with microscopic black holes. All these recover General relativity at large scales and semi-classical model remain valid till smaller scale than usually expected. Gravity can therefore be added to the Standard Model. This can contribute to resolving several open issues with the Standard Model. In particular with chirality flips of fermion induced by gravity, right-handed neutrinos (and left-handed anti-neutrinos) can appear in flight and now acquire mass when encountering Higgs bosons; two mysteries can be explained in one shot in a multi-fold universe.

____

1. Introduction

The new preprint [1] proposes contributions to several open problems in physics like the reconciliation of General Relativity (GR) with Quantum Physics, explaining the origin of gravity proposed as emerging from quantum (EPR- Einstein Podolsky Rosen) entanglement between particles, detailing contributions to dark matter and dark energy and explaining other Standard Model mysteries without requiring New Physics beyond the Standard Model other than the addition of gravity to the Standard Model Lagrangian. All this is achieved in a multi-fold universe that may well model our real universe, which remains to be validated.

With the proposed model of [1], spacetime and Physics are modeled from Planck scales to quantum and macroscopic scales and semi classical approaches appear valid till very small scales. In [1], it is argued that spacetime is discrete, with a random walk-based fractal structure, fractional and noncommutative at, and above, Planck scales (with a 2-D behavior and Lorentz invariance preserved by random walks till the early moments of the universe). Spacetime results from past random walks of particles. Spacetime locations and particles can be modeled as microscopic black holes (Schwarzschild for photons and spacetime coordinates, and metrics between Reisner Nordstrom [2] and Kerr Newman [3] for massive and possibly charged particles – the latter being possibly extremal). Although surprising, [1] recovers results consistent with other like [4], while also being able to justify the initial assumptions of black holes from the gravity or entanglement model. The resulting gravity model recovers General Relativity at larger scale, as a 4-D process, with massless gravity, but also with massive gravity components at very small scale that make gravity significant these scales. Semi-classical models also work well till way smaller scales that usually expected.

In this paper, we remain at a high level of discussion of the analysis and references are generic for the subjects. It makes the points accessible to a wider audience and keeps the door open to further papers or discussions devoted to details of interest. Yet, it requires the reader to review [1], as we do not revisit here all the details of the multi-fold mechanism or reconstruction of spacetime. More targeted references for all the material discussed here are compiled in [1].

2. SM_G : The Standard Model with Multi-Fold Gravity

[1] proposes that in a multi-fold universe, the Lagrangian is complemented by terms associated to gravity and entanglement (in the form of the sum of the attractive effective potentials) [1].

(1)

The effect of gravity can be seen through the attractive potential contributions of all the energy sources. It can also been seen as expressing the Standard Model Lagrangian in curved spacetime (semi-classical point of view), now considered valid till small scales.

EPR entanglement is not believed to often play a significant role, except in dark matter use cases [5]. The last term is all other “New Physics” terms and we will consider it to be null.

3. Chirality and Helicity flips induced by Gravity

In a curved spacetime, the chirality (or helicity) of massless fermions flips back and forth [6].

In the presence of gravity (with perturbative graviton models), the chirality of massive fermions flips [7]. Additional torsion further contribute to such flips [8]. [1] generates torsion within matter due to the effect of uncertainty on the multi-folds.

These effects have already been analyzed as the reason why gravity can smear the anomalies of baryon and lepton number symmetries and therefore potentially ensure the absence of proton decay, except possibly in extreme conditions within black holes [9].

Note that in the literature, it is also argued that chirality would not flip for massless fermion [7], at the difference of [6]. We believe that the latter is more correct as [7] relies on linearization of gravity, a process that does not work well and that is not giving a correct analysis compared to how gravity is explained in [1] and we know that gravity is not weak any more at very smalls scales, especially due to the massive gravity contributions.

4. The Right-handed Neutrino and its Left-handed anti particles

We recommend the following reference as entry point to neutrinos [10].

Neutrinos exist with different flavors and oscillate in flight between these flavors to change flavor and masses. They always interact in a specific flavor with the corresponding mass. Only left-handed neutrinos and right-handed anti neutrinos seem to interact (i.e. when not in flight).

So far, only left-handed neutrinos and right-handed anti-neutrinos have been observed. It is unknown if what happens or happened to the particles with opposite chirality. Do they exist?

5. The Neutrino mass problem

As a result of the absence of these opposite chirality neutrinos cannot interact with the Higgs Boson (which flips chirality). Therefore it is known in the standard model how neutrino have acquired their observed mass (that is now established to by non-zero).

Many theories have been proposed, usually with New Physics, to explain try to the mass. None have been validated so far. They involve hypothesis of seesaw mechanism, Majorana neutrinos (i.e. neutrino as its own self anti-particle), an additional sterile neutrino and a whole bunch of super partners proposals. An overview can be found in [11].

Numerous experiments have been proposed to try to validate on model or another with for example the search for Neutrino-less Double Beta-Decay (e.g. to determine if neutrinos are Majorana particles). It is fair to say that nothing conclusive has been observed so far!

At the light of [1], the reasoning above for SM_G, and [9], we suspect that all these efforts may be going in the wrong direction…

Indeed, if we consider that gravity is present, then in flight particles can flip chirality in addition to oscillating in mass and flavors. So Higgs interactions are now possible in flight, which is how and when bumps with Higgs boson take place -a different situation form particle to particle interactions (also flipping chiralities, to be then flip back to observable chiralities by gravity, before any of all the other types of interaction can take place), which means mass acquisition as conventionally understood for fermions in the Standard Model can occur in flight for neutrinos (also why it is inflight that we can find the neutrino mass eigenstates). Masses are small, because available interaction time with Higgs bosons is small.

It resolves in one shot both the questions of the existence of right-handed neutrinos (and left-handed antineutrinos) as well as the origin of the (low) mass of the neutrinos. All is achieved within the context of the Standard Model with Gravity, in a multi-fold universe, and without the need of New Physics.

Also, this analysis is for a Multi-fold universe as in [1]. [1] details arguments and ways to check its relationship with the real universe. Besides properties that can be experimentally verified (in the future because of the macroscopic weakness of gravity and gravity like effects for entangled systems), [1] shows how the multi-fold mechanisms and behaviors are in many aspects in today’s conventional physics, that, at times, anticipates the behaviors modeled of a multi-fold universe. In addition, [1] explains many results obtained in gravity, quantum mechanics, General Relativity, superstring theory, Loop Quantum Gravity and the AdS/CFT correspondence conjecture. All these works attempt to come up with models for the real universe. It is at least a good sign that [1] may provide an interesting model of the real universe.

Other theories showing that gravity is relevant at the level of the standard model, can repeat the chirality flip argument, even with no relation to multi-fold universe and mechanisms or to gravity emergence from entanglement. So our model here is generic: if we add gravity to Standard Model with a model keeping it non negligible at the Standard Model scales, then right-handed neutrinos and left-handed anti neutrinos exist in flight, only left-handed neutrinos and right-handed anti neutrinos interact in general; but the existence of both chirality in flight ensures mass acquisition via the Higgs mechanism.

Note however that If our model here is not validated by experience, it would not invalidate the multi-fold mechanism and the proposal that gravity emerges from entanglement as detailed in [1]. The analysis builds on [1], as a consequence of it, but it is not a condition for validation of multi-fold universes.

5. Conclusions

We believe that [1] makes a compelling case for the consistency of its multi-fold proposal. The present paper shows how the mechanisms of multi-fold universes can help address the challenges of explaining the mass of the neutrinos without New Physics.

We explain the fate of right-handed neutrinos and left-handed anti neutrinos: they exist, but only in flight where they can interact with the Higgs. Why it only exist in flight is still an open issue. And the low mass of the neutrinos results from the usual Higgs mechanism, while in flight. The mass is low because only little time is available for mass acquisition and bumping with Higgs bosons). The model works for multi-fold universe as well as in any situation where gravity is non negligible and added to the Standard Model.

This along with similar results in [1] and [9], make a strong case for more seriously considering the implications of adding gravity to the Standard Model to obtain SM_G, as a way to contribute to addressing open issues and offer better alternatives to New Physics speculations. This goes hand in hand with recognizing that this also implies the need to seriously consider that gravity may not always be negligible at the Standard Model scales as proposed in [1].

____

Cite as: Stephane H Maes, (2020), ”Right-handed neutrinos? Mass? Ask Gravity”, viXra:2007.0018v1, shmaesphysics.wordpress.com/20…, June 23, 2020.

____

References: (most references come from popular science to make the discussion more approachable)

[1]: Stephane H. Maes, (2020) “Quantum Gravity Emergence from Entanglement in a Multi-Fold Universe”, viXra:2006.0088v1, (June 9, 2020).

[2]: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reissner…

[3]: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerr-New…

[4]: Burinskii, Alexander, (2008), “The Dirac-Kerr-Newman electron”, arXiv:0507109v4

[5]: Stephane H Maes, (2020), ”Explaining Dark Matter Without New Physics?”, viXra:2006.0261v1, shmaesphysics.wordpress.com/20…, June 21, 2020.

[6]: Carlos Mergulhao Jr., (1995), “Neutrino Helicity Flip in a Curved Space-tlme”, General Relativity and Gravitation, volume 27, pages 657–667.

[7]: R. Aldrovandi, G. E. A. Matsas, S. F. Novaes, D. Spehler, (1994), ” Fermion Helicity Flip in Weak Gravitational Fields”, arXiv:gr-qc/9404018v1

[8]: Soumitra SenGupta, Aninda Sinha, (2001), ” Fermion helicity flip by parity violating torsion”, arXiv:hep-th/0102073v2.

[9]: Stephane H Maes, (2020), “Gravity Induced Anomalies Smearing in Standard Model so that Protons May Never Decay, Except in Black Holes “, viXra:2006.0128v1, shmaesphysics.wordpress.com/20…, June 13, 2020.

[10]: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino

[11]: M.C. Gonzalez-Garcia and M. Yokoyama, (2019), “14. Neutrino Masses, Mixing, and Oscillations”, in M. Tanabashi et al. (Particle Data Group), Phys. Rev. D 98, 030001 (2018) and (2019) update.

---

I thank my generous supporters on Patreon. [strong]If you like my work, publications, and opinions, please consider joining them. This way, you can support this research work done totally independent from any institution. Use the contact form if you prefer to help by puting together a grant or other type of funding.[/strong]

#Chirality #ChiralitySymmetry #Entanglement #Gravity #Helicity #HiggsMechanism #MajoranaParticle #MassProblem #MultiFoldUniverse #NeutrinoMass #Neutrinos #NewPhysics #QuantumGravity #SeesawMechanism #StandardModel #symmetryBreaking

Contact

Don’t hesitate to reach out with the contact information below, or send a message using the form. Multi-fold Community, where you can submit your own related papers, and be linked here. (Apri…

^{Shmaes - Physics}

Multi-fold Higgs Fields and Bosons

Stephane H. Maes

November 6, 2020

Abstract:

[em]In a multi-fold universe, gravity emerges from Entanglement through the multi-fold mechanisms. As a result, gravity-like effects appear in between entangled particles, that they be real or virtual. Long range, massless gravity results from entanglement of massless virtual particles. Entanglement of massive virtual particles leads to massive gravity contributions at very smalls scales. Multi-folds mechanisms also result into a spacetime that is discrete, with a random walk fractal structure, and non-commutative geometry that is Lorentz invariant and where spacetime nodes and particles can be modeled with microscopic black holes. All these recover General relativity at large scales and semi-classical model remain valid till smaller scale than usually expected. Gravity can therefore be added to the Standard Model. This can contribute to resolving several open issues with the Standard Model without new Physics other than gravity. These considerations hint at an even stronger relationship between gravity and the Standard Model.[/em]

This paper propose that Higgs bosons live in spacetime both of the multi-fold universe and of a 7D unconstrained Kaluza-Klein (KK) flat spacetime. With such a result, we can evolve the results and understandings from our original multi-fold paper and propose that concretized spacetime location are actually Higgs bosons microscopic black holes fluctuating around minimal Schwarzschild Planck black holes associated to the Higgs field. It could explain how the Higgs acquired mass and, as a result, why reconstruction-based inflation could be modeled by Higgs bosons as inflatons, and how it is setup for the electroweak symmetry breaking. With the Higgs boson living at the edge of a 7D space embedding the multi-fold universe spacetime, and in the multi-folds, we explain why multi-fold support Higgs presence in its tenancy model, something needed in order recover the equivalence principle and gravity.

With the resulting refined multi-fold model, omni presence of the Higgs field and absence of an energy budget to concretize spacetime can now be explained.

We also further speculate on the right-handed neutrinos in a multi-fold universe, the axion and the maximal parity breaking of the Electroweak interaction with consequences for explanations of matter vs. antimatter asymmetry via axiogenesis, and of dark matter; topics where we already know that axions are not required in multi-fold universes, although not forbidden.

In this paper, we again predict right-handed neutrinos, and their anti-particles, hidden behind the Higgs, at the entry and exit points of multi-folds.

____

1. Introduction

The new preprint [1] proposes contributions to several open problems in physics like the reconciliation of General Relativity (GR) with Quantum Physics, explaining the origin of gravity proposed as emerging from quantum (EPR- Einstein Podolsky Rosen) entanglement between particles, detailing contributions to dark matter and dark energy and explaining other Standard Model mysteries without requiring New Physics beyond the Standard Model other than the addition of gravity to the Standard Model Lagrangian. All this is achieved in a multi-fold universe that may well model our real universe, which remains to be validated.

With the proposed model of [1], spacetime and Physics are modeled from Planck scales to quantum and macroscopic scales and semi classical approaches appear valid till very small scales. In [1], it is argued that spacetime is discrete, with a random walk-based fractal structure, fractional and noncommutative at, and above Planck scales (with a 2-D behavior and Lorentz invariance preserved by random walks till the early moments of the universe). Spacetime results from past random walks of particles. Spacetime locations and particles can be modeled as microscopic black holes (Schwarzschild for photons and spacetime coordinates, and metrics between Reisner Nordstrom [2] and Kerr Newman [3] for massive and possibly charged particles – the latter being possibly extremal). Although surprising, [1] recovers results consistent with others like [4], while also being able to justify the initial assumptions of black holes from the gravity or entanglement model in a multi-fold universe. The resulting gravity model recovers General Relativity at larger scale, as a 4-D process, with massless gravity, but also with massive gravity components at very small scale that make gravity significant at these scales. Semi-classical models also turn out to work well till way smaller scales that usually expected.

The present paper builds on [5,6] which discuss multi-fold universes embedded in larger 7D unconstrained Kaluza-Klein (KK) flat spacetime, where it is shown that the Standard Model (SM) with gravity not negligible at its scale (SM_G) can be induced from 7D geometry. It then discusses the Higgs field, and boson, within a multi-fold universe and its potential implications on spacetime, inflation and the multi-fold mechanisms. This allows to revisit notions of spacetime locations and their concretization, possible inflation and the tenancy model for multi-fold tenancy versus the original model in the first version of [1].

In this paper, we remain at a high level of discussion of the analysis and references are generic for the subjects. It makes the points accessible to a wider audience, and keeps the door open to further papers or discussions devoted to details of interest. Yet, it requires the reader to review [1], as we do not revisit here all the details of the multi-fold mechanisms or reconstruction of spacetime. More targeted references for all the material discussed here are compiled in [1] and derived papers.

The evolution of the multi-fold theory and results can be tracked at [22].

2. Higgs and Geometrical Induction: A 7D Higgs Field

In order to support the equivalence principle in a multi-fold universe[1], we already concluded that the Higgs field must also be present in the multi-folds [7]. It was further confirmed by determining that the Higgs boson can be encountered like any SM particle, as an object in 7D unconstrained Kaluza-Klein (KK) flat spacetime [5]. As illustration, in [6], its mass is correctly derived explicitly in higher order Mie scattering estimates with the multi-folds.

Yet, we are saying something slightly different between [7] and [5,6]: not only are particles derived from the embedded spacetime; but the scalar field is omnipresent not just in the multi-fold 4D spacetime but the embedding 7D spacetime.

In general, this is not a dilaton, or radion [8], as we do not, for now, assuming compacting the extra unconstrained KK dimensions. We will revisit that in a later section.

3. Multi-fold Spacetime Construction and Inflation

The theory of inflation has been proposed to address challenges with the Big Bang theory to account for uniformity observed between regions of the universe, that a priori have not had the time to know about each other (i.e. homogeneity and isotropy of universe), as well as the estimated flatness of the universe (i.e. positive curvature, quasi null). It also help address more technical issues like the low rate of magnetic monopoles (none have been observed ever, something that we explained in the context of a multi-fold universe without requiring inflation [1,9]). The original inflation proposals and good overviews of inflation can be found in [10-13].

In [1,9], we discussed how the random walks, and particle (anti-particle) pairs creation, encountered during the construction phase of a multi-fold universe can generate inflation with an exponential growth of the amount of both particles and concretized spacetime locations. Indeed, even starting from a single point, successive time clicks are used, i.e., used for a change, or skipped, i.e., awaiting a future change. When used for a change, they are associated to movements (at the speed of light) that create spacetime location and / or creations of new particles. This also includes visiting skipped locations that are then concretized, or revisiting already concretized ones; hence the generic terminology of concretizing spacetime. Quantum uncertainties also further jiggle around the random walk paths and with entanglements opens the door to dark matter effects [1,9].

Per the multi-fold model, particles are microscopic blackholes. In the early stages, they are minimal for the charges they carry as massless particles: we did not model if only one type of particle exists (then neutral for all charge) or if different types with different charges may coexist; but we strongly emphasized a democracy of the particles: they have all the same effect on gravity and these match whatever other interactions they may entertain; all interactions have same coupling constant or effect. This is the basis for our proposal for an Ultimate Unification, instead of conventional Grand Unification Theories (GUTs) or Theories of Everything (TOEs) [1,14].

The multi-fold spacetime is therefore the result of random walks of the particles, which provides a discrete, fractal, Lorentz invariant and non-commutative spacetime at the smallest scales. In order to model spacetime creation and concretization, [1] reused the mode of microscopic blackhole and associated a minimal (Planckian Schwarzschild black hole) to each concretized spacetime location, allowing also these points to be entangled for a while with neighbors, when concretized by the walk of a same particle and not yet revisited by another. Yet we did not associate any physical entity to these spacetime locations other than being just that: spacetime locations, with a minimal black hole on it. But such an association of a minimal black hole at every concretized spacetime amounts to associating a (scalar) field to it.

For now, in the inflation phase such a field would naturally be an inflaton [15]. It is a key addition to the multi-fold models: concretized multi-fold spacetime locations are modeled by inflatons and their associated blackholes (at least during the inflation phase).

In the spirit of the approach of [1], the random walk of particles and concretization are the physical effects and the scalar inflaton field, vacuum energy density and relativistic pressure are its models in QFT and GR.

Today, in conventional Physics, we do not know for sure what field could be responsible for the cosmological inflation. Hypotheses involve small fields, large fields, hybrid fields, natural fields (e.g. due to the elusive axion) and variations or combinations of multiple fields and criteria to be satisfied for suitability non only to the inflation phase but also the slow-roll and re-heating critical to explain the hot big bang phase and match the theory to the (Λ-)CMB observations.

4. Higgs Inflation With Non-minimal Coupling

The Higgs scalar field has been proposed as a candidate [16]. The idea of a field, already used to model the electroweak symmetry breaking and the subsequent mass generation of all elementary particles (including neutrinos in a multi-fold universe [17]), is quite attractive and economical. It resulted into a plethora of analyses. We recommend [18-21] for a recent overview of the analyses, problems encountered and proposed resolutions for the approaches based on the original model of [16]: Higgs inflation with non-minimum coupling to gravity. it is required in order to match the CMB results with the Higgs potential and amounts to add a term to the Lagrangian density of the SM in:

L = L_HE + L_SM +

(1)

Where

is a new coupling factor and R is the Ricci curvature scalar. SM designates the Standard Model Lagrangian (of course including the Higgs field) and HE refers to the Hilbert Einstein contribution[2] and is the Higgs scalar field. Lagrangian and actions are expressed in the Jordan frame.

This gives the additional degree of freedom needed to better match CMB results and supports adequate inflation as well as slow roll towards reheating.

It can be understood as follows: the Higgs field potential energy is modified in the presence of curvature to decrease by expanding where more matter and curvature exist, i.e. to flatten the spacetime. See section 6 for more details.

Unfortunately, other problems have since been identified with the proposal, mainly in terms of consistency of the model (inflation plateau occurring above the expected UV cutoff of the model), electroweak vacuum instability concerns and unitarity concerns [19,23]. The coupling

is also found to be very large, which is not a good sign.

Before exploring what happens with minimally coupled Higgs fields in multi-fold universe, let us note, for completeness, that models have also modeled Higgs inflation with supersymmetry and super strings. See references for variations and extensions in [18] (supersymmetry, e.g. [23], or supergravity), and the analysis of [24] shows a successful model for high-scale supersymmetry, and for most GUT models the non-minimal coupling Higgs inflation could be viable and consistent with slow-roll requirements. However, we know that supersymmetry and supergravity are not physical in multi-fold universe (and probably as probably as most probably also not physical in the real universe) [25]; so these results are not really helping or convincing.

5. Inflation with Higgs Field Minimally Coupled to Gravity

We already know that without additional considerations, minimally coupled Higgs fields do not work to explain inflation. The main problem to realize the minimal Higgs inflation without any ultra-violate modification is the lack of tuning parameter as

in the non-minimal coupling case. Modelling well the Higgs potential the potential becomes tricky [42].

Work has also been done for Higgs inflation in conjunction with asymptotically safe gravity [27], driven by considerations from [20]. In general, it has been shown that non-minimally coupled schemes may work with now a way smaller

. Furthermore, minimally coupled schemes are shown to work [26].

Note that asymptotically safe gravity has also been considered for other inflaton schemes that the Higgs, e.g. [27,28].

6. Multi-fold Inflation Modeled at QFT Scales by Higgs Field (non) Minimally Coupled to Gravity

Justification of the non-minimal coupling to gravity is also trickier in a multi-fold universe: the model that give repulsive pressure for a uniform field in GR gives the same with the multi-fold mechanisms. For conventional GR it can be argued that this is a plausible, and one of the simplest, form of quantum correction. In a multi-fold universe, all such quantum corrections effects are also already accounted for.

It is therefore a bit harder to justify larger scale QFT modeling with the non-minimum coupling, other than an attempt by the QFT approximations to model the effects of the random walk by emphasizing that were curvature increases with many particles, the effect is larger, possibly because of the extra effects of multi-fold dark energy that increases near high curvature or where lots of matter, including lots of massless Higgs, as discussed in [9].

In a multi-fold universe, gravity is asymptotically safe [25], so both options are acceptable.

In the minimal coupling case, Of course the field representation is just an approximation of these microscopic effects. Therefore it is hard to say if the QFT approximation should rather use the minimal or non-minimal representation. We would like to say that with the non-minimal coupling, we can cover all bases.

Therefore, we expect that the quantum walk inflation in multi-fold universes (per the construction phase [1,9can be modeled in QFT by a non-minimally coupled Higgs that may be minimally coupled. But can be along the lines of [26].

Note added on March 28, 2021: Considering how [37] anticipates our multi-fold gravity electroweak symmetry breaking [38], it behooves to us to emphasize that non-minimally coupled could very well also be suitable to model the multi-fold effects. In fact, in general it is more often encountered conventionally than the minimal coupling of [20]. It is only that microscopic justification was a bit trickier until [38,39], where we see that indeed the density of Higgs boson is probably the trigger for the gravity electroweak symmetry breaking, with Higgs boson condensing into Kerr-Newman solitons to produce massive particles. Under these considerations non-minimally coupled models may even make more sense!

Note added on April 12, 2021: Additional interesting arguments can be found in [40] (and in Feynman’s lectures on gravitation [41]).

6.1 Consistency and stability

Asymptotic safety ensure scale invariance of gravity. The model should not have the inconsistencies of plateauing, and it is not doing it beyond validity of the model.

6.2 Slow roll in Multi-fold Universes

In a multi-fold universe, the inflation takes place as long that there is enough energy to make the involved particle walk randomly, at almost every time click, and create new particle pairs. When that is reduced, the process stops being exponential, and rather evolves towards a tamer random walk and vacuum fluctuations; i.e. a slow roll. It corresponds to the QFT model which identifies slow roll as taking place when the kinetic energy of the inflaton becomes larger than the field potential.

As discussed, we have not modeled yet what are the particle involved, other than that they all have zero mass during inflation and follow the principle of democratization of interactions from UU [1,14]. It could be a new particles, a set of massless version of most of the SM particles, massless Higgs bosons etc. Or they must just all be only massless Higgs. As, whenever spacetime locations are concretized, a minimum microscopic blackhole associated to the Higgs field is left at these locations. More details will be provided in future works that can always be tracked at [22].

6.3 Re-heating in multi-fold universes

Re-heating results from symmetry breaking, starting from the UU as in an universe in inflation, temperature and energy density lowers. As a result particles and interactions diversify. Electroweak symmetry break up occurs at lower temperature and all particle acquire their masses; including the Higgs.

From then on, the hot big bang takes place and can follows its post inflation chronology.

6.4 Electroweak vacuum stability

[29] shows how concerns with electroweak false vacuum and instabilities are addressed in a multi-fold universe; thereby alleviating the concern with Higgs inflation.

7. Higgs Boson and Multi-fold universe

Massive Higgs particles are now like a sea of Higgs located at every spacetime location. They also extend, near the infinitesimal edge boundary only, we assume, in the 7D unconstrained KK flat spacetime. As a result, they do not have to enter in energy or quantum number conservation budgets as they interact with fermions to give them mass and flip their chirality. It happen at every concretized spacetime location. Note that Higgs boson that temporary appear into real particles before decaying do respect all conservation laws.

Every concretized spacetime location therefore is characterized by a minimal black hole associated to the Higgs field that creates pairs of virtual Higgs, and absorbs virtual Higgs back and forth. With quantum fluctuations it also consists of exchange back and forth with surrounding concretized spacetime locations, so that creation and annihilation is not tracked as associated to a specific location but within a fluctuating region. This contribute to how non-commutativity and Lorentz invariance was already recovered [1]. More details will be provided in future work that can always be tracked at [22].

The microscopic minimum black holes are what is sometimes misnamed as the fabric of spacetime.

When multi-folds are activated [1], they consists of the same fabric of spacetime and as so the same processes take place in the multi-folds. This ensures that paths in the multi-fold will also involve interactions with the Higgs boson and as a result involve particles with the same mass as in the multi-fold spacetime. It is essential to recovering the equivalence principle [7] and gravity derivation from multi-fold mechanisms [1].

It justifies the clarification or update to the multi-fold tenancy models of [1] described in [7]: all laws of Physics apply equally to each fold. Only one particle lives in a folds (hard partitioning based tenancy model); particles appearing in a same multi-fold are in fact in different instances and they never interact other than at entry and exit points. However, this does not hold for the Higgs boson, which is present at every location of the multi-folds and therefore ensuring that electroweak is also broken in the multi-folds (post electroweak symmetry breaking, and that all particle keep their mass in the multi-folds.

The comments about energy and quantum number conservation also explains why any energy involved in the multi-fold dynamics (and their kinematics and dynamics beyond the prescriptions of [1]) do not have to be tracked: the budgets and details occur in the embedding spacetime.

8. Multi-fold Right-handed Neutrinos, CP violation and Maximal P Symmetry Breaking by the Electroweak Interaction

All the previous section are proposals for an evolution of our multi-fold model.

This section however is in our view much more speculative, as not as well derived from constructive considerations, themselves derived from [1], that also meet QFT models that must be recovered at higher scales. So this section should be treated as such, and will certainly require further work. It aims at expanding on a comment made in [6] about right-handed neutrinos (and left-handed anti neutrinos) in multi-fold universes. Future work will details this. As always these future work can be tracked in [22].

In [17,30], we argued the existence of the right-handed neutrino, always in-flight, never available for interaction and appearing only as part of the interactions with the Higgs boson so that neutrinos acquire mass.

The right-handed neutrinos is created, even if temporarily in the mass generating Higgs interaction; yet not observed. What if this is only happening in the multi-folds: the Higgs is present in the multi-folds, right-handed neutrinos appear and disappear on the paths in multi-folds of a left-handed neutrino, giving it mass in the multi-folds but not exiting the multi-folds. Real particles in the multi-fold spacetime interact with right-handed neutrinos through the Higgs (in 7D)[3] only through quantum fluctuations at entry, exit points of the folds or when mapped to a multi-fold.

No energy is lost, for entangled particles with real path in the multi-fold, because of the same arguments as in [1]: path can have as small probability as desired and everything is recovered in the deactivation mechanisms of the multi-fold, with just a twist: exit always flips the right-handed path to a left-handed one first. Continuing down this speculative path, a possible reason could be the right-handedness of the gravity representation discussed in [5] that prevents right-handed neutrino representations in multi-fold spacetime (which is used for the electroweak interaction post symmetry breaking).

Real left-handed neutrinos can interact with Higgs to generate right-handed neutrinos only due to fluctuations making then see/feel the multi-folds that surround them; yet enough to gain mass[4]. Being hidden in at the entry and exit of multi-folds can explain their lower mass and absence of other interaction considering the multi-fold tenancy principle [1], with the updates from [7].

A chirality preference at the entry point of the multi-fold, maybe resulting by the presence of in-flight right-handed neutrinos, or left-handed anti-neutrinos, would entail and explain CP violation (by gravity or Physics in general as it affect somehow spacetime, and why torsion in matter is not only supported but may be possibly always present [1]. Such systematic violation of CP symmetry, along with all the observations made so far [31], could mean that, perhaps, it is more reasonable to conclude that CP symmetry does not exist in our universe, than that the violations result from symmetry breaking by an unknown mechanism. As a result, particles like the axion may not be motivated anymore by the Peccei Quinn mechanism [31,32], that we already questioned in [1,33]. It removes it as a candidate for dark matter, and matter antimatter asymmetry (via axiogenesis [35]), especially as we have alternative explanations in multi-fold universes respectively in [1,34] and [36].

Similar considerations could possibly explain the maximal parity breaking of the Electroweak interaction, i.e. the fact that W^± only couple to left-handed fermions, and the Z⁰ boson couples unequally to left and right-handed fermions. Understanding, modeling, and validating this is for future work.

At this stage, and as announced earlier, this section is a conjecture. We do not have a concrete explanation or justification on how and why the filtering out of a chirality versus the other takes place, other than an effect of the in-flight right-handed neutrinos. Consider for example, the Higgs Boson and the right-handed neutrinos: if this phenomena occurs around any particle and at any concretized spacetime location, then systematic P violation occurs everywhere in multifold spacetime. As Higgs is C-symmetric, spacetime and physics could be systematically violating CP symmetry. Alternatively, it could be a refinement (asymmetric for chirality) of the multi-folds or their dynamics: even if correct our conjecture just move the unexplained to another problem…

Note that the presence of Higgs field in 7D unconstrained KK spacetime may also lead to models to trigger the big bang or electroweak symmetry breaking via events taking place in these extra dimensions. We do not have a concrete proposal but wanted to note as food for thoughts that for examples dimension collapses in the embedded universe would result into mass acquisition by the Higgs, but, as far as we know, this does not fit well the chronology of a big bang with inflation or the large dimensions of the AdS(5) and 7D unconstrained KK. Yet it would be worth exploring this in the future.

9. Conclusions

We have shown how in a multi-fold universe, we can build a QFT model of inflation that relies on the Higgs (field and boson), and consistently relates to our multi-fold constructive model [1]. Doing so we clarified the details of concretized spacetime locations with microscopic black holes that are now identified as related to the Higgs field, which concretize spacetime, is responsible for the random walks and inflation, in addition to mass generation.

Associating the Higgs field to the embedding 7D unconstrained KK flat spacetime allow us to explain why multi-fold mechanisms, Higgs interactions and Higgs inflation can seemingly violate some conservation rules. It also provides a physical justification to the multi-fold tenancy rule updates that we introduced with respect to the original model in [1] in order to recover the equivalence principle [7], and rigorously derive gravity from the multi-fold mechanisms [1]. It may also provides explanations for triggering of the big bang expansion and inflation.

Doing so led us to propose explanations on a fundamental CP and P symmetry violation by multi-fold mechanisms with proposal to explain the absence of right-handed neutrinos in interactions (yet their involvement in mass generation), as well as the maximal violation of P symmetry by the electroweak interaction. One is a conjecture on the behavior of the multi-fold entry and exit points another explains that relying on always in-flight non-interacting, except via the Higgs, right-handed neutrinos, and the anti-neutrinos, located at such multi-fold entry and exit points, along with the Higgs, e.g. blocked behind it. In fact we conjecture that a multi-fold universe may simply not be CP symmetric as a result. It would have broad implications on motivating the axion and relying on it to explain mater antimatter asymmetry (via axiogenesis) or dark matter. These problems were already separately addressed in multi-fold universes without the need of axions.

____

Cite as: Stephane H Maes, (2020), “Multi-fold Higgs Fields and Bosons”, viXra:2204.0146v1, shmaesphysics.wordpress.com/20…, November 6, 2020.

____

References:

[1]: Stephane H. Maes, (2020), “Quantum Gravity Emergence from Entanglement in a Multi-Fold Universe”, viXra:2006.0088v1, vixra.org/pdf/2006.0088v1.pdf (June 9, 2020).

[2]: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reissner…

[3]: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerr-New…

[4]: Burinskii, Alexander, (2008), “The Dirac-Kerr-Newman electron”, arXiv:0507109v4

[5]: Stephane H Maes, (2020), “Tracking Down The Standard Model With Gravity In Multi-Fold Universes”, viXra:2011.0208v1, shmaesphysics.wordpress.com/20…, August 20, 2020.

[6]: Stephane H. Maes, (2020) “Particles of The Standard Model In Multi-Fold Universes”, shmaesphysics.wordpress.com/20…, (November 4, 2020).

[7]: Stephane H Maes, (2020), ”Derivation of the Equivalence Principle in a Multi-fold Universe”, viXra:2010.0090v1, https://shmaesphysics.wordpress.com/2020/06/29/derivation-of-the-equivalence-principle-in-a-multi-fold-universe/, June 19, 2020.

[8]: Wikipedia, “Dilaton”, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dilaton. Retrieved on May 13, 2020.

[9]: Stephane H Maes, (2020), ”Explaining Dark Energy, Small Cosmological Constant and Inflation Without New Physics?”, viXra:2006.0261v1, shmaesphysics.wordpress.com/20…, June 19, 2020.

[10]: Wikipedia, “Inflation (cosmology)”, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflatio…. Retrieved on November 11, 2019.

[11]: Julian Heeck, (2011), “Introduction to Inflation”, mpi-hd.mpg.de/lin/events/group…. Retrieved on November 4, 2020.

[12]: A D Linde, (1984). “The inflationary universe”, Rep. Prog. Phys., Vol 47, pp 925-986, 1984

[13]: A. Guth, (2018), “The New Inflationary Universe”, MIT Course, Physics 8.286: The Early Universe

[14]: Stephane H Maes, (2020), ”Ultimate Unification: Gravity-led Democracy vs. Uber-Symmetries”, viXra:2006.0211v1, shmaesphysics.wordpress.com/20…, June 16, 2020.

[15]: Wikipedia, “Inflaton”, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflaton. Retrieved on November 11, 2019.

[16]: F.L. Bezrukov, M.E. Shaposhnikov, (2007), “The Standard Model Higgs boson as the inflaton”, arXiv:0710.3755v2

[17]: Stephane H Maes, (2020), ”Right-handed neutrinos? Mass? Ask Gravity”, viXra:2007.0018v1, shmaesphysics.wordpress.com/20…, June 23, 2020.

[18]: Javier Rubio, (2019), “Higgs Inflation”, Front. Astron. Space Sci., 22 January 2019

[19]: Michael Atkins, (2012), “Could the Higgs Boson be the Inflaton?”, NExT Meeting – March 2012, Sussex, indico.cern.ch/event/180122/at…. Retrieved on November 8, 2020.

[20]: Michael Atkins, Xavier Calmet, (2010), “Remarks on Higgs Inflation”, arXiv:1011.4179v2

[21]: Dan Green, (2014), “Inflation and the Higgs Scalar”, arXiv:1412.2107v1

[22]: Stephane H. Maes, (2020), “Web Site Tracking all Publications around the Multi-fold universe” -Navigation page listing all papers, shmaesphysics.wordpress.com/sh….

[23]: Masato Arai, Shinsuke Kawai, Nobuchika Okada, (2011), “Higgs inflation in minimal supersymmetric SU(5) GUT”, arXiv:1107.4767v3

[24]: Sibo Zheng, (2015), “Can Higgs inflation be saved with high-scale supersymmetry?”, Eur. Phys. J. C, 75:489.

[25]: Stephane H Maes, (2020), “Renormalization and Asymptotic Safety of Gravity in a Multi-Fold Universe: More Tracking of the Standard Model at the Cost of Supersymmetries, GUTs and Superstrings”, viXra:2102.0137v1, shmaesphysics.wordpress.com/20…, September 18, 2020.

[26]: Zhong-Zhi Xianyu, Hong-Jian He, (2014), “Asymptotically Safe Higgs Inflation”, arXiv:1407.6993v2

[27]: C. Wetterich, (2019), “Effective scalar potential in asymptotically safe quantum gravity”, arXiv:1911.06100v2

[28]: Alessia Platania, (2019), “The Inflationary Mechanism in Asymptotically Safe Gravity”, Universe 2019, 5(8), 189.

[29]: Stephane H Maes, (2020), “Gravity Stabilizes Electroweak Vacuum – No Bubble of Nothing to Worry About!”, viXra:2007.0173v1, shmaesphysics.wordpress.com/20…, June 24, 2020.

[30]: Stephane H Maes, (2020), “No Conventional Sterile Neutrinos In a Multi-fold Universe: just SMG business as usual”, viXra:2103.0202v1, shmaesphysics.wordpress.com/20…, October 1, 2020.

[31]: Wikipedia, “CP violation”, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CP_viola…. Retrieved on November 3, 2019.

[32]: Wikipedia, ” Peccei–Quinn theory”, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peccei%E…. Retrieved on October 28, 2020.

[33]: Stephane H Maes, (2020), ”Strong CP Violation Tamed in The Presence of Gravity”, viXra:2007.0025v1, shmaesphysics.wordpress.com/20…, June 21, 2020.

[34]: Stephane H Maes, (2020), ”More Matter Than Antimatter, All Falling Down”, viXra:2010.0121v1, shmaesphysics.wordpress.com/20…, July 5, 2020.

[35]: Raymond T. Co, Keisuke Harigaya, (2019), “Axiogenesis”, arXiv:1910.02080v2.

[36]: Stephane H Maes, (2020), ”Explaining Dark Matter Without New Physics?”, viXra:2007.0006v1 or https://shmaesphysics.wordpress.com/2020/06/19/explaining-dark-energy-small-cosmological-constant-and-inflation-without-new-physics/, June 21, 2020.

References added on March 28, 2021

[37]: Mikhail Shaposhnikov, (2007), “Is there a new physics between electroweak and Planck scales?”, arXiv:0708.3550v1.

[38]: Stephane H Maes, (2020), “Multi-fold Gravity-Electroweak Theory and Symmetry Breaking”, shmaesphysics.wordpress.com/20…, March 16, 2021.

[39]: Stephane H Maes, (2021), “More on Multi-fold Particles as Microscopic Black Holes with Higgs Regularizing Extremality and Singularities”, shmaesphysics.wordpress.com/20…, February 25, 2021.

Reference added on April 13, 2021

[40]: Y. N. Srivastava, J. Swain, A. Widom, (2011), “An Argument for Nonminimal Higgs Coupling to Gravity”, arXiv:1110.5549v1.

[41]: Richard Feynman, (2002), “Feynman Lectures On Gravitation”, Westview Press, 1 edition (June 20, 2002).

[42]: Debaprasad Maity, (2017), “Minimal Higgs inflation”, Nuclear Physics B, Volume 919, Pages 560-568

___

[1] And in order to rigorously recover gravity à la [1]…

[2] Interestingly, this is already an example of SM_G, SM with a non negligible gravity contribution at the SM scales, as we have argued throughout [1] and the papers compiled in [22].

[3] Through the Higgs, is actually very important: 7D spacetime does not support chiral fermions (See the related discussion in [5] and how it is handled to still recover chiral fermions in the 4D multi-fold spacetime).

[4] The low mass values may be due to these complications in the mechanisms that effectively renders the interaction with the Higgs as if with a smaller coupling; except maybe for the neutrino tau.

____

I thank my generous supporters on Patreon. If you like my work, publications, and opinions, please consider joining them. This way, you can support this research work done totally independent from any institution. Use the contact form if you prefer to help by putting together a grant or other type of funding.

#7D #AsymptoticSafe #asymptoticSafeHiggsInflation #axiogenesis #Axion #bigBang #blackHole #Chirality #CPSymmery #CPViolation #DarkMatter #democratization #DiscreteSpacetime #Electroweak #ElectroweakMaximallyParityViolation #ElectroweakVacuum #ElectroweakVacuumStability #Entanglement #FalseVacuum #GeneralRelativity #Gravity #HiggsBoson #HiggsField #HiggsInMultiFolds #HiggsInflation #HiggsMechanism #Inflation #Inflaton #KaluzaKlein #matterAntimatterAsymmetry #microscopicBlackHoles #multiFold #multiFoldTenancy #MultiFoldUniverse #PSymmery #Parity #PecceiQuinn #QuantumGravity #rightHandedNeutrinos #scalarField #slowRoll #StandardModel #standardModelWithGravity #Supersymmetry #symmetryBreaking #Torsion #UltimateUnification #WBoson #ZBoson

Shmaes - Physics

2020-06-20 06:38:57

Explaining Dark Energy, Small Cosmological Constant and Inflation Without New Physics?

Stephane H. Maes

June 19, 2020

Note: if you are looking for “Explaining Dark Matter Without New Physics?”, go to shmaesphysics.wordpress.com/20…, or viXra:2007.0006v1.

Abstract:

In a multi-fold universe, gravity emerges from entanglement and spacetime is discrete, with a fractal structure based on random walk and a non-commutative geometry. When random walk is combined with maximal particle generations, exponential expansion can automatically takes place. Away from maximal generation or in an already concretized spacetime, random walk accounts for a constant or slowing down expansion. Meanwhile, the multi-fold mechanisms also implies a constant expansion potential, adding a force to the expansion of the universe, thanks to uncertainties. It explain the constant acceleration of the universe expansion with a cosmological constant that is not the vacuum energy density but can be way smaller.

It may contribute to addressing problems like the absence of any explanation of dark energy, the embarrassing orders of magnitude of discrepancies between vacuum energy and the cosmological constant predicted by conventional Physics; issues that are among Today’s biggest mysteries of the universe. These explanations do not require New Physics beyond the Standard Model and the Standard Cosmology Model.

____

1. Introduction

The new preprint [1] proposes contributions to several open problems in physics like the reconciliation of General Relativity (GR) with Quantum Physics, explaining the origin of gravity proposed as emerging from quantum (EPR- Einstein Podolsky Rosen) entanglement between particles, detailing contributions to dark matter and dark energy and explaining other Standard Model mysteries without requiring New Physics beyond the Standard Model other than the addition of gravity to the Standard Model Lagrangian. All this is achieved in a multi-fold universe that may well model our real universe, which remains to be validated.

With the proposed model of [1], spacetime and Physics are modeled from Planck scales to quantum and macroscopic scales and semi classical approaches appear valid till very small scales. In [1], it is argued that spacetime is discrete, with a random walk-based fractal structure, fractional and noncommutative at, and above Planck scales (with a 2-D behavior and Lorentz invariance preserved by random walks till the early moments of the universe). Spacetime results from past random walks of particles. Spacetime locations and particles can be modeled as microscopic blackholes (Schwarzschild for photons and spacetime coordinates, and metrics between Reisner Nordstrom [2] and Kerr Newman [3] for massive and possibly charged particles – the latter being possibly extremal). Although surprising, [1] recovers results consistent with other like [4], while also being able to justify the initial assumptions of black holes from the gravity or entanglement model in a multi-fold universe. The resulting gravity model recovers General Relativity at larger scale, as a 4-D process, with massless gravity, but also with massive gravity components at very small scale that make gravity significant at these scales. Semi-classical models also turn out to work well till way smaller scales that usually expected.

In this paper, we remain at a high level of discussion of the analysis and references are generic for the subjects. It makes the points accessible to a wider audience and keeps the door open to further papers or discussions devoted to details of interest. Yet, it requires the reader to review [1], as we do not revisit here all the details of the multi-fold mechanisms or reconstruction of spacetime. More targeted references for all the material discussed here are compiled in [1].

2. Spacetime Construction

In [1], spacetime is created when it is encountered by a particle (This is also inspired from the ideas that spacetime creation may result from wave function collapse) that consists of a microscopic black hole surrounding it. As the particle moves, it leaves remnants of minimal Schwarzschild black holes as spacetime location. The effect is also inspired from [6]. We speak of spacetime concretization. With this scenario, and as result of the top down framework of multi-fold universes, [1] shows that spacetime is therefore discrete and non-commutative with particles moves as relativistic paths of the path integral describing the particles: i.e. a random walk, in space and in time, leading to a fractal structure. The random sprinkles of spacetime points and particles ensure that spacetime can be Lorentz invariant.

These conclusions from the multi-fold model are all along consistent with well know results [7,8]. But why and how these features are actually realized in spacetime were something missing, so far.

Spacetime concretization can generate new spacetime points and grow the edges of the universe. As the process is fractal in space and in time, it also leaves many non-concretized points of the underlying discrete lattice (of minimum length cells). At later times, particles can random walk on the existing concretized structure or fill gaps by concretizing points missed so far. At no time, is a minimum length (in space and in time) violated, in accordance with [5].

We will also describe bulk expansion effects.

To be complete, there are also entanglement between particles and spacetime that they concretize. These also introduce a temporary brake (with effective potential per the multi-fold mechanisms of [1]) to the expansion but limited to the duration of such entanglements. We do not use spacetime entanglement as sources of gravity as proposed in proposals where Gravity would emerge from entropy as in Verlinde’s papers, e.g. [19,20]. The model in [1] is quite different from these works.

3. Big Bang and Inflation

At the beginning of our universe, that it be localized in one or a few points, across an initial region or more widely extended (as proposed for example by other infinite or parallel universe models), the energy is such that every fluctuation or particle move can both concretize spacetime and create new particles. A toy model to hint how fluctuations in spacetime can create particles and spacetime is discussed in [6].

When the energy is such that at every time jumps take place and new particles can be created (in every directions) along with spacetime concretization (reoccupied or visited for the first time), the process results into an exponential growth of the number of particles and spacetime. Bulk effects (dark energy effects, discussed later) contribute to stretch the structures at the same time which also ensures that spacetime stretches as this takes place. These early particles can be of different types, including creation and annihilation of the ones we encounter today, or essentially be all of the same as an inflaton [9]. It does not matter for our model.

In conventional QFT views, the inflaton field, a candidate to conventionally explain inflation, is homogenous throughout the universe and the total energy content of the universe grows also exponentially until it stops everywhere (or only somewhere in eternal inflation models, in such case, possibly resulting into different universe, etc.). It sets a high vacuum energy ground level and hence, per GR, a negative pressure [10], and we have inflation [11]. In a multi-fold universe, at small scales, the density of particle is initially roughly the same everywhere, which provides energy to the particles who exert a constant pressure due to that energy. That pressure is the combination of the jumps to new spacetime point and interspersed growth between points (as will continue today, as discussed later) along with the bulk effect to be discussed later. So both our model from [1] and the inflaton model essentially match. [1] works with inflaton (explaining it effect at very small scales) or instead of it.

The source of energy enabling these effects is not really explained in [1] and out of scope for this work. It is either inherent to the inflaton field (e.g. as (false) vacuum), which can also be the case for the particles only explanation (false vacuum giving always a minimum energy to every particles with no energy changes but why is it at such a level is not explained) or due to a tremendous original energy that remains so large early on that its level is essentially not affected by particle creation long enough for the exponential growth to take place as long as needed (in practice, that is also a very short time even if the expansion and stretching effects are tremendous, except in eternal inflation models where it would still be going on somewhere beyond our universe horizon). As inflatons have not yet be found or well modeled, we prefer the latter explanation, i.e. no inflation. Note that such a choice also probably negates eternal inflation models, that would need energy to continue eternally. But both sources of energy are supported.

The energy involved can originate from the everything that we do not know and that happened before the Big Bang event, including big bounces, or a vacuum collapse bubbles, or from a symmetry breaking event (and resulting phase change). For example (it is just an illustration of a possible mechanism), it could be energy released due to the break of the Ultimate Unification symmetry introduced in [1,12], as if it was a phase change of the universe. The democracy symmetry breaks as progressively more and more of the involved particles drop out from being able to contribute at the same level as carriers of massive gravity from spacetime point to point. Each time, this correspond to a conversion of energy potential of everything in the universe into kinetic energy as gravity weakened at smaller scales due to particles decrease their contribution as larger scale carriers to the massive gravity component. Note this example would be an oscillating situation as increasing energy (e.g. like inflation reheating) will bring back the particles that just gave up as gravity carriers, until they drop out again). It evolves like this particle type per particle type till inflation stops.

When there is no more enough energy to sustain both systematic spacetime concretization and particle creation, the inflation progressively die out. Again all this takes a very short time.

After that, random walks continue and particles (virtual and real) can revisit already concretized spacetime point or concretize new points. In addition. Expansion also continue as discussed after. These effects are now the dominant contributions for expansion, albeit countered for a while in the battle for universe dominance by attractive gravity that fights off expansion and balances a significant part of the expansion effects, for as long at matter and energy clusters are close enough: until distances become too large between clusters and expansion start to really dominate and accelerate. Our universe is now in that phase.

4. Dark Energy? Maybe not so fast…

Dark energy is proposed as a way to explain the observed expansion and now observed accelerated expansion of the universe. Good entry points can be found at [13,14].

Cosmological expansion is conventionally modeled by the cosmological constant in GR [16]. In QFT and superstrings, this leads immediately to major issues. QFT predicts a vacuum energy density that leads to a cosmological constant that is larger than what is observed [16]. It is hardly a small adjustment issue! There is clearly a problem or something is missed by conventional Physics.

New Physics is not faring much better, as discussed in [15]: superstrings are not stable (i.e. they cannot live) in positive cosmological constant universes [17]; while GR is unstable with matter in AdS [18]. [15] explains how this is in fact consistent with multi-fold universes [1] and our deducted superstrings dualities. For the purpose of discussion here, it only matters in the sense that New Physics has no helpful say about the cosmological constant problem!

A zero cosmological constant may help with superstrings (and for many supersymmetric theories). However, again it does not match physical explanations or observations of accelerated expansion, granted that, as mentioned in [1], some recent papers are still revisiting and questioning if there is indeed such an acceleration.

This situation is not just an open problem but one of the most embarrassing problem for modern Physics. There are no other ways to put it. Today, we have no clue.

Yet in a multi-fold universe:

1. A small positive cosmological constant (generating negative curvature contributions are not supported by the multi-fold mechanism, which also explain why superstrings cannot, and do not, live in our spacetime [15]) can be explained
2. It is independent of the QFT energy vacuum density
3. And the explanation is without involving any New Physics other than adding gravity to the Standard Model in a multi-fold universe.

Indeed, expansion of the spacetime comes in two flavors:

• Random walks, business as usual, that revisit existing spacetime point and fill the gaps in the spacetime fractal structure or pushes the edge. It is not a dominant bulk effect expansion but it has a small contribution to the cosmological constant.
• Constant effective potential pressure everywhere towards AdS(5) resulting from uncertainties of entangled particles, that generate attractive effective potentials between them. [1] shows that, as the particles wiggle because of quantum uncertainties, the folds and mappings can create, within the bulk, effective potential pulls towards the bulk, (which amounts to normal random walk acceleration) or towards the outside spacetime, which is a bulk expansion effect a always present force (because of uncertainty that component always consistently exists): we have found a dark energy effect, without any dark energy involved, that also contribute to the cosmological constant. Fluctuations creates the effective potential due to entanglement; fluctuations are not the energy that expand, it the effective potential that expands; therefore decoupling the cosmological constant value from the energy density of the vacuum.

This second effect is between entangled particles, real or virtual, but therefore, slightly more pronounced within or around matter or energy clusters (where more energy fluctuations may be encountered and also because pulling out towards AdS(5) will happen more often where spacetime is curved by matter). Yet, it exists everywhere as vacuum virtual pairs also contribute. Its intensity is related to the vacuum energy levels as well as the energy content of the entangled particles. It is not the vacuum energy density and it is expected to be a way smaller contribution, but omnipresent in spacetime. This way, we are able to solve the cosmological constant problem. It also weakens the arguments for an anthropic principle (to explain the cosmology constant), which in turns weakens reuse of such a principle to justify parallel universes and the “expected” existence of large superstring swampland and landscape (maybe – not that certain now that the landscape needs to be a positive curvature universe [15]).

The arguments in [1] are only qualitative, not yet quantitative. More work is needed to see if quantitative estimates make sense and may suffice to explain dark energy. Of course, other effects can also play along.

Also, this analysis is for a Multi-fold universe as in [1]. [1] details arguments and ways to check its relationship with the real universe. Besides properties that can be experimentally verified (in the future because of the macroscopic weakness of gravity and gravity like effects for entangled systems), [1] shows how the multi-fold mechanisms and behaviors are in many aspects in today’s conventional physics, that, at times, anticipate the behaviors modeled in a multi-fold universe. In addition, [1] potentially explains many results obtained in gravity, quantum mechanics, General Relativity, superstring theory, Loop Quantum Gravity and the AdS/CFT correspondence conjecture. All these works attempt to come up with models for the real universe. It is at least a good sign that [1] may provide an interesting model of the real universe.

Our proposal has no equivalent or variations for non multi-fold universe: the source of dark energy effects come directly from the multi-folds mechanisms as proposed in [1]. Even other models that link entanglement and gravity would most probably not help as the multi-fold universe does.

The fact that dark energy and cosmological constant issues are confirmed (so far) by observations, yet unexplained, indicates one possible small step in favor of this subject helping to validate the models proposed in [1].

5. Conclusions

We believe that [1] makes a compelling case for the consistency of its multi-fold proposal. The present paper shows how the mechanisms of multi-fold universes can help address the challenges with dark energy and with the cosmological constant.

The model also has the ability to further explain the expected discrete and noncommutative (Lorentz invariant and fractal) nature of spacetime and to support inflation (with or without inflatons).

While steps in the right direction in terms of validating [1], future work should aim at providing quantitative estimates to further determine viability of the proposal or completeness of the explanation, versus just contributing to what happens, which would already be satisfying.

____

Cite as: Stephane H Maes, (2020), ”Explaining Dark Energy, Small Cosmological Constant and Inflation Without New Physics?”, viXra:2006.0261v1, shmaesphysics.wordpress.com/20…, June 19, 2020.

Note: If you were by mistake pointed here looking for Stephane H Maes, (2020), ”Explaining Dark Matter Without New Physics?”, viXra:2007.0006v1, https://vixra.org/pdf/2007.0006v1.pdf or shmaesphysics.wordpress.com/20… June 21, 2020, the web version (here) is tracked at shmaesphysics.wordpress.com/20…. A mistake in many references instead provided the URL to the dark energy paper (here). It is regrettable and will be corrected in the future for all upcoming papers and revisions.

____

References: (most references come from popular science to make the discussion more approachable)

[1]: Stephane H. Maes, (2020) “Quantum Gravity Emergence from Entanglement in a Multi-Fold Universe”, viXra:2006.0088v1, (June 9, 2020).

[2]: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reissner…

[3]: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerr-New…

[4]: Burinskii, Alexander, (2008), “The Dirac-Kerr-Newman electron”, arXiv:0507109v4

[5]: Luis J. Garay, (1995), “Quantum Gravity and Minimum Length”, International Journal of Modern Physics A, V 10.

[6]: Hou Y. Yau, (2007 & 2016), “Quantum Theory from a Space-Time Wave”, arXiv:0706.0190 v2 and v4

[7]: S. Doplicher, K. Fredenhagen and J. E. Roberts, (1994), “Spacetime quantization induced by classical gravity”, Phys. Rev. B 331 (1994) 33.

[8]: Hooft, Gerard ’t, (2016), “How quantization of gravity leads to a discrete space-time”, J. Phys.: Conf. Ser. 701 012014

[9]: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflaton

[10]: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_e…

[11]: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflatio…

[12]: Stephane H Maes, (2020), ”Ultimate Unification: Gravity-led Democracy vs. Uber-Symmetries”, shmaesphysics.wordpress.com/20…, June 16, 2020.

[13]: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_ene…

[14]: B. Clegg (2019), “Dark Matter and Dark Energy: The Hidden 95% of the Universe”, Icon Books Ltd

[15]: Stephane H Maes, (2020), ”Dualities or Analogies between Superstrings and Multi-fold Universe“, viXra:2006.0178v1, shmaesphysics.wordpress.com/20…, June 14, 2020.

[16]: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmolog…

[17]: Georges Obied, Hirosi Ooguri, Lev Spodyneiko, Cumrun Vafa, (2018), “De Sitter Space and the Swampland”, arXiv:1806.08362v3.

[18]: Georgios Moschidis, (2018), “A proof of the instability of AdS for the Einstein–massless Vlasov system”, arXiv:1812.04268v1.

[19]: Erik P. Verlinde (2010), “On the Origin of Gravity and the Laws of Newton”, arXiv:1001.0785

[20]: Erik Verlinde, (2016), “Emergent Gravity and the Dark Universe”, arXiv:1611.02269v2

---

I thank my generous supporters on Patreon. [strong]If you like my work, publications, and opinions, please consider joining them. This way, you can support this research work done totally independent from any institution. Use the contact form if you prefer to help by putting together a grant or other type of funding.[/strong]

#CosmologicalConstantProblem #Cosmology #DarkEnergy #Entanglement #GeneralRelativity #Gravity #Inflation #Inflaton #MultiFoldUniverse #QuantumGravity

Contact

Don’t hesitate to reach out with the contact information below, or send a message using the form. Multi-fold Community, where you can submit your own related papers, and be linked here. (Apri…

^{Shmaes - Physics}

No Conventional Sterile Neutrinos In a Multi-fold Universe: just SM_G business as usual

Stephane H. Maes

October 1, 2020

Abstract:

In a multi-fold universe, gravity emerges from Entanglement through the multi-fold mechanisms. As a result, gravity-like effects appear in between entangled particles that they be real or virtual. Long range, massless gravity results from entanglement of massless, virtual particles. Entanglement of massive virtual particles leads to massive gravity contributions at very smalls scales. Multi-fold mechanisms also result into a spacetime that is discrete, with a random walk fractal structure and non-commutative geometry that is Lorentz invariant and where spacetime nodes and particles can be modeled with microscopic black holes. All these recover General relativity at large scales and semi-classical model remain valid till smaller scale than usually expected. Gravity can therefore be added to the Standard Model. This can contribute to resolving several open issues with the Standard Model.

[em]Different recent experiments have argued against, or in favor of a sterile neutrinos. In a multi-fold universe, or whenever we can add a non-negligible gravity contribution at the scales of the Standard Model, we showed how to explain the mass of the neutrino without New Physics and predict the number of generations for each fermions family, including the number of neutrinos flavors, to be exactly 3. Therefore, in a multi-fold universe, there should not be conventional sterile neutrinos: right-handed flavored neutrinos no ability to interact with W^± and Z⁰ (they only interact only with the Higgs and though gravity) suffice to explain the neutrino oscillation anomalies encountered so far. [/em]

The results extend to SM_G.

____

1. Introduction

The new preprint [1] proposes contributions to several open problems in physics like the reconciliation of General Relativity (GR) with Quantum Physics, explaining the origin of gravity proposed as emerging from quantum (EPR- Einstein Podolsky Rosen) entanglement between particles, detailing contributions to dark matter and dark energy and explaining other Standard Model (SM) mysteries, without requiring New Physics beyond the Standard Model other than the addition of gravity to the Standard Model Lagrangian. All this is achieved in s multi-fold universe that may well model our real universe, which remains to be validated.

With the proposed model of [1], spacetime and Physics are modeled from Planck scales to quantum and macroscopic scales, and semi classical approaches appear valid till very small scales. In [1], it is argued that spacetime is discrete, with a random walk-based fractal structure, fractional and noncommutative at, and above Planck scales (with a 2-D behavior and Lorentz invariance preserved by random walks till the early moments of the universe). Spacetime results from past random walks of particles. Spacetime locations and particles can be modeled as microscopic black holes (Schwarzschild for photons and spacetime coordinates, and metrics between Reisner Nordstrom [2] and Kerr Newman [3] for massive and possibly charged particles – the latter being possibly extremal). Although surprising, [1] recovers results consistent with others like [4], while also being able to justify the initial assumptions of black holes from the gravity or entanglement model. The resulting gravity model recovers General Relativity at larger scale, as a 4-D process, with massless gravity, but also with massive gravity components at very small scale that make gravity significant at these scales. Semi-classical models also work well till way smaller scales than usually expected.

In this paper, we remain at a high level of discussion of the analysis and references are generic for the subjects. It makes the points accessible to a wider audience and keeps the door open to further papers or discussions devoted to details of interest. Yet, it requires the reader to review [1], as we do not revisit here all the details of the multi-fold mechanisms or reconstruction of spacetime, nor the derivations of implications for the Standard Model. More targeted references for all the material discussed here are compiled in [1].

2. Reminder of past results in Multi-fold Universes

2.1 Neutrino Masses and Right-handed Neutrinos

[1,5] observed that gravity induces chirality/ helicity flips for fermions, including the neutrinos. As no right-handed neutrino has ever been observed, it is assumed that right-handed neutrinos do not interact other than with the Higgs (and gravity) and so they appear only in flight as part of the neutrino oscillations. Doing so, interactions with the Higgs also flipping helicity can account for the mass of the neutrinos.

Note added on 3/30/21: See [25] for a detailed justification.

2.2 No place for an extra Neutrinos (flavor) in SM

[1,6] expand the Standard model’s Lagrangian with gravity (SM_G) in order to predict exactly three regimes for the mass contributions of each fermion family to the Lagrangian; therefore justifying the ability to only distinguish three flavors. A same mass generation applies to all fermions including neutrinos. There is therefore no room for a sterile neutrino, unless if by this we mean right-handed neutrino, which is sometimes the definition encountered in the literature, but not our choice.

Note that we consider that this is a consistent with , but a different result from the experimental estimations based on the Standard Model that the Z⁰ spectrum also implies only 3 light neutrino species based on the analysis of the decay of Z⁰ into neutrino / anti-neutrino pairs [14,8]. Our results is rather derived from the analysis of multi-fold gravity impact on the SM Lagrangian. Therefore, We believe that in a multi-fold universe, we would not encounter most of the cases envisaged in [8].

3. Sterile Neutrinos?

See [7,8] for some overviews of sterile neutrinos.

There is ample confusion with the terminologies and different definitions in different domains or papers [7,8]. For example, in the literature, the notion of sterile neutrino is sometimes associated to a right-handed neutrino [7] or a 4^th (or more) neutrino with no hypercharge or weak nuclear charge [8,15] (models allow Majorana models or inclusion (as we propose in section 2.1; but without the justification of the role of gravity in SM_G), or not of right-handed flavored neutrino corresponding to the electron, muon and tau flavors of the left-handed neutrinos).

These sterile neutrinos are allowed to participate to neutrino oscillations [16]. Because the sterile neutrino is decoupled from the strong nuclear scale or the electroweak symmetry breaking scale, its mass can be large or small. Accounting for the neutrino anomalies reported below would require a mass larger than the conventional neutrinos (to account for the anomalies and to not violate the Z⁰ (and W^±) decay widths) [8,14].

4. Sterile Neutrinos Experimentation Results

4.1 Con Sterile Neutrinos Results

The IceCube Collaboration [9,10] has repeatedly and consistently found no discrepancies between predicted amounts of detected muon neutrinos that traversed the earth versus what they observed. If sterile neutrinos existed, one would expect less muon neutrinos, especially at certain frequencies due to mass resonance effects like the Mikheyev–Smirnov–Wolfenstein effect (MSW)[17] plus additional effects [24]. This is the most recent experiment at the time of write-up of this paper.

Many other experiments seem to indicate the same (even if without disproving completely Sterile neutrino) [11].

4.2 Pro Sterile Neutrinos Results

On the other hand. the MinibooNE [12] and LSND [13] collaborations have detected discrepancies for muon neutrinos traveling over relatively short distance, in the form of detection of too many electron neutrinos: the neutrinos oscillations are not expected to have had time to take place, since production of the muon neutrinos to justify such observations. Other cases (always with the same paradigm of short distances between source and detection) have been observed [17]. [8] also discusses examples of disappearing electron neutrino anomalies.

The proposed explanation (see for example [18]) is that the introduction of one (or in fact 2 or more (3 being in fact probably more probable but experimentally not distinguishable from 2) ) sterile neutrino(s) (with one of the conventional definitions of section 3), allows for shorter oscillation wavelengths (with more massive sterile neutrinos) and therefore resolves the issue. It is seen as a strong indication of the existence of such sterile neutrinos.

5. A multi-fold Explanation: flavored right-handed neutrinos only

We believe that our results, from section 2.2, forbid sterile neutrinos, with the conventional definitions of section 3 (especially as in [18]): to be oscillating, they should be a flavor. To be a flavor, they violate 2.2, period. The Z⁰ decay width may be compatible with heavier sterile neutrinos (as are the W^±). The results of section 2.2 however again does not encourage such a model.

One could consider that the right-handed in-flight only right-handed neutrinos are the sterile neutrinos: they have a flavor, but no ability to interact with W^± and Z⁰ (they only interact with the Higgs and though gravity). This is consistent with the SM, where the neutrinos only couple left-handedly to the Z and W-bosons.

Per section 2.1, we believe that it is what happens in a multi-fold universe and SM_G (Standard Model with non-negligible gravity effects at the SM scales).

Indeed, results as in section 4.1 are explained by the fact that matter does not modify the helicity/chirality flips of neutrinos and so no differences of rates should be measured by the IceCube collaboration (and yes it is also affected by gravity per [23]). It matches their observation. Regarding section 4.2, although our proposal is sometimes considered as a case of sterile neutrino, it would not provide a justification for the pro Sterile neutrino results. Instead, we propose a new explanation based on [19]: gravity effects on neutrino oscillations. According to [19], they can be ascribed to three effects: propagation decoherence, Penrose decoherence and quantum decoherence due to gravitation scattering. The first is shown (e.g. [20,21]) to mostly amount to lensing effects and changes of the coherence length of the oscillations. The second is not really an effect per [22]. The latter on is exactly what we observe: mass eigenvalue mixes decohere into single mass values: right-handed neutrinos disappear for interactions (they remain in flight) and when they reappear (as a mix of mass states) they may be in any flavor state; which explains the unexplained neutrino flavor apparitions. The effects are not affected by distances shorter than the coherence length of the oscillations. The results of section 4.2 are therefore explained.

Note added on 3/30/21: See [25,26] for a more detailed justification on how and why this in-flight/hiding mode can be achieved in a multi-fold universe by being at the edge of spacetime/living within the multi-folds, behind the Higgs boson.

Therefore, in a multi-fold universe, right-handed flavored neutrinos without ability to interact with W^± and Z⁰ (they only interact only with the Higgs and though gravity) suffice to explain the neutrino oscillation anomalies encountered so far. It is another confirmation of the value of SM_G and a proposal that argues against New Physics, which we consider to not include the case of a sterile neutrino being just as right-handed neutrinos (and left-handed anti-neutrinos) that does not interact because of the chirality discrimination by the electroweak massive bosons.

As already discussed, the model may also works beyond multi-fold universe whenever gravity is non-negligible at the SM scales (and semi-classical effects remain correct), including the in-flight mode.

So it is not that there are no Sterile neutrinos, it is rather than with SM_G, sterile neutrinos are just the missing right-handed neutrinos and left-handed anti-neutrinos. They are always in-flight not interacting.

Note added on 3/30/21: See [25-27] for more details on the in-flight mode.

5. Conclusions

We believe that [1] makes a compelling case for the consistency of its multi-fold proposal. The present paper shows how the mechanisms of multi-fold universes can explain neutrino oscillation anomalies without a conventional sterile neutrino (or at least with a new definition of sterile neutrino).

The proposal is extensible to any situation where gravity is non-negligible at SM scales (SM_G).

It again motivates our call for taking SM_G seriously, considering how many open issues with SM can be (partially) explained with SM_G [24].

____

Cite as: Stephane H Maes, (2020), “No Conventional Sterile Neutrinos In a Multi-fold Universe: just SMG business as usual”, viXra:2103.0202v1, shmaesphysics.wordpress.com/20…, October 1, 2020.

____

References:

[1]: Stephane H. Maes, (2020) “Quantum Gravity Emergence from Entanglement in a Multi-Fold Universe”, viXra:2006.0088v1, (June 9, 2020). Updates and revisions tracked at shmaesphysics.wordpress.com/20…

[2]: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reissner…

[3]: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerr-New…

[4]: Burinskii, Alexander, (2008), “The Dirac-Kerr-Newman electron”, arXiv:0507109v4

[5]: Stephane H Maes, (2020), ”Right-handed neutrinos? Mass? Ask Gravity”, viXra:2007.0018v1, shmaesphysics.wordpress.com/20…, June 23, 2020.

[6]: Stephane H Maes, (2020), “Gravity Dictates the Number of Fermion Generations: 3”, viXra:2007.0068v1, shmaesphysics.wordpress.com/20…, June 24, 2020.

[7]: Wikipedia, “Sterile neutrino”, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sterile_…, Retrieved for this paper on October 1, 2020

[8]: Dmitry V.Naumov, (2019), “Sterile Neutrino. A short introduction”, arXiv:1901.00151v1

[9]: M. Aartsen et al., (2020), “eV-scale sterile neutrino search using eight years of atmospheric muon neutrino data from the IceCube Neutrino Observatory”, Phys. Rev. Lett, 125, 141801.

[10]: M. Aartsen et al., (2020), “Searching for eV-scale sterile neutrinos with eight years of atmospheric neutrinos at the IceCube Neutrino Telescope, ” Phys. Rev. D 102, 052009

[11]: P. Adamson et al. (MINOS+ and Daya Bay Collaborations), (2020), “Improved constraints on sterile neutrino mixing from disappearance searches in the MINOS, MINOS+, Daya Bay, and Bugey-3 experiments”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 071801.

[12]: A.  A. Aguilar-Arevalo et al. (MiniBooNE Collaboration), (2018), “Significant excess of electronlike events in the MiniBooNE short-baseline neutrino experiment”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 221801.

[13]: A. Aguilar et al. (LSND Collaboration), (2001), “Evidence for neutrino oscillations from the observation of ν̄_e appearance in a ν̄_μ beam”, Phys. Rev. D 64, 112007.

[14]: The ALEPH Collaboration, the DELPHI Collaboration, the L3 Collaboration, the OPAL Collaboration, the SLD Collaboration, the LEP Electroweak Working Group, the SLD electroweak, heavy flavour groups, (2005), “Precision Electroweak Measurements on the Z Resonance”, arXiv:hep-ex/0509008v3

[15]: Richard Ruiz, (2014), “Sterile Neutrino. A short introduction”, Quantum Diaries, quantumdiaries.org/2014/07/27/…, Retrieved on October 2, 2020.

[16]: Daedalus IsoDAR, “The Sterile Neutrino”, nevis.columbia.edu/daedalus/mo…, Retrieved on October 2, 2020.

[17]: G. Mention et al., (2011), “Reactor antineutrino anomaly”, Phys. Rev. D 83, 073006.

[18]: Janet M. Conrad, William C. Louis, Michael H. Shaevitz, (2013), “The LSND and MiniBooNE Oscillation Searches at High Δm²“, arXiv:1306.6494v1

[19]: Jonathan Miller, Roman Pasechnik, (2013), “Quasi-classical Gravity effect on neutrino oscillations in a gravitational field of an heavy astrophysical object “, arXiv:1305.4430v6

[20]: Fornengo, N., Giunti, C., Kim, C. W., Song, J., (1997), “Gravitational effects on the neutrino oscillation”, Physical Review D, 56

[21]: Fornengo, N., Giunti, C., Kim, C. W., Song, J., (1999), “Gravitational effects on the neutrino oscillation in vacuum”, Nuclear Physics B (Proc. Suppl.), 70, 264-266

[22] Stephane H Maes, (2020), “No Gravity Induced Wave Function Collapse in a Multi-fold Universe”, shmaesphysics.wordpress.com/20…, September 11, 2020.

[23]: H. Athar, Jose F. Nieves, (2000), “Matter effects on neutrino oscillations in gravitational and magnetic fields”, arXiv:hep-ph/0001069v1

[24]: Stephane H. Maes, (2020), “Web Site Tracking all Publications around the Multi-fold universe” -Navigation page listing all papers. shmaesphysics.wordpress.com/sh….

Added on March 30, 2021:

[25]: Stephane H Maes, (2020), “Multi-fold Higgs Fields and Bosons”, shmaesphysics.wordpress.com/20…, November 6, 2020.

[26]: Stephane H Maes, (2020), “Multi-fold Gravity-Electroweak Theory and Symmetry Breaking”, shmaesphysics.wordpress.com/20…, March 16, 2021.

I thank my generous supporters on Patreon. If you like my work, publications, and opinions, please consider joining them. This way, you can support this research work done totally independent from any institution. Use the contact form if you prefer to help by putting together a grant or other type of funding.

#GeneralRelativity #Gravity #IceCube #LSND #MassOfNeutrinos #MiniBooNE #MultiFoldUniverse #neutrinoOscillationAnomalies #neutrinoOscillations #Neutrinos #NewPhysics #QuantumGravity #StandardModel #standardModelWithGravity #sterileNeutrinos

Site Navigation

Site navigation / map WEB SITE TRACKING ALL PUBLICATIONS AROUND THE MULTI-FOLD UNIVERSE / COMPILATION OF UPDATES, FOLLOW-UPS AND NEW WORKS In a multi-fold universe, gravity emerges from Entanglemen…

^{Shmaes - Physics}

Shmaes - Physics

2020-06-22 02:46:07

Right-handed neutrinos? Mass? Ask Gravity

Stephane H. Maes

June 21, 2020

Abstract:

In a multi-fold universe, gravity emerges from Entanglement through the multi-fold mechanisms. As a result, gravity-like effects appear in between entangled particles that they be real or virtual. Long range, massless gravity results from entanglement of massless virtual particles. Entanglement of massive virtual particles leads to massive gravity contributions at very smalls scales. Multi-folds mechanisms also result into a spacetime that is discrete, with a random walk fractal structure and non-commutative geometry that is Lorentz invariant and where spacetime nodes and particles can be modeled with microscopic black holes. All these recover General relativity at large scales and semi-classical model remain valid till smaller scale than usually expected. Gravity can therefore be added to the Standard Model. This can contribute to resolving several open issues with the Standard Model. In particular with chirality flips of fermion induced by gravity, right-handed neutrinos (and left-handed anti-neutrinos) can appear in flight and now acquire mass when encountering Higgs bosons; two mysteries can be explained in one shot in a multi-fold universe.

____

1. Introduction

The new preprint [1] proposes contributions to several open problems in physics like the reconciliation of General Relativity (GR) with Quantum Physics, explaining the origin of gravity proposed as emerging from quantum (EPR- Einstein Podolsky Rosen) entanglement between particles, detailing contributions to dark matter and dark energy and explaining other Standard Model mysteries without requiring New Physics beyond the Standard Model other than the addition of gravity to the Standard Model Lagrangian. All this is achieved in a multi-fold universe that may well model our real universe, which remains to be validated.

With the proposed model of [1], spacetime and Physics are modeled from Planck scales to quantum and macroscopic scales and semi classical approaches appear valid till very small scales. In [1], it is argued that spacetime is discrete, with a random walk-based fractal structure, fractional and noncommutative at, and above, Planck scales (with a 2-D behavior and Lorentz invariance preserved by random walks till the early moments of the universe). Spacetime results from past random walks of particles. Spacetime locations and particles can be modeled as microscopic black holes (Schwarzschild for photons and spacetime coordinates, and metrics between Reisner Nordstrom [2] and Kerr Newman [3] for massive and possibly charged particles – the latter being possibly extremal). Although surprising, [1] recovers results consistent with other like [4], while also being able to justify the initial assumptions of black holes from the gravity or entanglement model. The resulting gravity model recovers General Relativity at larger scale, as a 4-D process, with massless gravity, but also with massive gravity components at very small scale that make gravity significant these scales. Semi-classical models also work well till way smaller scales that usually expected.

In this paper, we remain at a high level of discussion of the analysis and references are generic for the subjects. It makes the points accessible to a wider audience and keeps the door open to further papers or discussions devoted to details of interest. Yet, it requires the reader to review [1], as we do not revisit here all the details of the multi-fold mechanism or reconstruction of spacetime. More targeted references for all the material discussed here are compiled in [1].

2. SM_G : The Standard Model with Multi-Fold Gravity

[1] proposes that in a multi-fold universe, the Lagrangian is complemented by terms associated to gravity and entanglement (in the form of the sum of the attractive effective potentials) [1].

(1)

The effect of gravity can be seen through the attractive potential contributions of all the energy sources. It can also been seen as expressing the Standard Model Lagrangian in curved spacetime (semi-classical point of view), now considered valid till small scales.

EPR entanglement is not believed to often play a significant role, except in dark matter use cases [5]. The last term is all other “New Physics” terms and we will consider it to be null.

3. Chirality and Helicity flips induced by Gravity

In a curved spacetime, the chirality (or helicity) of massless fermions flips back and forth [6].

In the presence of gravity (with perturbative graviton models), the chirality of massive fermions flips [7]. Additional torsion further contribute to such flips [8]. [1] generates torsion within matter due to the effect of uncertainty on the multi-folds.

These effects have already been analyzed as the reason why gravity can smear the anomalies of baryon and lepton number symmetries and therefore potentially ensure the absence of proton decay, except possibly in extreme conditions within black holes [9].

Note that in the literature, it is also argued that chirality would not flip for massless fermion [7], at the difference of [6]. We believe that the latter is more correct as [7] relies on linearization of gravity, a process that does not work well and that is not giving a correct analysis compared to how gravity is explained in [1] and we know that gravity is not weak any more at very smalls scales, especially due to the massive gravity contributions.

4. The Right-handed Neutrino and its Left-handed anti particles

We recommend the following reference as entry point to neutrinos [10].

Neutrinos exist with different flavors and oscillate in flight between these flavors to change flavor and masses. They always interact in a specific flavor with the corresponding mass. Only left-handed neutrinos and right-handed anti neutrinos seem to interact (i.e. when not in flight).

So far, only left-handed neutrinos and right-handed anti-neutrinos have been observed. It is unknown if what happens or happened to the particles with opposite chirality. Do they exist?

5. The Neutrino mass problem

As a result of the absence of these opposite chirality neutrinos cannot interact with the Higgs Boson (which flips chirality). Therefore it is known in the standard model how neutrino have acquired their observed mass (that is now established to by non-zero).

Many theories have been proposed, usually with New Physics, to explain try to the mass. None have been validated so far. They involve hypothesis of seesaw mechanism, Majorana neutrinos (i.e. neutrino as its own self anti-particle), an additional sterile neutrino and a whole bunch of super partners proposals. An overview can be found in [11].

Numerous experiments have been proposed to try to validate on model or another with for example the search for Neutrino-less Double Beta-Decay (e.g. to determine if neutrinos are Majorana particles). It is fair to say that nothing conclusive has been observed so far!

At the light of [1], the reasoning above for SM_G, and [9], we suspect that all these efforts may be going in the wrong direction…

Indeed, if we consider that gravity is present, then in flight particles can flip chirality in addition to oscillating in mass and flavors. So Higgs interactions are now possible in flight, which is how and when bumps with Higgs boson take place -a different situation form particle to particle interactions (also flipping chiralities, to be then flip back to observable chiralities by gravity, before any of all the other types of interaction can take place), which means mass acquisition as conventionally understood for fermions in the Standard Model can occur in flight for neutrinos (also why it is inflight that we can find the neutrino mass eigenstates). Masses are small, because available interaction time with Higgs bosons is small.

It resolves in one shot both the questions of the existence of right-handed neutrinos (and left-handed antineutrinos) as well as the origin of the (low) mass of the neutrinos. All is achieved within the context of the Standard Model with Gravity, in a multi-fold universe, and without the need of New Physics.

Also, this analysis is for a Multi-fold universe as in [1]. [1] details arguments and ways to check its relationship with the real universe. Besides properties that can be experimentally verified (in the future because of the macroscopic weakness of gravity and gravity like effects for entangled systems), [1] shows how the multi-fold mechanisms and behaviors are in many aspects in today’s conventional physics, that, at times, anticipates the behaviors modeled of a multi-fold universe. In addition, [1] explains many results obtained in gravity, quantum mechanics, General Relativity, superstring theory, Loop Quantum Gravity and the AdS/CFT correspondence conjecture. All these works attempt to come up with models for the real universe. It is at least a good sign that [1] may provide an interesting model of the real universe.

Other theories showing that gravity is relevant at the level of the standard model, can repeat the chirality flip argument, even with no relation to multi-fold universe and mechanisms or to gravity emergence from entanglement. So our model here is generic: if we add gravity to Standard Model with a model keeping it non negligible at the Standard Model scales, then right-handed neutrinos and left-handed anti neutrinos exist in flight, only left-handed neutrinos and right-handed anti neutrinos interact in general; but the existence of both chirality in flight ensures mass acquisition via the Higgs mechanism.

Note however that If our model here is not validated by experience, it would not invalidate the multi-fold mechanism and the proposal that gravity emerges from entanglement as detailed in [1]. The analysis builds on [1], as a consequence of it, but it is not a condition for validation of multi-fold universes.

5. Conclusions

We believe that [1] makes a compelling case for the consistency of its multi-fold proposal. The present paper shows how the mechanisms of multi-fold universes can help address the challenges of explaining the mass of the neutrinos without New Physics.

We explain the fate of right-handed neutrinos and left-handed anti neutrinos: they exist, but only in flight where they can interact with the Higgs. Why it only exist in flight is still an open issue. And the low mass of the neutrinos results from the usual Higgs mechanism, while in flight. The mass is low because only little time is available for mass acquisition and bumping with Higgs bosons). The model works for multi-fold universe as well as in any situation where gravity is non negligible and added to the Standard Model.

This along with similar results in [1] and [9], make a strong case for more seriously considering the implications of adding gravity to the Standard Model to obtain SM_G, as a way to contribute to addressing open issues and offer better alternatives to New Physics speculations. This goes hand in hand with recognizing that this also implies the need to seriously consider that gravity may not always be negligible at the Standard Model scales as proposed in [1].

____

Cite as: Stephane H Maes, (2020), ”Right-handed neutrinos? Mass? Ask Gravity”, viXra:2007.0018v1, shmaesphysics.wordpress.com/20…, June 23, 2020.

____

References: (most references come from popular science to make the discussion more approachable)

[1]: Stephane H. Maes, (2020) “Quantum Gravity Emergence from Entanglement in a Multi-Fold Universe”, viXra:2006.0088v1, (June 9, 2020).

[2]: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reissner…

[3]: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerr-New…

[4]: Burinskii, Alexander, (2008), “The Dirac-Kerr-Newman electron”, arXiv:0507109v4

[5]: Stephane H Maes, (2020), ”Explaining Dark Matter Without New Physics?”, viXra:2006.0261v1, shmaesphysics.wordpress.com/20…, June 21, 2020.

[6]: Carlos Mergulhao Jr., (1995), “Neutrino Helicity Flip in a Curved Space-tlme”, General Relativity and Gravitation, volume 27, pages 657–667.

[7]: R. Aldrovandi, G. E. A. Matsas, S. F. Novaes, D. Spehler, (1994), ” Fermion Helicity Flip in Weak Gravitational Fields”, arXiv:gr-qc/9404018v1

[8]: Soumitra SenGupta, Aninda Sinha, (2001), ” Fermion helicity flip by parity violating torsion”, arXiv:hep-th/0102073v2.

[9]: Stephane H Maes, (2020), “Gravity Induced Anomalies Smearing in Standard Model so that Protons May Never Decay, Except in Black Holes “, viXra:2006.0128v1, shmaesphysics.wordpress.com/20…, June 13, 2020.

[10]: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino

[11]: M.C. Gonzalez-Garcia and M. Yokoyama, (2019), “14. Neutrino Masses, Mixing, and Oscillations”, in M. Tanabashi et al. (Particle Data Group), Phys. Rev. D 98, 030001 (2018) and (2019) update.

---

I thank my generous supporters on Patreon. [strong]If you like my work, publications, and opinions, please consider joining them. This way, you can support this research work done totally independent from any institution. Use the contact form if you prefer to help by puting together a grant or other type of funding.[/strong]

#Chirality #ChiralitySymmetry #Entanglement #Gravity #Helicity #HiggsMechanism #MajoranaParticle #MassProblem #MultiFoldUniverse #NeutrinoMass #Neutrinos #NewPhysics #QuantumGravity #SeesawMechanism #StandardModel #symmetryBreaking

Contact

Don’t hesitate to reach out with the contact information below, or send a message using the form. Multi-fold Community, where you can submit your own related papers, and be linked here. (Apri…

^{Shmaes - Physics}

Implicit Multi-Fold Mechanisms in a Neural Network Model of the Universe

Implicit Multi-Fold Mechanisms in a Neural Network Model of the Universe

Stephane H. Maes

September 12, 2020

Abstract:

In a multi-fold universe, gravity emerges from Entanglement through the multi-fold mechanisms. As a result, gravity-like effects appear in between entangled particles that they be real or virtual. Long range, massless gravity results from entanglement of massless virtual particles. Entanglement of massive virtual particles leads to massive gravity contributions at very smalls scales. Multi-folds mechanisms also result into a spacetime that is discrete, with a random walk fractal structure and non-commutative geometry that is Lorentz invariant and where spacetime nodes and particles can be modeled with microscopic black holes. All these recover General relativity at large scales and semi-classical model remain valid till smaller scale than usually expected. Gravity can therefore be added to the Standard Model. This can contribute to resolving several open issues with the Standard Model without new Physics other than gravity. These considerations hints at a even stronger relationship between gravity and the Standard Model.

Recently a controversial series of papers ended up proposing the possibility that the universe be a neural network. It is the result of observing that with an irreversible thermodynamics model of the learning process of the neural network, it might appear possible to model quantum and classical physics, to observe the emergence of a General Relativistic spacetime with gravity, and plausible to construct a generalized holographic principle beyond the AdS/CFT correspondence conjecture. The approach has been received with some skepticism.

In this paper, we do not try to assess the validity of the approach and proposal. We simply assume that the proposal amounts to showing that neural network (NN) learning with a suitable thermodynamically related loss function (aka cost function) optimization, that amounts to extremize the free energy of the system, can model the Physics of the universe. When we add a model of entanglement, we discover that the neural network must allow its involved neurons to pair into pairs (or groups) of (dynamic) Qubits. Non quantum NN neurons cannot be simply grouped this way. Instead one need to add new (external) NN, that themselves emulate Qubit behaviors, between the “entangled” nodes. It amounts to match the multi-folds, including their spacetime extensions, and mechanisms. Furthermore the additional NN, explain the possibility to induce 7D physics in 4D space time to induce the Standard Model with gravity (SM_G), encountered with multi-fold universes, while the multi-fold dynamics itself (in AdS(5), does not have necessarily have to be governed by General Relativity.

The work also leads us to wonder if Quantum Physics is fundamental or emergent; especially with what we already know about entanglement and spacetime construction by random walks, in multi-fold universes.

An appendix also discusses how NN models could relate to the Wigner’s wonder at why mathematics describe the Physical world.

____

1. Introduction

The new preprint [1] proposes contributions to several open problems in physics like the reconciliation of General Relativity (GR) with Quantum Physics, explaining the origin of gravity proposed as emerging from quantum (EPR- Einstein Podolsky Rosen) entanglement between particles, detailing contributions to dark matter and dark energy and explaining other Standard Model mysteries without requiring New Physics beyond the Standard Model other than the addition of gravity to the Standard Model Lagrangian. All this is achieved in a multi-fold universe that may well model our real universe, which remains to be validated.

With the proposed model of [1], spacetime and Physics are modeled from Planck scales to quantum and macroscopic scales and semi classical approaches appear valid till very small scales. In [1], it is argued that spacetime is discrete, with a random walk-based fractal structure, fractional and noncommutative at, and above Planck scales (with a 2-D behavior and Lorentz invariance preserved by random walks till the early moments of the universe). Spacetime results from past random walks of particles. Spacetime locations and particles can be modeled as microscopic black holes (Schwarzschild for photons and spacetime coordinates, and metrics between Reisner Nordstrom [2] and Kerr Newman [3] for massive and possibly charged particles – the latter being possibly extremal). Although surprising, [1] recovers results consistent with other like [4], while also being able to justify the initial assumptions of black holes from the gravity or entanglement model in a multi-fold universe. The resulting gravity model recovers General Relativity at larger scale, as a 4-D process, with massless gravity, but also with massive gravity components at very small scale that make gravity significant at these scales. Semi-classical models also turn out to work well till way smaller scales that usually expected.

The present paper discusses how modeling entanglement by extending the neural networks (NN) proposed to model Physics in the universe as neural networks theories [5,6,7], can be seen as recovering key results of [1] and [9].

In this paper, we remain at a high level of discussion of the analysis and references are generic for the subjects. It makes the points accessible to a wider audience and keeps the door open to further papers or discussions devoted to details of interest. Yet, it requires the reader to review [1], as we do not revisit here all the details of the multi-fold mechanisms or reconstruction of spacetime. More targeted references for all the material discussed here are compiled in [1] and derived papers.

2. NN Model of the Universe

[6] shows that if information theory is modeled with (covariant) irreversible / non-equilibrium thermodynamic processes then, close to equilibrium, the conjugate thermodynamics variables of the information content (tensor) is an emerging spacetime following the Hilbert Einstein spacetime. This result is to be related to [8], that derives emergence of quantum mechanics from classical irreversible thermodynamics. Away from equilibrium, the picture is less clear. We note that the irreversibility has to be directly related to the quantum behavior.

Following up on these results, [7] proposes a thermodynamics model for Machine Learning (ML) and derives a proposal for Thermodynamics of learning. NN are example of ML, but we know that any AI or ML algorithm can always be modeled as a NN [17,18,22]. [5] then models NN thermodynamics, using [7] and inspired from [6,8] and shows

• Close to equilibrium and when the entropy contributions from learning are small, one can recover a Schrödinger equation and a wave function that results from the stochastic dynamics of the training variables randomly trying to find where to go to learn. It amounts to small scale events, trying different evolution to find hints of the best ones, not really changing much with respect to what the NN has learned, and it denotes a state of the NN, where equilibrium has been reached, and new variables values for the models are randomly visited just in case they could help or because learning continues.
• Further away from equilibrium, where random fluctuations of the q_i, the learning variables, are smaller and less visible, and hence at larger scales, and therefore when learning process dominates the thermodynamic, the training variable have an evolution that can be characterized by a classical Hamiltonian and therefore can be modeled by classical Physics. It corresponds to a state of the NN, where it can estimate how to progress to learn or improve the loss/cost function (think of gradient like steepest gradient descent methods for learning/training/optimization).
• When modeling directly the dynamics of the state of the neurons, [6] applies and under suitable conditions (close to equilibrium and with weak interaction between the neurons (at least when nonlocal)), the dynamics of the neurons follows Einstein’s GR field equations
• Analyzing In and Out layers of the NN versus hidden layers, one can hypothesize ways to recover a generalized holographic principle that would link a quantum mechanically dominated NN (In + Out layers) to a deep / many layers NN dominated by gravity.

Appendix A presents additional considerations on what we can learn from [5].

However, this model does not model entanglement yet (under {*)). It is a key missing part before we can claim to have a truly complete quantum model emerging from [5].

3. Adding Entanglement to NN

Qubit/Quantum NN and Fuzzy Logic are traditional ways to add quantum entanglement effects [10,11,12]. Essentially the most natural way is to allow neurons to now be Qubits, instead of, say binary neurons.

But this is not what we are discussing here. The NN in [5] are not modeled as Qubits. Some additional considerations should probably be added to [5] to handle these, although may be without significant impact. However that is different from having nodes switching from neurons to Qubit based neurons. That is not trivially handled by the Quantum NN in [5]. In future work, we will show it actually could be handled by a different NN, as [17,18,22] suggest that a different NN could do the job, unfortunately possible at the cost of an excessive cost in complexity and number of neurons and variables. This option (*) is not discussed in the present paper and will be the topic of a future paper.

Returning to [5], entanglement results from having regions of the wave function entangled, corresponding say to different EPR particles. These correspond to different hidden values x_i^(K) where K denotes regions not directly interacting (and as such non-local).

Per [5] we know that, before entanglement, the x_j^(L) form a spacetime governed by GR (at least when interactions between the neurons is weak). Entanglement (and disentanglement) are strongly interacting disrupting events that correlate and bind the behaviors between two (or more) different x_i^(O) and x_j^(P), or disrupt such correlation. Entangled region become essentially a self-interacting system with, at best, weak (as in with small interaction impacts) interactions with the rest. Changes to the training variables are correlated so that they impact the hidden variable consistently with the entanglement behavior. Such an entanglement amounts to having x_i^(O) and x_j^(P) now behaving like a Qubit pair. To be handled with NN à la [5], we need an external NN grafted between the now entangled hidden variable to emulate a Qubit. Such a NN is for example studied in [13]. It is possible to show that any NN with such grafts is in fact a QNN or hybrid NN + QNN. A more detailed discussion and proof will be provided in a future dedicated paper. Of course, other approaches may exist.

As a result, when entanglement takes place, a discontinuity in the wave function/equations is reflected by the grafts of additional NNs. This NN also follows [5] and so an extra spacetime appears between the two entangled hidden variable regions (the rest remaining the same). The grafting process is most probably not governed by GR, but once connected, GR applies on the resulting spacetime + extra spacetime, which modifies the gravity felt, per [7], on the pre-existing spacetime (not from the grafted NN). At disentanglement, we revert to a previous unentangled topology, and we can consider that x_i^(O) and x_j^(P) also maintain their place in the main spacetime. Of course, all these steps have impact on the entropy production and destruction and the free energy.

As time passes, the grafted NNs evolve to remain connected between the entangled points and new NNs can be grafted, seeded by previous values. Older ones remain in place. When disentanglement takes place, they are removed.

4. Multi-folds and Multi-fold Mechanism in Entanglement of Quantum systems described by NN

Fundamentally, section 3 depicts the multi-fold mechanisms proposed and detailed in [1]: extra folds are made available for path integral paths of the entangled particle and result into gravity impact on the background spacetime (as attractive gravity like effective potentials or effective curvature between entangled systems [14]). We recover the extra gravity due to the folds, here exemplified by the interactions in the grafted spacetime that curves as a result. Mappings effects result from older grafted NN remaining in place till disentanglement, located around/between the neurons and affected by the correlation between entangled neurons. As the graft is done via another process, it is not expected to follow GR, as we suggested for the dynamics of multi-folds [1,16].

We also recover the additive effect of multiple sources in multi-fold: if different source merge the different additional grafted NNs add their effects.

The disentanglement process, where we remove the graft, is related in our view to how we handle fold deactivation to maintain unitarity as well as the process of deactivation.

The irreversibility associated to Quantum Physics [8] is also interesting considering that [1] predicts that multi-fold mechanisms are a source of irreversibility (deactivation can’t “grow” as activation starting from local points per the hierarchical principle) and T-symmetry violation. We expect to explain it beyond just disentanglement in future work. Only allowing entanglement to grow from neighboring points, is a way to enforce the hierarchical principle discussed in [1].

5. Recovering the Standard Model with Gravity (SM_G)

[9] did all the work to recover from [1] the Standard Model with gravity: SM_G. To do so, it relied on induced space-time-matter from locally embedding spacetime into a 7D unconstrained (i.e. non compact) Kaluza-Klein Universe.

The result here show how “entangled” points of spacetime are locally embedded is a bigger spacetime (with 2 times the space dimensions, i.e. 7D for a 4D background spacetime), therefore also relating entangled NN with the proposal of [9] for induction from 7D Physics.

6. AdS(5) in the NN model of the Universe

Because additional NN are grafted, not generated by optimization of just the original NN (at least within the context of (*)), their dynamics and kinematics are not a priori governed by GR (not forbidden, as easily seen when considering approaches beyond (*)), but not implied). We recover our result from (and a priori a difference with ER= EPR) [9,24].

Repeating our multi-fold analysis that describes the quantum origin gravity, from entanglement via the multi-fold mechanisms, results into an AdS(5) dual space surrounding every spacetime point and generated by the folds [1]. That is for now beyond the model of [5], yet fully compatible.

The proposal of [5] in terms of Holographic duality can not only model and extend the AdS/CFT correspondence conjecture but also the factual correspondence discussed in [1,9,15,16]. Maybe the extensions proposed in [5], for going beyond the zone of applicability of Quantum Physics, also apply to multi-fold universes. It could be worth further investigation.

7. Quantum Physics, Irreversibility and Equilibrium

The recovery of GR close to equilibrium, in [5], agrees with the results from many other works, following the pioneering recovery of GR, by Ted Jacobson, who applied Thermodynamics to spacetime treated as adiabatic, and in, or close to, equilibrium. That work was used in later work to study quantum gravity and entanglement entropy. Indeed this adiabatic and equilibrium regime is the domain of applicability of GR and of Quantum Physics

In general, the equations of conventional Quantum Physics appear time reversible. [1] showed that gravity and entanglement is not T-symmetric. It hints at why [8] can model quantum physics and phenomena by thermodynamics of irreversible systems. And irreversibility is expected to result from purely quantum effects, What is more representative of quantum Physics than entanglement and disentanglement?

But [8] provides another result that is possibly even more important: if thermodynamics is such a good model, then Quantum Physics may rather be an emergent theory and we still need to find the more fundamental underlying theory. As [1] provide both idea of irreversibility of entanglement and construction of spacetime via random walks, these may be good starting point. It will be object of future work.

12/24/20 note: See [23] for such a follow-up contribution where the W-type hypothesis introduced in [23] complements [1] to provide glimpses of such a fundamental theory. Interestingly it also extends causes for T-asymmetry to wave function collapses.

9. Conclusions

There have been already many hints of relationships between spacetime, entanglement, thermodynamics and information theory like treating the universe as universal Quantum Computer, encountering error correcting code in spacetime (including in [1]), deriving GR from spacetime properties in equilibrium and the relationships between gravity, entropy and entanglement entropy as well as the principle of conservation of information in Quantum Physics and the information paradox with Black holes. Information and Physics are closely related and this paper, along with many of its references, add to these observations.

In this paper, we did not try or claim to validate or endorse the proposal that the universe would be a NN. We rather started from the point of view that Physics and the Universe seems to follow models analog to the evolution of a learning NN using the models of [5]. Adding entanglement to the models, we immediately recover strong hints of the multi-fold mechanisms: a way to add it as a model can be interpreted immediately as adding multi-folds with all the implications of [1,17]; including in particular compatibility with the approach that allowed us to recover the SM_G, induced from a 7D unconstrained KK universe. It certainly reinforces the claim that multi-fold universes should be seriously considered.

On the flip side, we showed compatibility of multi-fold universes with the proposal of [5], extended with NN grafts that model entanglement, something that [5] must add to its model to further its claims about the universe by supporting entanglement.

We also encountered hints that Quantum Physics may be an emergent theory, if so well modeled by Thermodynamics. Being a NN maybe an explanation. Other explanations, more physical, may exist.

Appendix A – A NN model of the world? An alternate interpretation

(This appendix will also be repurposed into a dedicated paper not tied to multi-fold universes)

[5] proposes that the universe is a NN. We do not believe that this is the only interpretation of the results presented in [5] and we want to propose an alternative explanation. As already mentioned, the NN approach can be seen as a model of the dynamics of Physics in the universe. Such model is mathematical, in fact it is a consequence of Hilbert 13th problem and the ability to model any system with deep hidden layers and in particular NN as demonstrated with the Kolmogorov-Arnold representation Theorem [17] and the Universal approximation theorem [18].

In the present case the dynamics of the state variables, i.e. the equation of motion, are the approximated functions. Per the theorems above we know such approximation is (almost) always possible (up to discontinuities) and to any desired degree of accuracy (for the right optimization strategy in the case of NN).

What is interesting, is that if the algorithm for loss/cost function optimization relies on (classical) Thermodynamics (for Irreversible and for non-equilibrium processes with a Free Energy model), it uncovers naturally the dynamics described in section 2 [5], where the fact that the NN includes also the model of the learning processes allows to capture in one shot dynamics of the physical system (i.e. the universe) and the dynamic of information processing; therefore concretizing the physical information theory aspects also (e.g. see [19] for related aspects of physical information theory); something that now can be captured into a common Thermodynamics (and physical) model. It goes beyond [8] and justifies considerations like Learning’s Thermodynamics or the principle of conservation of information. In our view, much more than having a NN modeling (or being per [5]) the universe, the key aspect is that we have a complete model for physical and information entropy modeling and computing.

In such a model, it makes sense that entropy extremization and action extremization become equivalent or dual. It is also natural to see that, at small scales, quantum fluctuations around equilibrium imply fluctuations of the learning variables, and the NN state, while at larger scales away from equilibrium (albeit still close), the system will rather behave classically as a learning system (to go back to equilibrium).

So we interpret [5] as a model that shows first and foremost how Physics + Information Theory coexist into a larger model. The model of [5] has its own dynamics. These dynamics may be seen as a model of how physical systems like the universe handle information conservation or just as an algorithm to derive the same outcome. More work is needed to determine that. If it is the former, this may actually be a way to answer why and how mathematics are so good at modeling the Universe as asked famously by Wigner [20], and others, and it would be aligned with Tegmark’s view [21]. Indeed, [5] would now amount to modeling how the universe remains close to thermodynamic equilibrium while always reacting to changes and fluctuation (e.g. random, thermal external, etc.) to catch up with the mathematical prescription aiming at optimizing the loss/cost function while evolving with minimum disruptions as captured by extremization of the entropy and action changes: physical systems take some “guessed optimized efforts” to catch up and follow the mathematics that describe them correctly and these mathematics are the reflection of this process. It is a direct application of Pontryagin’s maximum principles and theorem [25-27].

____

Cite as: Stephane H Maes, (2020), “Implicit Multi-Fold Mechanisms in a Neural Network Model of the Universe”, viXra:2012.0191v1, shmaesphysics.wordpress.com/20…, September 12, 2020.

____

References:

[1]: Stephane H. Maes, (2020), “Quantum Gravity Emergence from Entanglement in a Multi-Fold Universe”, viXra:2006.0088v1, vixra.org/pdf/2006.0088v1.pdf (June 9, 2020).

[2]: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reissner…

[3]: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerr-New…

[4]: Burinskii, Alexander, (2008), “The Dirac-Kerr-Newman electron”, arXiv:0507109v4

[5]: Vitaly Vanchurin, (2018), ” The world as a neural network”, arXiv:2008.01540v1

[6]: Vitaly Vanchurin, (2018), “Covariant Information Theory and Emergent Gravity”, arXiv:1707.05004v4

[7]: Vitaly Vanchurin, (2020), “Towards a theory of machine learning”, arXiv:2004.09280v3

[8]: D. Acosta, P. Fernandez de Cordoba, J. M. Isidro, J. L. G. Santander, (2012), “Emergent quantum mechanics as a classical, irreversible thermodynamics”, arXiv:1206.4941v2

[9]: Stephane H Maes, (2020), “Tracking Down The Standard Model With Gravity In Multi-Fold Universes”, viXra:2011.0208v1, shmaesphysics.wordpress.com/20…, August 20, 2020.

[10]: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_…

[11]: Nobuyuki Matsui, Haruhiko Nishimura and Teijiro Isokawa, (2009), “Qubit Neural Network: Its Performance and Applications”, in Tohru Nitta, (2020), “Complex-valued Neural Networks: Utilizing High-dimensional Parameters”, Information Science Reference

[12]: Gopathy Purushothaman and Nicolaos B. Karayiannis, (1997), “Quantum Neural Networks (QNN’s): Inherently Fuzzy Feedforward Neural Networks”, IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON NEURAL NETWORKS, VOL. 8, NO. 3, MAY 1997

[13]: Emmanuel Flurin, Leigh S. Martin, Shay Hacohen-Gourgy, Irfan Siddiqi, (2020), “Using a Recurrent Neural Network to Reconstruct Quantum Dynamics of a Superconducting Qubit from Physical Observations”, PHYSICAL REVIEW X 10, 011006

[14]: Stephane H Maes, (2020), “Gravity-like Attractions and Fluctuations between Entangled Systems?”, viXra:2010.0010v1, shmaesphysics.wordpress.com/20…, June 24, 2020.

[15]: Stephane H Maes, (2020), “Area Laws Between Multi-Fold Universes and AdS”, viXra:2010.0207v1, shmaesphysics.wordpress.com/20…, August 10, 2020.

[16]: Stephane H Maes, (2020), “Multi-fold Gravitons In-N-Out Spacetime”, viXra:2010.0155v1, shmaesphysics.wordpress.com/20…, July 27, 2020.

[17]: Wikipedia, “Kolmogorov–Arnold representation theorem” en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolmogor…, Retrieved on September 14, 2020.

[18]: Wikipedia, “Universal approximation theorem”, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universa…, Retrieved on September 14, 2020.

[19]: Seth Lloyd, (2006), “Programming the Universe: A Quantum Computer Scientist Takes on the Cosmos”, Alfred A. Knopf

[20]: Wigner, E. P. (1960). “The unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in the natural sciences. Richard Courant lecture in mathematical sciences delivered at New York University, May 11, 1959”. Communications on Pure and Applied Mathematics. 13: 1–14.

[21]: Max Tegmark, (2007), “The Mathematical Universe”, arXiv:0704.0646v2

(Added when pre-print was published on vixra.org)

[22]: Andre Ye, (2020), “Every Machine Learning Algorithm Can Be Represented as a Neural Network”, towardsdatascience.com/every-m…. Retrieved on December 19, 2020

[23]: Stephane H Maes, (2020), “The W-type Multi-Fold Hypothesis and Quantum Physics Interpretation of wave Functions and QFT”, viXra:2207.0118v1, shmaesphysics.wordpress.com/20…, December 20, 2020.

[24]: Maldacena, Juan and Susskind, Leonard (2013). “Cool horizons for entangled black holes”. Fortsch. Phys. 61 (9): 781–811. arXiv:1306.0533

[25]: Wikipedia, “Pontryagin’s maximum principle”, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontryag…. Retrieved on September 29, 2020.

[26]: “13 Pontryagin’s Maximum Principle”, statslab.cam.ac.uk/~rrw1/oc/L1…. Retrieved on September 29, 2020.

[27]: Thayer Watkins, “The Nature of the Principle of Least Action in Mechanics”, sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/minpr…. Retrieved on September 29, 2020.

I thank my generous supporters on Patreon. If you like my work, publications, and opinions, please consider joining them. This way, you can support this research work done totally independent from any institution. Use the contact form if you prefer to help by putting together a grant or other type of funding.

#CFTAdSCorrespondenceConjecture #ClassicalPhysics #Emergent #Entropy #FundamentalTheory #GeneralRelativity #Gravity #Hamiltonian #HolographicDuality #Irreversible #irreversibleThermodynamics #LearningThermodynamics #MachineLearning #MultiFoldUniverse #NeuralNetworks #NonEquilibriumThermodynamics #QuantumComputing #QuantumGravity #QuantumMechanics #QuantumPhysics #Qubits #TheUnreasonableEffectivenessOfMathematicsInTheNaturalSciences #Themodynamics

Shmaes - Physics

2020-06-26 00:50:45

Gravity-like Attractions and Fluctuations between Entangled Systems?

Stephane H. Maes

June 24, 2020

Abstract:

In a multi-fold universe, gravity emerges from Entanglement through the multi-fold mechanisms. As a result, gravity-like effects appear in between entangled particles that they be real or virtual. Long range, massless gravity results from entanglement of massless virtual particles. Entanglement of massive virtual particles leads to massive gravity contributions at very smalls scales. Multi-folds mechanisms also result into a spacetime that is discrete, with a random walk fractal structure and non-commutative geometry that is Lorentz invariant and where spacetime nodes and particles can be modeled with microscopic black holes. All these recover General relativity at large scales and semi-classical model remain valid till smaller scale than usually expected. Gravity can therefore be added to the Standard Model. This can contribute to resolving several open issues with the Standard Model.

All these phenomena result from the observation that attractive gravity-like potentials appear in spacetime between entangled systems, because of the mechanisms proposed in a multi-fold universe to address the EPR paradox. An immediate implication, and opportunity to validate or falsify the model, is that gravity-like effects and fluctuation are predicted to appear between, around or near entangled systems; we just need check if this is encountered in the real world.

This paper discuss situations where attraction due to entanglement, and hence gravity like effects or fluctuations, could be encountered. For example, within or near quantum matter like superconductors or (Bose Einstein Condensates) BECs or within Qubits. One could argue that some indications exist that some of these effects could already have already been observed. We are really seeking falsifiability or validation opportunities for the multi-fold mechanisms. Early considerations are encouraging.

Discussing some related experiments led us to also address how shielding is correctly modeled with multi-fold mechanisms: Faraday cages do not weaken gravity!

____

1. Introduction

The new preprint [1] proposes contributions to several open problems in physics like the reconciliation of General Relativity with Quantum Physics, explaining the origin of gravity proposed as emerging from quantum (EPR- Einstein Podolsky Rosen) entanglement between particles [5], detailing contributions to dark matter and dark energy and explaining other Standard Model mysteries without requiring New Physics beyond the Standard Model other than the addition of gravity to the Standard Model Lagrangian. All this is achieved in a multi-fold universe that may well model our real universe, which remains to be validated.

With the proposed model of [1], spacetime and Physics are modeled from Planck scales to quantum and macroscopic scales and semi classical approaches appear valid till very small scales. In [1], it is argued that spacetime is discrete, with a random walk-based fractal structure, fractional and noncommutative at, and above Planck scales (with a 2-D behavior and Lorentz invariance preserved by random walks till the early moments of the universe). Spacetime results from past random walks of particles. Spacetime locations and particles can be modeled as microscopic black holes (Schwarzschild for photons and spacetime coordinates, and metrics between Reisner Nordstrom [2] and Kerr Newman [3] for massive and possibly charged particles – the latter being possibly extremal). Although surprising, [1] recovers results consistent with other like [4], while also being able to justify the initial assumptions of black holes from the gravity or entanglement model. The resulting gravity model recovers General Relativity (GR) at larger scale, as a 4-D process, with massless gravity, but also with massive gravity components at very small scale that make gravity significant these scales. Semi-classical models also work well till way smaller scales than usually expected.

In the present paper, we remain at a high level of analysis. It makes the points accessible to a wider audience and keeps the door open to further papers or discussions devoted to details of interest. Yet, it requires the reader to review [1], as we do not revisit here all the details of the multi-fold mechanism or reconstruction of spacetime. The followings subsections are organized as a series of observations in [1] where gravity like effects are expected to result from entanglement and should be observable, at least indirectly through some resulting effects. Direct observation will remain challenging because of the expected weakness of the attractions. Our analysis is by no means exhaustive. However, we hope that it will intrigue enough the reader to push him or her to dig deeper. Most of the more detailed (or entry point) references are provided in [1], and so every statement is not motivated here or presented with the most appropriate references. This paper is rather a story tale. “[1]” appears often, as a person or a model, to refer to the original arguments, analysis, mechanisms or proposals discussed in [1].

2. Entanglement effects in Multi-fold universes

The mechanisms of multi-folds, the main feature proposed in [1], trigger activation of additional structures (folds) when particles are (EPR) entangled so that additional paths can traverse the folds, where the EPR entangled particles can always meet as a same exit points. Doing so, all the activated folds (i.e. multi-folds) create attractive potentials in in between the entangled particles ( per fold). The attraction is towards their source or center the mass, depending of the use cases and movements (and masses involved – entangled particles can be massive or massless). When involving virtual particles emitted by a source of energy, this potential is reminiscent of gravity and [1] attributes gravity to these effects. It can also be looked as adding contributions of the Ricci curvature scalar R of the folds, from all matter or energy contributions, to build a new Ricci curvature scalar field R and, with the direction of attraction information, a new consistent Ricci curvature tensor. Doing so, for all sources of energy, recovers Einstein’s GR field equations (or Hilbert Einstein Action); which is amazing as invariance of surfaces (the real geometrical meaning behind the Hilbert Einstein Action) or variants of the Hilbert Einstein have, at no point, be postulated in [1] prior to that determination (something that can’t exactly be said the same way for strings). Also, the multi-folds have a spin-2 symmetry.

So, it is predicted in [1], that (EPR) entanglement between particles (or larger systems), results into attractive potentials in

towards the center of mass, with r the distance between form the center of mass, in

between the entangled particles (on the support domain of the mapping), if integration takes place over r. That is over a system of entangled particles or for the range of uncertainty. Otherwise, each particles contribute a per fold contribution. For gravity, the integration of r goes to infinity, hence the generic gravity like statement.

It is also important to note for completeness that [1] postulates that such effects only exist when entanglement is the result of interaction occurring locally (same source location). Other situations are considered as hierarchical and thought not to contribute an additional effective potential. Yet, as in force composition, the different parts involved in a hierarchical event also amount to attractive effects; so attraction exist but as force composition. Also, if the entanglement is the effect of many repeated interactions (e.g. electron to phonon to electron), while hierarchical, the effects with composition will just appear as a normal non-hierarchical effect with attractive potential (at least in first approximation). So solid state entanglements a la superconductors for examples are modeled as nonhierarchical entanglement in this discussion; even if, in reality, it is the outcome of complex hierarchical composition of attractive potentials.

3. Gravity like fluctuations near (in between) entangled systems

An immediate consequence of the mechanism and model proposed in [1], is that fluctuations of gravity-like effects (in

– when macroscopic and in

when mostly between localized individual particles. These effects are very small (as is gravity beyond very small scales), so direct observation is probably hopeless for the near future, if ever. We will need clever indirect ways or macroscopic additive effects to be able to validate our model.

A non-exhaustive list of candidate scenarios where such gravity like fluctuations are predicted to exist is provided here:

• Gravity like effects or fluctuations within, and in proximity of superconductors. Superconductors involve of combinations of Bardeen Cooper Schrieffer (BCS) pairs (at low temperatures and for low temperature superconductors) [7] and Bose Einstein Condensate (BEC) pairs [8] (after a transition from BCS pairs for high temperature superconductors) as well BEC pairs of pairs etc. in high temperature superconductors [6]. According to the mechanisms described in [1]:
  
  • Attraction should occur within the bulk of the superconductors. It should also be with stronger effects for high temperature superconductors, because BEC pairs are smaller than BCS pairs (That spread all over the material over many crystal cells).
    
    • This kind of effects have been anecdotally reported (see [9] for one of the most recent compilation of these controversial and hard to reproduce experiments)[fn1]. However, we urge the reader to be cautious in reading beyond the descriptions of the experiments and results and the references as we do not necessarily subscribe with the presentation of the experiments as accepted facts or many aspects of the proposed explanations or assertions in some of the listed references material, of anti-gravity, gravity shielding or repulsive gravity effects and other families or properties of gravitons-like particles. Unfortunately, the results experiments seem to have never been rigorously confirmed or unambiguously analyzed.
      
      • In our view, these reported effects, if corroborated, and if we understand well the setup of the two experiments, could result from super-conductor internal stress within the electromagnetic field (between separated BEC BCS-pairs) plus vacuum polarizations. The latter results from entanglement attractions between the produced polarized virtual pairs. When the discharges occur, the superconductor and the vacuum polarization relaxes and so does the vacuum entanglement and attraction potential, resulting into a gravity fluctuation or wave that propagate at the same speed as the polarization relaxation. The relaxation produce a “expansion effects”, wherever polarization was present in the vacuum as well as within the superconductor and could explain the effects on the emitter or on the test masses. It would appear as an initially repulsive effect as the relaxation wave propagates. This explanation to these controversial experiments have never been proposed in the related literature as summarized in [9]. The complications of the shields is discussed in Appendix A.
      • If true (both the observations and our suggested explanation), then we have a resounding indirect confirmation of the mechanisms described (attraction due to entanglement) in [1]; not just for entanglements within the superconductor but also the entanglement of the polarized vacuum.
      • The stronger attraction within the high temperature superconductor creates a stronger effect than with low temperature superconductor material when the pairs are pushed to its boundaries by the electromagnetic field. A non-entangled material only see the vacuum effect. Without superconductors, i.e. in normal discharge situations, only vacuum polarization relaxation takes place. This is not sufficient. The fact that recoil may be better corroborated while radiation effects seems (often) no reproducible could come from the fact that the relaxation effect within the superconductor always takes place and is stronger than vacuum polarization relaxation. The other case (figure 1-a in [9]) requires suitable polarization beyond the right electrodes till the test mass something and it is a much weaker effect.
      • Superconductors are also involved in these experiments also because of their known propensity of quantum matter like superconductors to amplify or reflect the vacuum polarization effects; something well known since the work for example of deWitt [10] and also involved in the still unconfirmed gravitational Casimir effect proposal [11]. These works predict effects of gravity on superconductor, not gravity like effect produce by super conductors. The distinction matters and shows the challenge in distinguishing the two types of effects if we want to validate the gravity like attraction generated by entanglement.
      • To be convincing, we should see larger effects than expected by just contributions à la [10]. The results, with the problems already mentioned seem to indicate that it may be the case.

      
      

    • As another related potential corroboration, building on the ideas of [10], it has also been proposed that an effect for gravitation analogous to the London moment in superconductor could exist for gravitons, in rotating superconductors, in a varying strong magnetic field [12]. Again, the magnetic field would push BEC BCS-pairs towards the surface of the superconductor and, as a result, bring stronger gravitation effect leaks observable outside and very near the super conductor, where a frame dragging effect as in GR, but stronger could be observed. Such effects have been observed [12]. However, the reported results were again in our view not clear enough to assess for sure if they would match our frame dragging expectation. It seems that they might.
      
      • It is also important to understand all aspects of the experiments and details are missing on the actual results and in particular make sure that the effect are due to entanglement and not a variation a la [10], where frame dragging would be explained solely by the rotation flipping the roles (here the super conductor rotates, the detector is fixed) without the contributions of the attraction / gravity like fluctuation due to entanglement.
      • The effect must be larger than normal frame dragging (undetectable) or effects explained by [10]. More work to model how [10] impacts the experimentation and if we can really detect an unexpected additional effect. Assuming that [12] did correctly account for [10], then according to the result, they have unaccounted for effects.

      
      

    • The proposed setup of [12] and variations could be good ways (better than the first set of discharge experiments) to (indirectly) validate the multi-fold mechanisms. However, we would prefer experiments that are not involving and mixing other Physics (like strong magnetic fields, strong electromagnetic pulses etc.) to avoid the risk of misinterpretations and combinations of all these effects from superconductor, existing gravity and electromagnetism interactions. Electromagnetic fields were required because London – Meissner types of behaviors can amplify our predicted attraction . Unfortunately, we could not determine based on the research reports what of the side effects of the fields, as discussed here, have been accounted for in the results.

    
    

  
  

• Quantum matter, like BECs, superfluids, supermetals etc. are other candidates. The gravity fluctuation effects to look for are similar to what is discussed above for superconductors. The particular existing results discussed above for superconductor may not be repeatable or may need adaptation depending on the type of quantum material.
• Quark Gluon Plasma (QGP) is another example of BEC [14]. Here, we see two avenue for confirmations:
  
  • Experimentally when such plasma are formed in high energy accelerators [13]. It would be worth looking if any perturbations due to attractive potentials could be modeled and observed
  • Theoretical models of cosmology (early moments after the big bang) and stellar physics could consider if adding such considerations could introduce new prediction or effects when involving large quantities of plasma and thus entanglement. The main reason being that at the scale of the universe or of stars, even small effects can start to play meaningful roles.

  
  

• Speaking of which, [1,5] showed of an effect associated to entanglement can qualitatively explain the dark matter effects, without requiring New Physics. It seems also consistent with the observations of galaxies that seem not to contain dark matter; something that most other models have had difficulties to handle. This is quite a potential confirmation, but we now need to proceed towards a more quantitative model of [1] so that we can determine if the number match to account for dark matter (or a portion of it).
  
  • Validating [5] would be of great interest. It would after all, with the conclusions of our model, probably and most influential entanglement effect that we can think of (short of large or even larger, scale spacetime entanglement, proposed by others, but not something that we support).
  • It is certainly encouraging that in addition, [1,15] can also explains effects that contribute to cosmological inflation and dark energy as well as a small cosmological constant that does not conflict with the QFT vacuum energy density estimates.

  
  

• Qubits are entangled systems achieved by different mechanisms like trapped ions, superconductors etc. [16]. They are at the code of quantum computing and larger Qubit systems are being built as time passes. These are not yet large enough for our needs, but things may change rapidly. Within the Qubits, if measurable, attraction would be a sign of entanglement and therefore a way to detect entanglement without observing it; something forbidden by the non-observability of entanglement [17]. Being able to do so would be a great tool for quantum computing and validation of our predictions.
• For quantum computing, teleportation or other purpose, researchers are entangling bigger systems like atoms, larger and larger molecules, wider atom systems or even biological systems; all involving huge amounts of entities (see for example [18-20]). The bigger these systems are the better are the chance to directly or indirectly determine if gravity fluctuations appear among them, as long that we do not hit the snag of hierarchical entanglement not producing attractive potentials. So some precaution are needed to understand if validation is possible or if the absence of attraction would implies falsifiability of our model or rather such the dominance of hierarchical entanglement effects.

4. Other effects and Considerations

It is also worth also noting that [1] predicts impact of the multi-folds effects on the Standard Model. So far, we have used that explain some open problems with the standard model, without requiring new physics. We have shown how entanglement would also appear; but we have not yet found any situation (besides dark matter as in [5]) where it is the contributing factor, versus rather the massive gravity contribution term at small scales also predicted by [1] and expected to be non-negligible at small scales. So far it is that latter mechanism that is invoked in [1] to contribute explanations. See [21] for a list of papers derived from [1], many discussing the impact on the standard model or on New Physics beyond the Standard Model.

That is not to say that, even if possibly surprising, the model proposed in [1] is in fact already contained in many existing conventional physics as well as New Physics around Superstrings and the AdS/CFT correspondence conjecture [22]. Indeed, see for example [23-24] showing how entanglement and spacetime curvature relate. See [1,22] for analysis of how our model also relates to superstring and more directly on topic, how the ER=EPR conjecture [25] is very much a more limited model corroborating the multi-fold mechanisms (see for example [26]); but missing the resulting impact of gravity like potentials towards the center of mass. Non-transferability of the wormholes and misreading of the curvature implications of the entangled black holes may possibly be why these models have not (yet) reached our conclusions. For us, the beauty is that we do not need the New Physics, we just need to add gravity (string enough at smalls scales) to the Standard Model. There is enough material to start making a case for this [21].

5. Conclusions

In this paper, we have compiled examples of situation where it might be possible to observe gravity like fluctuations due to entanglement, as predicted by the multi-fold mechanisms proposed in [1].

At this stage, we hope to find more experiments, effects or model where the additional gravity fluctuation due to entanglement plays a significant role that makes it or its consequence detectable. It is essential to the validation or falsifiability of the multi-fold mechanism proposed in [1]. Doing so if for future work but we can only encourage any such experiments or to keep our predictions in mind quantum matter or quantum computing and teleportation experiments, just in case.

A few challenges remain. The main one being that just like for gravity, at the scale considered, the effects are so small that it will be very hard to detect them, especially directly. Yet our proposal for dark matter already shows that there are ways and there is hope. We also have high hopes for superconductors and BEC experiments. We already pointed out to anecdotal that may corroborate; even if not necessarily as the authors of these experiments would have expected.

Of course, another challenge is that the model of [1] is more qualitative than quantitative. Now, it is a priority for us to evolve towards more quantitative approaches by evolving form proportionality equation to the real coupling factors and estimate these factors (e.g. by relating to expected values in classical situations). We aim with future work to get such better quantitative predictions as well as to evangelize experimentations base don the present paper. Not being currently active in a Physics institution, currently limits our ability to directly attempt an experimental program ourselves.

Our hope with this publication is that others will get ideas on how to validate our model directly or indirectly. We certainly welcome such, or any other, collaborations.

Needless to say that the early hints of corroboration presented here, the contributions to addressing open issues covered in [1,21] and the fact that Physics all along maybe hinted at the multi-folds mechanism, are strong encouragements. We hope it will convince the community to spend some cycle on what [1] proposes.

Note (10/2/20): The progresses towards larger entangled systems reported recently in [27,28], as well as [18-20], will hopefully result into some focused efforts to test our model of attractive gravity like effects between and among entangled systems.

____

Cite as: Stephane H Maes, (2020), “Gravity-like Attractions and Fluctuations between Entangled Systems?”, viXra:2010.0010v1, shmaesphysics.wordpress.com/20…, June 24, 2020.

____

Footnotes:

[fn1]: We are cautious about citing and concerned about the extensive discussion presented here. Indeed the experiment result mentioned here are seen as controversial. We mention them, more as examples of indirect ways to experiments with effects predicted by [1], than as successfully reviewed experimental results that we would want to rely on.

____

References: (most references come from popular science to make the discussion more approachable)

[1]: Stephane H. Maes, (2020) “Quantum Gravity Emergence from Entanglement in a Multi-Fold Universe”, viXra:2006.0088v1, (June 9, 2020).

[2]: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reissner…

[3]: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerr-New…

[4]: Burinskii, Alexander, (2008), “The Dirac-Kerr-Newman electron”, arXiv:0507109v4

[5]: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_para…

[6]: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercon…

[7]: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BCS_theo…

[8]: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bose%E2%…

[9]: Giovanni Modanese, (2014), “Gravity-Superconductors Interactions as a Possible Means to Exchange Momentum with the Vacuum”, arXiv:1408.1636v1

[10]: Bryce S. DeWitt, (1966), “Superconductors and Gravitational Drag”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 16, 1092

[11]: James Q. Quach, (2015), “Gravitational Casimir effect”, arXiv:1502.07429v1

[12]: Clovis Jacinto de Matos, Martin Tajmar (2006). “Gravitomagnetic London Moment and the Graviton Mass inside a Superconductor”, arXiv:cond-mat/0602591

[13]: ALICE Collaboration, (2018), “Anisotropic flow in Xe-Xe collisions at sqrt{s_{NN}}=5.44 TeV”, arXiv:1805.01832v2

[14]: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quark%E2…

[15]: Stephane H Maes, (2020), ”Explaining Dark Energy, Small Cosmological Constant and Inflation Without New Physics?”, https://shmaesphysics.wordpress.com/2020/06/19/explaining-dark-energy-small-cosmological-constant-and-inflation-without-new-physics/, June 19, 2020.

[16]: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qubit

[17]: Ning Bao and Jason Pollack and Grant N. Remmen, (2015), “Wormhole and entanglement (non-)detection in the ER=EPR correspondence”, arXiv:1509.05426

[18]: C. F. Ockeloen-Korppi, E. Damskagg, J.-M. Pirkkalainen, A. A. Clerk, F. Massel, M. J. Woolley, M. A. Sillanpaa, (2017), “Entangled massive mechanical oscillators”, arXiv:1711.01640v1

[19]: Yaakov Y. Fein et al. (2019), “Quantum superposition of molecules beyond 25 kDa”, Nature Physicss.

[20]: Kong, J., Jiménez-Martínez, R., Troullinou, C. et al., (2020), “Measurement-induced, spatially-extended entanglement in a hot, strongly-interacting atomic system”. Nat Commun 11, 2415.

[21]: shmaesphysics.wordpress.com/sh…

[22]: Stephane H Maes, (2020), “Dualities or Analogies between Superstrings and Multi-fold Universe”, viXra:2006.0178v1, shmaesphysics.wordpress.com/20…, June 14, 2020.

[23]: ChunJun Cao, Sean M. Carroll, Spyridon Michalakis, (2016). “Space from Hilbert Space: Recovering Geometry from Bulk Entanglement”, arXiv:1606.08444v3.

[24]: van Raamsdonk, Mark (2010). “Building up spacetime with quantum entanglement”, Gen. Rel. Grav. 42 (14): 2323–2329. arXiv:1005.3035

[25]: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ER%3DEPR

[26]: Julian Sonner, (2013), “Holographic Schwinger Effect and the Geometry of Entanglement”, arXiv:1307.6850v3.

[27]: sciencealert.com/physicists-pu…

[28]: Rodrigo A. Thomas, Michał Parniak, Christoffer Østfeldt, Chistoffer B. Møller, Christian Bærentsen, Yeghishe Tsaturyan, Albert Schliesser, Jürgen Appel, Emil Zeuthen, Eugene S. Polzik, (2020), “Entanglement between Distant Macroscopic Mechanical and Spin Systems”, arXiv:2003.11310v1

____

Appendix A – No gravity shields in Multi-fold Universes

In [9], the experiences of figure 1 and 2, sensors are described as positioned in shielded boxes or behind shield screens, we do interpret this as electromagnetic shields (as faraday cages or large screens). This is certainly challenging a direct vacuum polarization story beyond the shield. We did not want to bring this up in the main discussion and add more controversies.

Obviously, gravity screens do not exist. [1] must be able to account for no weakening of gravity within faraday cages for example, despite our mechanisms relying on virtual particles. If only virtual neutrinos were to contribute, gravity would be weakened within such a cage, which is obviously not the case. In general for the multi-fold mechanisms of [1], when the virtual particles tries to reach a test particle within an electromagnetic shield, it does it be affecting the four -vector potential of the shield. Considering the system shield + target particle, its total energy is affected and it affects the energy source available to multi-folds affecting the test particle. The combine effect is hierarchical and the composition appears as if the effect went through the shield. A dedicated upcoming paper or an update of [1] will explicitly address these shielding concerns with the multi-fold mechanisms.

Coming back to [9], our plausible explanation stops at the shield. So what could be happening next? The gravity fluctuation due to the relaxation of the vacuum polarization (e.g. in figure 2 of [9]) affects the 4-vector potential as a fluctuation that therefore could continue beyond the shield as a gravity fluctuation. Remember, we only try to interpret [9] at the light of [1]. We are in no position to corroborate what actually was observed.

____

I thank my generous supporters on Patreon. If you like my work, publications, and opinions, please consider joining them. This way, you can support this research work done totally independent from any institution. Use the contact form if you prefer to help by putting together a grant or other type of funding.

#AdSCFTCorrespondence #BCS #BEC #DarkEnergy #DarkMatter #EPR #EREPR #FrameDragging #GeneralRelativity #Gravity #GravityFluctuations #MultiFoldUniverse #QuantumComputing #QuantumGravity #QuantumMatter #QuarkGluonPlasma #Qubits #StandardModel #Superconductor #superfluid #Teleportation #VacuumPolarization #WeakGravityConjecture

Physicists Have Successfully Connected Two Large Objects in Quantum Entanglement : ScienceAlert

We stride through our Universe with the confidence of a giant, giving little thought to the fact that reality bubbles with uncertainty.

^{Mike McRae (ScienceAlert)}

Multi-Fold Black Holes: Entropy, Evolution and Quantum Extrema

Stephane H. Maes

October 31, 2020

Abstract:

In a multi-fold universe, gravity emerges from Entanglement through the multi-fold mechanisms. As a result, gravity-like effects appear in between entangled particles; that they be real or virtual. Long range, massless gravity results from entanglement of massless virtual particles. Entanglement of massive virtual particles leads to massive gravity contributions at very smalls scales. Multi-folds mechanisms also result into a spacetime that is discrete, with a random walk fractal structure, and non-commutative geometry, that is Lorentz invariant, and where spacetime locations, and particles, can be modeled with microscopic black holes. All these recover General relativity at large scales, and semi-classical models remain valid till smaller scale than usually expected. Gravity can therefore be added to the Standard Model. It can contribute to resolving several open issues with the Standard Model without new Physics other than gravity. These considerations hint at an even stronger relationship between gravity and the Standard Model.

In our original work on multi-fold universe, we derived area laws for black hole, and considerations on the black hole paradoxes. Our analysis of evolution of charged black holes was used to derive a new unification model based on democracy of forces and particles: the Ultimate Unification (UU), significantly different from conventional GUTs. The discrete structure of spacetime, and multi-fold mechanisms, also ensure the absence of gravitational or cosmological singularities

Recently, progress has been made with conventional modeling of black holes, and with the AdS/CFT conjecture, it is believed to be very close to demonstrate a resolution (and/or the absence) of the information paradox. Something we had already hinted. Doing so, they also added to the modeling of the interior of black holes based on quantum considerations.

[em]Considering how we have so far been able to recover many conventional models in multi-fold universes, typically with variations, factual statements, and physical (and often microscopic) explanations of the effects, this paper is focused on deriving the equivalent model for the interior and evolution of black holes. It includes recovering the Page curve for multi-fold black holes, the quantum extremal surface inside a black hole, and resolution of the information paradox with a solution consistent with the conventional approach, but in 4D, and without dependency on the AdS/CFT correspondence, or the ER=EPR conjectures, and its wormholes. This last statement about dependencies is not totally honest, as the latter two conjectures are inherently factual in multi-fold universes, and multi-fold may be, or correspond to, wormholes. [/em]

[em][em][em]Anecdotally, we also recover, that black holes behave as if they had singularities, despite the absence of singularity in a multi-fold universe. The quantum extremal surface plays a key role in this and in the Page curve recovery, although different from conventional models.[/em][/em][/em]

____

1. Introduction

The preprint [1] proposes contributions to several open problems in physics like the reconciliation of General Relativity (GR) with Quantum Physics, explaining the origin of gravity proposed as emerging from quantum (EPR – Einstein Podolsky Rosen) entanglement between particles, detailing contributions to dark matter and dark energy, and explaining other Standard Model mysteries without requiring New Physics beyond the Standard Model other than the addition of gravity to the Standard Model Lagrangian. All this is achieved in a multi-fold universe, that may well model our real universe, which remains to be validated.

With the proposed model of [1], spacetime and Physics are modeled from Planck scales to quantum, and macroscopic scales, and semi classical approaches appear valid till very small scales. In [1], it is argued that spacetime is discrete, with a random walk-based fractal structure, fractional, and noncommutative at, and above, Planck scales (with a 2-D behavior and Lorentz invariance preserved by random walks till the early moments of the universe). Spacetime results from past random walks of particles. Concretized spacetime locations and particles can be modeled as microscopic blackholes (Schwarzschild for photons and spacetime coordinates, and metrics between Reisner Nordstrom [2] and Kerr Newman [3] for massive and charged particles, possibly extremal). Although surprising, [1] recovers results consistent with other like [4], while also being able to justify the initial assumptions of black holes from the gravity or entanglement model. The resulting gravity model recovers General Relativity (GR) at larger scale, as a 4-D process, with massless gravity, but also with massive gravity components, at very small scale, that make gravity significant at these scales. Semi-classical models also work well till way smaller scales than usually expected.

In this paper, we remain at a high level of discussion of the analysis and references are generic for the subjects. It makes the points accessible to a wider audience and keeps the door open to further papers or discussions devoted to details of interest. Yet, it requires the reader to review [1], as we do not revisit here all the details of the multi-fold mechanism or reconstruction of spacetime. More targeted references for all the material discussed here are compiled in [1].

2. Multi-fold Black Holes.

2.1. Particles and Concretized Spacetime location as Black Holes

In its reconstruction phase, [1] models particles and spacetime locations as microscopic (and extremal) black holes. The origins of these black holes comes from the observation that multi-fold create a black hole structure surround every particle / energy location. Doing so they also create AdS(5), as dual or cotangent space to the particles. It is the origin of the AdS/CFT factual correspondence in Multi-fold universes.

2.2 No Gravity or Cosmology Singularity

With multi-fold mechanisms, we also determine that no singularity exist. It results from the fact that:

• Multi-fold mechanisms (can) contribute torsion within matter. It ensures the absence of singularity (because, by definition, torsion requires paths from a location ending at another location, and, therefore, it is incompatible with a point singularity). [5] derives this result as a conventional classical or semi classical version.
• Multi-fold mechanisms contribute a positive cosmological constant, that we believe can explain or at least contribute to dark energy effects [6]. These contributions, in the presence of a lot of system interacting with each other (and therefore entangled) over small distance, will result into a significant additional outbound pressure.
• Discreteness of spacetime, and non-commutativity, while allowing for black holes, also ensure minimum distances and hence no singularities [1,7,8].

Only at the first moment of the big bang is it possible that a singularity existed. This will be the object of future paper (track them at [52,53]).

The absence of singularity is maintained with black holes in a multi-fold universe. Note however that we are obtaining and modeling differently the incompleteness of geodesics, as will be seen in later sections: no infinite density, or point-like infinite concentration (conventional space like singularity), nor time like singularity (due to this different way to look at geodesics incompleteness). It leads to different ways to understand the singularity theorems) [44,48].

2.3 Area laws and Entropy

[1] derives an area dependency for the black hole entropy (due to gravity or spacetime), as well as for spacetime causal horizons. The derivation is not based on GR, but rather entirely based on the multi-fold mechanisms and quantum uncertainty. As the model focuses so far with qualitative models, quantitative proportionality is rather obtained by recovering the conventional results as we know that multi-fold mechanisms recover GR. Therefore, all its corresponding results at large enough scales must also be recovered. Note also that this reasoning is a bit simplistic because it does not model the history of the black hole (it just derive the result for a given black hole) and oversimplifies the multi-fold mechanisms inside the black hole. We will revisit a slightly more rigorous model in a later section.

The derivation, in [1], is based on the holographic principle associated to spin-2 symmetry of the multi-folds. As a result, all the effects of the mass or energy content of the black hole amount to the flow of multi-fold effects across any surface containing that mass; not really how it is distributed. So outside the black hole all the effects are due to the boundary of the black hole horizon. But the horizon blocks propagation of the entangled virtual particles responsible for the multi-folds. It implies that, from the inside, all virtual particles accumulate on the inside of the horizon, unable to get out. It is the quantum uncertainties that move particles inside the horizon occasionally outside, where they can then contribute to the potential energy of the layer outside (via exposure of the external layer to V_eff). Particles outside generate multi-folds, reflecting that potential energy level and gravity expands outside the horizon. It is a similar phenomenon to the one that is discussed in [9] to ensure that gravity shields do not exist. (Note on 5/16/21: See also [51]).

From the outside, the multi-folds (and virtual particles) also accumulate on the horizon, for an external observer, reflecting the gravity effects from the outside. These external multi-folds have a particle falling in (and so eternally blocked on the external side of the horizon). Thus, any external gravity effect is similarly passed to the black hole when the fluctuation brings the external virtual particles inside. As a result, the microscopic degrees of freedom are proportional to the area of the horizon [1].

Figure 1: It shows the shell around the black hole horizon contributing to the multi-folds generated by the black hole and perceived outside. The number of involved microstates contributing to the entropy are therefore proportional to the area of the shell.

Therefore, the black hole horizon is populated with internal and external particles, entangled through this kind of interaction: the fluctuations of the horizon. Note that while analogous to Hawking radiations, it is a different phenomenon. The amount of degree of freedoms are proportional to A Δ_ħ, where Δ_ħ denotes the thickness of the quantum fluctuation region. The entropy is therefore proportional to A, the area of the black hole. This is the well-known Hawking Bekenstein black entropy and area law of black holes.

These results are for a (stationary) non-charged and not rotating black hole. Charged and rotating black holes have more complex Thermodynamics (e.g. [45]) that involves its charge(s) and angular momentum and characterized with metrics like the Kerr (no total charge) [46], Kerr-Newman [3] and Reissner-Nordstrom (no rotation/no total angular momentum) [2] metrics and a ring of singularity. The same reasoning applies, although mathematically more complicated, and with more corner cases (e.g. extremal and beyond extremal use cases) [47,48].

The area law also evolves into including a ln(A) contribution encountered at small scales through different reasonings in [1] and [10] dues to other fields (hairs and micro-hairs) from the black hole and the 2D dominant process at small scales [11]. This dependency is also recovered in conventional models [16].

2.4 Multi-fold Black Hole Lifecycle

Multi-fold considerations on the evaporation of charged black holes invalidate the weak gravity conjecture (WGC) [1,12] at very small scales, and shows how (charged total charge) black holes will evolve into extremal black holes, that can then ultimately break apart into smaller black holes, and eventually elementary particles. This is how all entropy (and information) is returned and the information paradox is resolved. The reasoning in [1] is mostly thermodynamic. In the upcoming sections, we will detail further what takes place.

As a consequence of the reasoning we introduced a new possible grand unification model: the Ultimate Unification (UU), which is quite different from conventional GUTs with uber symmetries [1,13].

3. Status of Conventional Resolution of the Black Hole Information Paradox

By conventional, we mean mainstream Physics, possibly including, for the purpose of this paper, and, at the difference of most of our other papers, string theory.

To our knowledge, [14] is currently the best overall review of the current status and the latest evolution, even if a popular science article. It clearly explains how multiple new results combine into the new approach. We will re-explain its overview, re-phrased our way, in order to prepare for our multi-fold analysis.

The black hole information paradox [15] results from Hawking’s observations, that, if a black hole evaporates[1], it will end up disappearing, and all the information in the black hole, due to all the matter previously trapped in the black hole, and modeled by the black hole entropy, will disappear and be lost. Such a conclusion violates unitarity of Quantum Physics (and its associated principle of conservation of information). It is therefore expected by many to be incorrect; yet no firm conclusion or proof has been provided so far. In [1], we argued also for indications of a resolution of this paradox based on slightly different considerations.

3.1 The Black Hole Entropy Page Curve

The generalized second law of Black holes [17] expresses the total entropy of the universe, with a black hole, as the external entropy plus the black hole entropy. Per thermodynamics, its variation must always be positive. With a radiating black hole model, one needs to add the entropy changes due to radiations to the black hole entropy changes (due to energy, or mass, reduction, and therefore area reductions as radiation takes place). While the universe expansion may lead to additional considerations, it does not modify the law for the universe, contrary to what has been sometimes pretended in recent publications (e.g. [55])).

Page modeled black holes with a scattering matrix (S matrix), and derived a curve that expresses the entanglement entropy of the system (as entangled particles are emitted by Hawking’s radiation), that complements the black hole entropy in the generalized second law[18,19]. It resulted into the Page black hole entropy curve (see Figure 4, where we recover the same curve in multi-fold universes), showing that a decrease in the black hole entropy is matched by an increase of its entanglement entropy till they are equal. After, the entanglement entropy decreases as the black hole entropy mass continues to decrease due to the radiations, because the possible amount of black hole entropy microscopic states now limit what can be entangled.

With such a model and results, the information paradox is resolved: all entropy originally in the black hole is at the end back in the surroundings, but it is replaced by the Page paradox [14]: how can quantum effects appear at larger scale (the page time occurs when the black hole is still large / macroscopic) than intuitively expected, i.e. at quantum scales. The Page curve effects occur while the black holes are still large. Even if the reasoning that we just described seems convincing, what is really physically happening? That answer does not really exists in conventional Physics, except maybe for the next sections, which is still more a path integral mathematical formalism with some challenges (e.g. would the path integral really apply to macroscopic objects across all possible topologies). However, in upcoming sections, dedicated to multi-fold universes, we provide a multi-fold microscopic explanation.

3.2. Physical Explanation with Path Integrals and the AdS/CFT Correspondence Conjecture

The progresses reported in [14] are supposed to address these questions, in conventional universes:

• Using the AdS/CFT Correspondence Conjecture to match computations in AdS to computations in a flat spacetime with CFTs (Conformal Field Theory) (the dual spacetime) [20]. As CFTs are modeled by quantum physics with well understood behaviors, the theory is unitary and preserves information. Therefore, black holes in AdS must preserve information; that is:
  
  • If you believe in the AdS/CFT Correspondence Conjecture. It a priori implies an underlying superstring and supersymmetric model, which is contrary to what [14] states when suggesting that the progress would have no direct dependency on strings[2]. But it is granted that many have moved beyond superstrings when using the AdS/CFT Correspondence Conjecture that they rather consider as a global approach to M-theory [49].
  • If you believe that black holes in AdS have any relevance to the real universe; which we know is not AdS. Attempts to shakily extrapolate AdS results to non-anti de sitter’s spaces, i.e., to de Sitter universes, have usually not been that rigorous (See, for example,[27,28]), and often with controversies and mistakes.

  
  

• However, in AdS, evaporation can never complete [29], because what is emitted ends up being reflected, and, therefore, re-absorbed in the future. The resolution of this aspect requires a trick, like the introduction of the evaporon, to allow escape in an additional dimension. With the duality, it would amount to cooling down CFTs with an extra dimensional escape path.
  
  • It is an ad hoc, and not that well physically justified, proposal, to say the least. But then again, the whole business of dualities are like that [25].

  
  

• With the evaporon, in AdS, [30,31] recover the Page curve due to a phase transition, when a quantum extremal surface forms inside the black hole in AdS.
  
  • Consider the generalized entropy (coming from the surface and the external region) from the second generalized law of black Holes. For AdS black holes, the area entropy plus the entanglement entropy is the generalized entropy (to be suitably renormalized [34] in a non-discrete spacetime, which is the conventional case). The formula can be extended to other suitable surfaces, splitting a Cauchy surface in two (e.g. a causal horizon) [32]. A quantum extremal surface extremizes the generalized entropy. It is the generalization of the Ruy-Takayanagi area law for the generalized entropy [32,33].
  • If an AdS black hole is modeled with CFTs as its boundaries/horizon, when it evaporates, after the phase transition is reached, a quantum extremal surface appears within the black hole. As a causal horizon, it splits the black hole interior and we recover the information escape figure of [14]: no entanglement exists across that surface (the black hole horizon also varies a bit). The extremal surface decreases as the black hole area decreases. So after the phase transition, less of the black hole is available for entangled Hawking radiation. It explains the decreasing entanglement entropy mentioned in section 3.1, matching the decrease the black hole area entropy and the Page curve.
  • Computations estimates were done in reduced dimensions AdS (e.g. AdS(2)). Unfortunately, we do not live in a 2D spacetime, at least not at our scale, or in our current epoch. [37] can be seen as extending the ideas to higher dimensional AdS black holes.

  
  

• More rigorous computations are reported for AdS(2), in [35,36]. They rely on path integrals over all possible spacetime topologies. Interestingly the significant contributions to the integral include topologies of multiple entangled blackholes linked by wormholes, something reminiscent of the ER=EPR conjecture, that also reminds of the multi-fold mechanisms [1,25]. To some extent, one can see these results as a different derivation of the result of the previous main bullet just as the ER=EPR conjecture actually derives from the AdS/CFT correspondence conjecture.

3.3 Conventional End to End Black Hole Evaporation Scenario

So, the new end-to-end explanation of the information paradox, à la [14], goes as follows, in a conventional universe:

• As Hawking’s radiation takes place, entanglement appears between the black hole interior and the outside.
• After a while, a phase transition occurs where, by tension occurs between the entangled interior and exterior, and an island appears towards the center, separated by a quantum extremal surface. What is beyond, i.e. within, that surface is no more available for entanglement with the outside of the black hole.
• As radiation continues, the entangled radiation, and the black hole entropy, decrease.
• At the end, all content of the black hole has been radiated and information has been transferred, via radiation, to the outside, through the entanglement. No information has been lost.

Of course, the model is fully developed, beyond the Page reasoning, only for an AdS spacetime, and for no more than 1 or 2 spatial dimensions. Neither of the conditions matches our spacetime. We know that gravity is fundamentally different in 1D, and 2D, spatial dimensions so the arguments for this being a good indication of 4D AdS, or above, does not necessarily hold. We also know that AdS is fundamentally unstable for GR (in the presence of matter) [50], so, again, extrapolations to a flat, or positively curved spacetime are not guaranteed.

Therefore, it is fair to say that, while very impressive as a development work, we do not know how physical the theory actually is, i.e., if and how it applies to our real universe. For sure, ideas like evaporon and the replica trick with wormhole replica models in the path integrals, as used in the computations of [35-37], are speculations and relying heavily on conjectural interpretations of the AdS/CFT correspondence, itself a conjecture… Also computations , required with the approach they follow, are quite approximative. Additional criticisms, and concerns, with this story so far are discussed in [14].

An outcome of the upcoming sessions is that the results hold for multi-fold universe, through different reasonings and more detailed microscopic interpretations. It implies also support of positively curved 4D spacetimes, à la de Sitter, that maybe, who knows, more relevant to our real universe.

4. Multi-fold Version of Evaporation

In order to understand any impact to the multi-fold theory, as well as to provide a different perspective on the effects in our real universe, let us try to analyze what the scenario of section 3.3. become in a multi-fold universe.

4.1 Radiation from Changes in Curvature

As a black hole radiates, the curvature of spacetime outside its horizon also changes.

As discussed in [38,39] (see ²), changes of the spacetime curvature also generate new particles. A well-known result of QFTs in curved spacetime. The effects can be seen as a significant additional non-entangled radiation (because the in-falling particle never reaches the black hole horizon). That is how we consider it in this contribution in the present paper, and it affects S_out, in the generalized second law of black holes.

As we do not care, for this paper, about the exact quantitative proportionality constant, we consider anything outside the horizon to contribute to S_out. It simplifies the analysis without changing the outcome.

4.2 Hawking’s radiation for a Multi-fold Back Hole

The reasoning presented in [1], and in section 2.3, is, intentionally, a bit too simplistic: from the inside horizon to further inside the black hole horizon, particles plunge towards the center, accelerating until reaching again c. From that point, virtual particles that they emit towards the horizon are essentially freezing in place, while the ones towards the center contribute to more attraction towards the center: no virtual particle can really propagate with momentum components away from the black hole center: only those with momentum towards the center propagate. Conversely, if energy is accumulating at the horizon, and matter is still in move, one can see the quantum extremal surface as a black hole horizon within the black hole horizon, due now solely to the matter that is closer to the center. As illustrated in figure 2, it creates the multi-fold phenomena equivalent to the classical trapped surfaces introduced by Penrose [40] and the quantum extremal surface discussed in section 3.2. More details on the trapped surface and gravitational collapse are also provided in Appendix A.

After crossing the horizon of the black hole, something that appears to take forever to an external observer, the notion of time loses sense for an external observer (in fact time becomes imaginary [56,57]). Inside the black hole, one see that conventionally the particle falls rapidly towards the center in its proper time [43,52]. However, as in general (e.g. collapse), there is matter at the horizon, when/if crossing it due to quantum fluctuation and Hawking’s radiation, then the are initially within a symmetric sphere with mass on the external shell. So the mass seen is smaller than the externally estimated black hole mass. As a result, particle accelerate and encounter a new horizon that results from a black hole effect. Think of a black hole with lesser mass. We will call this horizon the quantum extremal surface, by analogy to the concept introduced in the previous sections for conventional models. In that region, the particles will appear to take forever to cross the surface from the point of view of an observer on the inside of the horizon of the black hole.

It matters, and it is a difference from typical black hole models: when the black hole evaporates and its horizon shrinks, it will catch with these frozen particles, while the quantum extremal surface remain essentially the same (as no particle enters it until the end of time). These affects are also different form the scenarios described above:

• particles do not disappear within the quantum extremal surface
• particles take forever to reach the quantum extremal surface. This effect compensate for the difference of the previous bullet. Frankly makes much more sense as disappearing within the quantum extremal surface, does not exactly explain where/how it disappears and it seems that some information would not be exactly recovered this way.
• Even more interesting, and probably against all odds, even within the black hole horizon, the center remains hidden to the horizon (inner). More considerations on the center region are discussed in Appendix A.

Figure 2: It illustrates the in and out virtual particles filling the black hole horizon. The ones on the inside can’t escape. Near the horizon, the ones propagating externally, towards the horizon, take forever to cross it, for an external observer. Their historical impact (before a gravitational collapse or when absorbed) is reflected by the virtual particles and multi-folds on the inside of the horizon. Quantum fluctuations entangle them (the ones inside with the ones outside). This effect also increases the potential energy on the outside, resulting into virtual particles and external multi-folds responsible for the black hole gravitational effects beyond the horizon (and conversely for external gravity effects from external masses on the black hole and its inside). Particles reaching the quantum extremal surface of the black hole can only generate effective potential attractive towards the black hole center and take forever to cross that surface, resulting into the apparition of the equivalent to a quantum extremal surface. It is like the horizon of a black hole with the matter that is not outside of it and consists of anything initially within that quantum extremal surface.

Virtual particles, associated to multi-folds from inside the black hole, essentially result from when the collapse (or merger) into a black hole took place (See appendix A), and / or when later particle got absorbed, are frozen at the horizon, or at the internal quantum extremal surface. It explains why, and how, saturation of the horizon in the shell, around the horizon, of Figure 1 takes place, without over-saturation: no new contribution (as virtual particles attached to multi-folds) reaches it, from the particles trapped at the quantum extremal surface, and when a new particle is absorbed, the black hole expands, as in [42], which also explains, in our model, why some may see stringy effects on a blackhole horizon, despite no strings being involved [22].

Figure 2 also illustrates the multi-fold behavior of the quantum extremal surfaces. introduced by the papers discussed in section 3.2. Within the horizon, some of the energy is concentrated near the horizon. So crossing it imply first the possibility to emit, towards the horizon, virtual, or real, particles that are able to reach it. After a while, a region with a shorter radius behaves like a new horizon. Indeed, as particles cross it, they can no longer emit real or virtual particles with momentum components away from the black hole center: they effectively stop contributing new entanglement (or other new causal effects) with the horizon (and of course beyond). This effect occurs as soon as the black hole is formed. It is not due to a later phase transition, or occurring just at or after Page time, which is due to other effects. But, at a later stage, this effect starts dominating.

With quantum uncertainties, particles, real or virtual, inside or outside the black hole horizon, can temporarily be inside or outside the horizon. As such, virtual particles are entangled with each other, on either side of the horizon. When Hawking’s radiation takes place on the horizon, one of the particle inside on the horizon is entangled with it, and receives an opposite momentum kick, to maintain a null total momentum. As the internal particle moves in, it is captured by the black hole until it reaches the quantum extremal surface, where it can no longer generate new virtual particles reaching the horizon, or new entanglement (beyond the existing one with the evaporated particle). So the process and budget are:

• 2 virtual particles on the horizon (entangled) disappear
• One is evaporated, it is entangled with the other one: Entanglement receives one more particle. Entanglement entropy increases by one particle effect.
• That second one disappears within the inside of the blackhole and once it reaches the quantum extremal surface, it can’t contribute new entanglement: the black hole mass is decreased by one the effect of one particle. Black hole entropy is reduced by one particle effect (The quantum extremal surface grows towards the horizon. As it is crossed, entangled particles with the outside no disappear in the inside, therefore reducing the entangled radiation / entropy).
• The horizon area decreases, reducing available virtual particles on the inside and outside of the horizon. It can catch up with virtual or real particles absorbed earlier due to Hawking’s radiation and frozen due to the quantum extremal surface effect.
• The process repeats.
• When entanglement entropy matches the black hole (area) entropy (i.e. ~ at Page time), pairs on the horizon start to also reduce existing entanglement: one lost entangled pair (with the outside) per radiated particle with the process above: entanglement entropy and black hole entropy drop at the same rate or radiation no destroy entanglement by expulsing from the black hole real particles not entangled that haven’t entangled with outside of horizon (they already entangled with the previously evaporated particle) till there is nothing any more (and not lost information). While it occurs already before Page time, it is at Page time that the process starts to dominate as there are not really not enough option any more for entanglement building radiations.
• Alternatively, and/or, at some point, black holes splits could occur for (charged) black hole (as in [1,13]).
• The latter steps progressively become more dominant: it is not a strict transition as in the model reviewed by [14].

In terms of the quantum extremal surface and its content, particles that were within the surface, when it formed, may include a few particles entangled with the outside of the black hole. These are not to be considered as information that entered the black hole later. When the evaporating black hole has its horizon shrinking to the quantum extremal surface, only this entanglement remains (any entanglement with particles in the gap between the horizon of the black hole and the quantum extremal surface is now gone, or, probably in rarer cases, in entanglement with the outside of the black hole). It then continues, mostly through a gap then catching up towards the central region. There may be cases where an interest step includes more quantum extremal surfaces with a same process; but it shouldn’t be in general. Meanwhile, black hole splits as described in [1,13] can also finalize faster the total release of information. It is also the basis for hints of the Ultimate Unification (UU) [1,13].

With the above, we recover the Black hole entropy (or information) Page curve. The process and curve are illustrated in Figures 3 and 4.

Figure 3: (a) illustrates the Hawking evaporation before reaching Page time: the majority of the radiation contributions come from entangled virtual particles in and out of the horizon. Evaporation increases the entanglement entropy. (b) illustrates what happens, all the time, but especially when most entangled pairs are already radiated. Now real particle entangled with the evaporated particles are radiated. That reduces the entanglement entropy instead of increasing it. It resulted from the contraction of the black hole horizon possibly catching up with these particles or rather them disappearing within the quantum extremal surface. Of course, in between, these two phases, a mix occur and empty microstates may be repopulated with new multi-folds (caught up by the contracting horizon, from history, or from accompanying a caught up real particles) and entangled in and out. However, as the area reduced, less microstates are available leaving the door to radiating caught up real particles frozen in place by the quantum extremal surface. Also, particles reaching within the horizon will rapidly fall to the center [43,52]. If reached by the horizon contraction before, they can evaporate as soon that a quantum fluctuation lets them outside the horizon. It is a faster process than also having to be “realized” for virtual particles, which usually rather first get entangled rather than evaporated. So, in general, these particles are entangled with previously evaporated entangled particles and take that contribution out of the entanglement entropy of the black hole, or, through the fluctuations and evaporation they lose their entanglement and do not re-entangle with a particle on the outside of the horizon or by disappearing behind the quantum extremal surface. At the horizon, they evaporate immediately when given the opportunity to escape. When the horizon reaches the quantum extremal surface, the process continues till all particles are radiated or the black hole splits.

Within the quantum extrema surface, the matter/particles/energy, that made it as the black hole and the surface formed, are not encountering a singularity (space like) because of the arguments of section 2.2, and nothing can have a momentum component towards the surface. Therefore, matter accumulates (finite amount) in the center region, frozen in place: the geodesics terminate (but do not converge to a singular point – i.e. no time-like or space-like singularity)).

Figure 4: Page curve recovered by the process described for multi-fold black holes. Note the time scale can vary beyond the Page time (intersection of S_Rad and S_BH) [19]. S_BH(max) is the initial entropy of the black hole (initial condition), which here means at the moment when we start modeling radiation. This value and its evolution in time depends on the black hole history (e.g. primordial or formed by mergers, splits or star collapses).

5. Conclusions

In the present paper, we showed that we can recover much of the results of [14] in a multi-fold universe with some variations:

• We recover the Page curve of entropy/information evolution (with some twist on what the Page time means)
• Black holes have properties that remind of the quantum extremal surface, throughout their cycle, except in cases where all matter is already at the center (e.g. if horizon reached the quantum extremal surface).
• At some point, the radiated particles are no more entangled with the black hole, and rather destroys existing entanglement by taking away from the black hole entangled particles. These effects indeed contribute growing non entangled radiations (or non-entangled contributions to S_out)
• The black hole entropy will go to zero, with all information in radiated (entangled and non-entangled) recovered outside the black hole (S_out) over the course of lifetime of the radiation. It resolves and explains the information paradox.
• At small sizes, and beyond Page time, one would expect that the phenomena of black hole break down, discussed in [1.13] could also occur. If, and when they happen, these splits produce new black holes and starts anew the process with each black hole, with a new corresponding S_BH for each of them.
• The entanglement between the black hole and external particles, or regions, is associated to multi-folds. It hints at the ER=EPR conjecture [42] and its wormholes [1,21,23,24,25].

The above ensures no information paradox in a multi-fold universe, and consistency with UU.

We believe that our derivation is very general, explains the physical phenomena that take place in multi-fold universe, and may enlighten what happens behind the models reviewed in [14], especially as it works for a 4D spacetime with positive curvature. It may well describe the real universe processes, if the real universe is a multi-fold universe, or with the point of view on dualities that we reached in [25,26]. In a multi-fold universe, no singularity (zero size concentration or time-like) exist; yet the black holes behaves as if they existed as in a continuous universe.

Appendix A: Star collapse and Trapped surface

The collapse of a star into a black hold is sketched in Figure 5.

Figure 5: It sketched how a star (a) can collapse (b), and an horizon and trapped surface (matter within the horizon) appear as well as the quantum extremal surface. The greyed-out region is the quantum extremal surface.

Figure 5 is consistent with the classical derivation of gravitational collapse and trapped surface introduced by Penrose [40]. Any curve below the resulting black hole horizon is a trapped surface. It captures the multi-fold version of Penrose collapse and singularities theorems.

Within the quantum extremal surface, multi-folds and associated massless virtual particles towards the horizon are frozen in place. Even if other photons / massless particles are directed towards the center, they can’t move past and outside the uncertainty / minimum length region, again freezing in place when trying to do so. However per [1], no infinite curvature occurs. All particles, other than the ones frozen in place, converge towards a minimal region from which they can’t escape. They can’t move out anymore, which means that after moving towards the center (or central region), they freeze in place, if they have momentum components towards the horizon, something that always happens in that region. It is the end of their story, space-like (massive) and time-like (massless). In conventional GR, one would say that the geodesics become incomplete. Here, we have also a space-like and time-like misbehaving region, even without a zero-length region: within a multi-fold universe, the absence of physical singularity does not prevent the semblance of singularity, time-like and space-like [44,48].

The same properties are true for non-stationary black holes. Beyond gravitational collapse of stars, [1,13] described black hole splits and UU. Mergers and collisions of black holes are more complicated and today mostly modeled with numerical GR [58,60] (Note added on 5/23/21: and interesting point like approximations as in [61,62]), but one would expect that it would also result into apparition of quantum extremal surfaces. More on this in future work.

____

Cite as: Stephane H Maes, (2020), “Multi-Fold Black Holes: Entropy, Evolution and Quantum Extrema”, viXra:2105.0136v1, shmaesphysics.wordpress.com/20…, October 31, 2020.

____

References:

[1]: Stephane H. Maes, (2020) “Quantum Gravity Emergence from Entanglement in a Multi-Fold Universe”, viXra:2006.0088v1, (June 9, 2020).

[2]: Wikipedia, “Reissner–Nordström metric”, , en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reissner…, Retrieved on May 7, 2020.

[3]: Wikipedia, “Kerr–Newman metric”, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerr-New…. Retrieved on May 7, 2020.

[4]: Burinskii, Alexander, (2008), “The Dirac-Kerr-Newman electron”, arXiv:0507109v4

[5]: A. Trautman, (1973), “Spin and Torsion May avert Gravitational Singularities”, Nature Physical Science, vol. 142, 7-8.

[6]: Stephane H Maes, (2020), “Explaining Dark Matter Without New Physics?”, viXra:2007.0006v1, vixra.org/pdf/2007.0006v1.pdf or shmaesphysics.wordpress.com/20…, June 21, 2020.

[7]: Sabine Hossenfelder, (2012), “Minimal Length Scale Scenarios for Quantum Gravity”, arXiv:1203.6191v1

[8]: Luis J Garay, (1995), “Quantum Gravity and minimum length”, International Journal of Modern Physics A, Vol 10, N 2, 145-165

[9]: Stephane H Maes, (2020), “No Gravity Shield in Multi-folds Universes”, viXra:2010.0032v1, shmaesphysics.wordpress.com/20…, June 26, 2020.

[10]: Stephane H Maes, (2020), “Area Laws Between Multi-Fold Universes and AdS”, viXra:2010.0207v1, shmaesphysics.wordpress.com/20…, August 10, 2020.

[11]: Steven Carlip, (2010), “The Small-Scale Structure of Spacetime“, arXiv:1009.1136v1.

[12]: Nima Arkani-Hamed, Lubos Motl, Alberto Nicolis, Cumrun Vafa, (2006), “The String Landscape, Black Holes and Gravity as the Weakest Force”, arXiv:hep-th/0601001v2.

[13]: Stephane H Maes, (2020), ”Ultimate Unification: Gravity-led Democracy vs. Uber-Symmetries”, viXra:2006.0211v1, shmaesphysics.wordpress.com/20…, June 16, 2020.

[14]: Quanta Magazine, (2020), “The Most Famous Paradox in Physics Nears Its End”, quantamagazine.org/the-black-h…. Retrieved on October 29, 2020.

[15]: Wikipedia, ” Black hole information paradox”, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_ho…. Retrieved on November 16, 2019.

[16]: Don N. Page, (2004), “Hawking Radiation and Black Hole Thermodynamics”, arXiv:hep-th/0409024v3

[17]: Jacob D. Bekenstein, (1974), “Generalized second law of thermodynamics in black-hole physics”, Physical Review D, Volume 9, Number 12, 15 June 1974

[18]: Don N. Page, (1993), “Average Entropy of a Subsystem”, arXiv:gr-qc/9305007v2

[19]: Don N. Page, (1993), “Information in Black Hole Radiation”, arXiv:hep-th/9306083v2

[20]: Ahmed Almheiri, (2018), “Holographic Quantum Error Correction and the Projected Black Hole Interior”, arXiv:1810.02055v2

[21]: Stephane H Maes, (2020), “Dualities or Analogies between Superstrings and Multi-fold Universe”, viXra:2006.0178v1, shmaesphysics.wordpress.com/20…, June 14, 2020.

[22]: Stephane H Maes, (2020), ”Superstrings Encounter of the Second, Third or Fourth Types?”, viXra:2010.0140v1, shmaesphysics.wordpress.com/20…, July 5, 2020.

[23]: Stephane H Maes, (2020), “Tracking Down The Standard Model With Gravity In Multi-Fold Universes”, shmaesphysics.wordpress.com/20…, August 20, 2020.

[24]: Stephane H Maes, (2020), “Renormalization and Asymptotic Safety of Gravity in a Multi-Fold Universe: More Tracking of the Standard Model at the Cost of Supersymmetries, GUTs and Superstrings”, shmaesphysics.wordpress.com/20…, September 18, 2020.

[25]: Stephane H Maes, (2020), “Circular Arguments in String and Superstring Theory from a Multi-fold Universe Perspective”, shmaesphysics.wordpress.com/20… , October 5, 2020.

[26]: Stephane H Maes, (2020), “The E/G conjecture: entanglement is gravity and gravity is entanglement”, viXra:2010.0139v1, shmaesphysics.wordpress.com/20…, October 15, 2020.

[27]: Erik Verlinde, (2016), “Emergent Gravity and the Dark Universe”, arXiv:1611.02269v2

[28]: Xi Dong, Eva Silverstein, Gonzalo Torroba, (2018), “De Sitter Holography and Entanglement Entropy”, arXiv:1804.08623v2

[29]: Jorge V. Rocha, (2008), “Evaporation of large black holes in AdS: coupling to the evaporon”, arXiv:0804.0055v3

[30]: Geoffrey Penington, (2019), “Entanglement Wedge Reconstruction and the Information Paradox”, arXiv:1905.08255v3