The attempts to incorporate the special
relativity principle into quantum mechanics always leads to the solution of
negative energy states pairing with positive energy states. Klein-Gordon's and
Dirac equations are among those having such property. However, physicists cannot afford to take on
such energy's negativity as physical reality since they believe that it may
lead to a catastrophic instability of the entire universe.
The root of the problem comes from the
solution ambiguity of the relativistic expression for energy, E = ± (m2c4 +
p2c2) ½. In classical physics, one can
straightforwardly keep the solution bearing positive values separated from that
taking the negative ones. In quantum
mechanics, however, things become complicated. One should then deal with
operators acting on complex functions, giving way two square roots of
complex-number terms that do not tend to separate neatly into positive and
negative in a globally consistent way 1.
But this is what happens in reality. In
the real world, those two opposite energies split only momentarily before they
once again mingle together. This phenomenon repeats itself, making the
3-interface between those two energy oceans appear and disappear perpetually.
This interface, the 3-dimensional space
we live in, seems to be something that evaporates completely as one moment
passes and reappears as a completely different space as the next moment arrives
two, which makes our universe incredibly dynamic.
Such as the beautiful translation of the
mathematics formulation to the deeper workings of the physical universe may go
beyond most people's wildest imaginations. Alas, even a prominent mathematical
physicist such as Roger Penrose, has missed such insight. This continuous
"catastrophic" instability that he was worrying so much is, in fact,
the underlying reality of dynamic time. The energy's duality and polarity are
the most fundamental of the relativity principles, the cosmos' prime mover,
without which the world would remain sterile, timeless, and standstill.
Dirac, alas, didn't elaborate further
about his energy sea, such as its location, how it came to be, etc. The answer
is, in fact, relatively simple. The Dirac Sea must be present side by side with
the sea of positive energy we refer to as anti-Dirac Sea (Figure-1). Both of
them should be 4-dimensional conforming to the dimensionality of the spacetime
they "occupy." The 3-dimensional interface naturally occurs between
the two energy seas is nothing but the physical space we inhabit.
This kind of depiction greatly
facilitates us in describing quantum fields, which so far seem to appear from
nowhere, omnipresent, capable of creating and annihilating quantum particles.
The interaction between the opposing energy potencies in Dirac and anti-Dirac
seas giving rise to quantum fields, piercing through the 3-interface igniting
quantum sparks ("quarks"), which appear and disappear perpetually on
its surface (Figure-2).
Having elaborated that, we can now
explain Fred Hoyle's C-field in a similar way. Hoyle hypothesized the existence
of something similar to the Dirac Sea that continuously generates the fields.
He further posited that the C-field had negative pressure and drove the
expansion of the universe.
Subsequently, within the context of the
standard model, Peter Higgs introduced fields, which later bore his name,
capable of stimulating particles to acquire mass. Alas, he was silent about the
nature and origin of Higgs fields or the existence sort of negative energy sea.
Another fundamental relativity principle
underlying any process of creation is the spontaneous symmetry breaking. A
preexisting energy sea, later on, splits into positive and negative energy
(Dirac anti-Dirac seas) as what they are now. However, that symmetry breaking
doesn't take place all at once but gradually (Figure-3), giving us a perception
that the universe is expanding. This hypothesis is evidence against that of the
"quantum" primordial explosion of Big Bang theory.
References:
1.
Penrose,
R.: ”The Road to Reality," Vintage Books, London, 2005, p. 615
2.
ibid, p.
387
No comments:
Post a Comment