The Energy Equation that Physicists Don’t Fully Trust

Physicists have discovered that nature has a beautiful feature not only aesthetically but also mathematically which they call symmetry. The simplest symmetry we may get in nature is the pairing of fundamental particles such as that of particles-antiparticles or more complex [super] symmetry bosons-fermions. Even today physicists still tirelessly chase another particle’s symmetry i.e. super-partner particles which they yet find none.

  

Strangely enough, physicists don’t believe on the symmetry of energy, the most fundamental element of the reality, albeit the relativistic energy equation E²=m²c⁴+p²c², plainly shows otherwise. This formula shows us the evidence that the energy exists in pairing - the positive and negative energy – regardless they are neatly separated or not from each other.

For physicists, the existence of negative energy together with the positive energy is bad news as such a situation may lead to a spontaneous transition from positive to negative energy resulting in a catastrophic instability. Alas, one cannot preserve the positive frequency requirement in quantum mechanics whose wavefunctions are essentially complex ^a). The two square roots of a complex number expression do not tend to separate neatly into positive and negative in a globally consistent way as what the physicists have expected¹.  

Are we, then, faced with an impasse situation? Well, on everybody surprise we are absolutely not. On the contrary, the existence of the positive and negative energies is a fundamental feature that nature requires for the creation and reproduction of everything in the universe. Without such an opposite pair, the world would be sterile from anything material in which space and time have no meaning.

As far as the mainstream physics keep adopting the current single block ^b) universe "containing" no negative but positive energy to represent the actual world (Figure-1), we would forever stay with the crisis that today physicists are facing.

Even when Dirac proposed the existence of the ocean of [occupied] negative energy state ^c), nobody was cautious enough to give this Dirac’s sea its proper geographical place in the spacetime which should be next to the positive energy ocean, the anti-Dirac’s sea (Figure-2A).

Sooner or later, the mainstream physicists should adopt a 4-dimensional split universe in which the positive and negative energy exist together separated by a 3-dimensional interface (4-dimensional hypersurface with a very thin thickness ^d)) in between.

As we have previously elucidated, such interface does not separate neatly the positive and negative in a globally consistent way, in the sense that it e is extremely unstable.  It even barely exists, perpetually appears and disappears in and out of the existence.

This 3-dimensional interface, the physical space that we experience in, is nothing but the unit of time we call the present time (Figure-2B). The perpetual formation and dissolution of this present time are what we usually perceive as the time passage. It is such an idea that philosophers call presentism.

As in Galilean dynamics, we have not just one space but a different space ^e) for each moment in time. Space evaporates completely as one moment passes, and reappears as a completely different space as the next moment arrives ². It is the factual reality that, alas, the mainstream physicists including Penrose himself rule out.

The material things exist strictly in the 3-dimensional interface (the present time), not in the outside of it. Matters appear and disappear at this 3-dimensional "screen" as the projection of the positive and negative energy interaction. In a close look, even in the place where there is no matter we can see virtual particles briefly jiggling violently in and out of the existence.

The 3-dimensional "interfacial tension" which keeps away the interface [and all matter within] from falling apart is what we call the gravitational constant. There are no such gravitational waves that propagate across the spacetime. Their propagation is limited to this sheet of the 3-dimensional interface which appears and disappears "through time" as a single whole.

Finally, this 3-dimensional interface which thickness is equal to the Planck distance (10^-33 cm), the thinnest scale that nature allows, is perpetually created and annihilated at the rate equal to the speed of light, an enigmatic constant that physicists hitherto has taken as a gift from above. Naturally, no matter can move exceeding the speed limit that is equal to the rate of its perpetual creation [and annihilation].

Notes:

a.  In quantum mechanics, the momentum p may be replaced (quantization trick) by -iħ∂/∂x

b. Sometimes it is called a block universe. In such a world, matters may exist throughout the whole spacetime in an equal footing put in order by a light-cones framework. There is no definite place for the present time, past and future in such a framework, which Einstein worried so much. Philosophers call such a block universe’s idea eternalism.

c.  After he finally became convinced that the negative frequency solutions of the relativistic energy formula cannot be [mathematically] eliminated.

d.    The thickness (in the direction of its fourth dimension) of this interface is about 10^-33 cm in which the quantum mechanics prevails.

e.   Even Minkowski described his spacetime in a similar way ³: "we should then have in the world no longer space, but an infinite number of spaces, analogously as there are in three-dimensional space an infinite number of planes. Three-dimensional geometry becomes a chapter in four-dimensional physics". Had he added that all those spaces are just potential - no matter of their normal directions point to - and only one space appears in a brief moment, he would be presentist.

References:

1.    Penrose. R.: "The Road to Reality," Vintage Books, London, 2005, p. 614-616.

2.    Ibid, p. 387

3.    Einstein, A. et al.: "The Principle of Reality," Dover Publication Inc.,  New York, 1952, p.79-80.Bottom of Form

The Energy Equation that Physicists Don’t Fully Trust