- Is the interpretation of β0 as a velocity parameter necessary? The gravitational Compton length Λgr =rs/2β0 has no dependence on the small mass m, which conforms with the Equivalence Principle. Also the cyclotron frequencies at the monopole flux tubes of the gravitational field body are independent of m.
- There are two preferred values for β0: β0∼ 1 assigned with the Earth's gravitational field body an and β0∼ 2-11 assigned with the field body of the Sun.
- The velocity of the solar system with respect to the galaxy is of the same magnitude as β0, which supports the interpretation as velocity. The interpretation of β0=v0/c∼ 1 as a velocity of a massive object does not however look sensible.
- In the standard quantum theory two quantum lengths characterize a massive particle. The Compton length Λc= h/m and the de-Broglie wavelength Λde-B= h/mβ0, where β0=v0/c is the velocity of particle using light velocity as a unit.
- Could the gravitational Planck constant ℏgr(S) assigned to Sun and also planets in the Bohr model for planetary orbits corresponds to de-Broglie wave length and could β0 correspond to a velocity 220-230 km/s giving β ∈ [(.73, .77) × 10-3] of the solar system with respect to galactic center. The error is about 20 per cent. The gravitational Planck constant assigned with the Earth would correspond to the gravitational Compton length and the problem with β0=1 would disappear.
- The problem is that the Bohr orbit quantization of the planetary system (see this) does not make sense for this interpretation. The quantum input in the quantization is the quantization of angular momentum and it would say that Lz/m equals to a multiple of the gravitational de-Broglie wavelength. This does not make sense in the framework of standard QM. This suggests that β0 cannot have an interpretation as physical velocity of a massive object. Could it correspond to an analog of light velocity? Neither can the value β0(E)∼ 1 for the Earth for cosmological scales be identified as a velocity for a massive object.
- M8-H duality for the gravitational Planck constant leads to a fractal generalization of Hubble's law suggesting that Hubble tension might relate to two slightly different values of β0∼1 in short and long length scales differing by 5-6 percent (see this). This interpretation is not consistent with the interpretation of Λgr for β0=1 as gravitational Compton length.
The problem disappears if one can interpret v0≤ c as light velocity with c#= gtt1/2c≤ c along the space-time surface in the formula for the gravitational Compton length.
- This interpretation has non-trivial consequences. In the case of the Sun, the disappearance of the 1/β0(S)∼ 211 from the formula hgr reduces the gravitational Compton length and gives Λgr(S)= 3× 105Λgr(E) rather than Λgr(S)∼ 211× 3× 105× Λgr(E). The energy E= hgr(S)f for a given frequency would be also reduced by β0(S)∼ 2-11. And as noticed, the Bohr quantization of the planetary system would not make sense anymore.
- It seems that the only solution to the problem is that β0 is quite generally identifiable as reduced light velocity c#. The reduction of c#=(gtt)1/2 to say c# ∼ 2-11 would however require huge gravitational fields: this does not make sense in general relativistic framework.
A possible solution of the problem comes from a basic distinction between TGD and General Relativity noticed already during the first year of TGD.
- TGD allows solutions of field equations, which are gravitational vacua in the sense of GRT and also gauge theory vacua for induced gauge fields. The solutions however allow warping possible only for surfaces. A thin metal plate or a sheet of paper are good examples of a system unstable against warping and therefore critical systems.
- TGD indeed allows minimal surface solutions with a 1-D CP2 projection belonging to geodesic circle S1⊂ CP2 for which M4 time coordinate in the rest system of the causal diamond CD is of form m^0= t- φ/ω. The induced metric of X4 given by ds2= (1-R2ω2)-dz2-dwdw is flat and has a deformation of the Poinca group as isometries. The interpretation c#= (1-R2ω2)1/2 as a reduced light velocity is natural: the path around a warped space-time surface is longer than along a non-warped one. There would be no gravitational force but the vacuum would be warped. This warping makes sense also for monopole flux tubes obtained as deformations of the Cartesian product M2⊂ Y2⊂ M4× CP2. M2 would be completely analogous to a metal plate and could be warped.
- The warping can occur also at the level of the embedding space H=M4× CP2 for the Hamilton-Jacobi structure (see this). Now M2⊂ M2 and CP2 degrees would mix. An analogy is provided by a cylinder surface for which the coordinates (z,φ) are replaced with coordinates z-kφ,z+kφ for which coordinate lines are dual helices. The hypercomplex coordinates (u,v)→ (t-z,t+z) would be replaced with (u=T-z,v=T+z) where T is defined as T= t-φ/ω. The canonical embedding of M2⊂ M4 with constant CP2 coordinates would be tilted towards the direction of S1⊂ CP2. CP2 complex coordinates would suffer a time dependent U(1) rotation φ→ φ-ω t, which is holomorphic transformation and gives rise to a twisted Hamilton-Jacobi structure.
- Even more general twisted Hamilton-Jacobi structures can be imagined (see this). The TGD based model for the honeybee dance (see this) led to the proposal that there are preferred extremals as sphere bundles, which assign to a given point of the space-time surface a geodesic sphere, whose position in CP2 depends on 2 M4 coordinates so that one speak of local SU(3) rotation of the geodesic sphere depending on two M4 coordinates. Could also these kinds of twistings define exotic Hamilton-Jacobi structures? Could also twistings depending on time coordinate and complex coordinate w define exotic exotic Hamilton-Jacobi structures?
- The twisted Hamilton-Jacobi structures could be associated with monopole flux tubes serving as body parts of field bodies. This would give connection with ℏgr. Also space-time surfaces representable as graps M4× CP2 could have a twisted Hamilton-Jacobi structure and the Hubble tension (see this) could be understood if the Hamilton structures differ by a small twist in long and short cosmological scales.
In the planetary system there are two options for the Bohr quantization. β0∼ 2-11 would be true for the inner planets. For outer planets there are two options. Either β0∼ 2-11 is true but the principal quantum number n comes as multiples of 5 or β0=2-11/5 is true and Earth corresponds to the principal quantum number n=1 for outer planets or n=5 for the inner planets. For the second option c#=β0 would be different at the gravitational monopole flux tubes.
There would be a connection with the TGD proposed model explaining the Allais effect.
- There is a surprisingly large reduction of the value of the oscillation frequency having upper bound Δ f/f≤ 2-11. This brings in mind β0(S) and the proposal was that the quantum critical transitions involves fluctuations reducing the oscillator frequency satisfying the formula E= hgr(E)f: now the mass of the pendulum would be in the role of the small mass.
- The modification Δ c#/c# would be needed. The gravitational fluctuations required to produced the effect would be quite too large as compared to the reduction of the value of c from its maximal value by GMS/AU =rs(S)/2AU∼ 10-9 and GME/RE= rs(E)/2RE∼ 10-9.
- Warping is a critical phenomenon. Space-time warping as a fundamental quantum critical phenomenon could accompany and even induce many kinds of quantum critical phenomena, in particular Allais effect.
- The model for the Allais effect proposed that diffraction-like effect for the gravitational flux tubes meaning a deviation of the monopole flux tubes, analogous to the deviation of flow lines of a hydrodynamic flow past solid object, could produce reduction of the effective gravitational flux. This would reduce the effective gravitational mass MS experienced by the pendulum.
- But why should this reduction be Δ f/f≤ 2-11? Could the change of the mass of the pendulum could affect the value of hgr forcing the change of f if E is invariant? The reduction Δ m/m≤ 2-11 for the mass of the pendulum is highly implausible.
- What about the particle mass associated with the field body? Δ f/f≤ 2-11 is not far from the electron-proton mass ratio me/mp∼ 1/1880: the deviation is 9 per cent. If the field body contains hydrogen atoms, their ionization to protons and electrons transforming to ordinary electrons would reduce hgr by the required amount.
The hydrogen atoms should be Rydberg atoms with a very small binding energy and therefore with very large size: this is indeed possible at the field body. The dropped electrons should have smaller energy compensating for the energy needed for the energy needed for ionization. The transition could take place by tunnelling and therefore involve a pair of "big" state function reductions (BSFRs).
This kind of phase transition should occur at quantum criticality assigned with the beginning of the solar eclipse? Why the turning of the monopole flux tubes meeting the Moon should induce a phase transition leading to the transformation of dark electrons to ordinary electrons? Are the electrons so near to ionization state the turning ionizes them?
How could the proposal ℏgr= GMm/c# implying the formulas for the gravitational Compton length and time and de-Broglie wavelength be tested?
- For the dark cyclotron the transitions at the magnetic body, the dependendence of cyclotron energy on m disappears. For other frequencies this is not the case and one would have E=hgrf= (GMm/2πc#)× f. A possible test is to look whether the energies for slightly different masses m differ. The second possibility is that c# varies for critical phenomena.
- Examples would be proton and hydrogen atom with a relative mass difference of order 2-11 and proton and neutron with mass difference of .14 per cent. One can imagine an entire spectroscopy allowing to test the notion of gravitational Planck constant by using the effects caused by the transformation of gravitationally dark photons to ordinary ones. Biophotons could be products of this transformation (see this).
For a summary of earlier postings see Latest progress in TGD.
For the lists of articles (most of them published in journals founded by Huping Hu) and books about TGD see this.