1: 

2: 

3: \documentclass[11pt,twoside]{article} 

4: \usepackage{epsfig} 

5: \usepackage{amsfonts,amssymb} 

6: \usepackage{ihep} 

7: %\usepackage{pslatex} 

8: %\usepackage{anysize} 

9: %\textheight 230mm 

10: %\textwidth 160mm 

11:  

12:  \setcounter{page}{131}

13: \begin{document} 

14:  

15:  

16: \begin{center} 

17: \Large{\bf DO WORMHOLES FIX the COUPLING CONSTANTS?} \\ 

18: \vspace{0.25in} 

19:  \normalsize{\bf S.G. Goradia} 

20: \vspace{0.10in} 

21:  

22: {\it Gravity Research Institute, Inc. 

23:  South Bend, Indiana 46637, USA\\ 

24: sg@gravityresearchinstitute.org} 

25: \end{center} 

26: \date{} 

27: \medskip

28: 

29: %\maketitle 

30:  

31: \begin{abstract} 

32: If Newtonian gravitation is modified to use surface-to-surface 

33: separation between particles, it can have the strength of nuclear 

34: force between nucleons. This may be justified by possible existence of 

35: quantum wormholes in particles. All gravitational interactions would 

36: be between coupled wormholes, emitting graviton flux in proportional 

37: to particle size, allowing for the point-like treatment above. When 

38: the wormholes are $1$ Planck length apart, the resultant force is 

39: $10^{40}$ times the normal gravitational strength for 

40: nucleons.  \end{abstract} 

41:  

42: \medskip 

43: \section{Introduction} 

44: Newtonian gravity encounters issues for microscopic dimensions and 

45: cannot explain the nuclear binding force. 

46: % 

47: % 

48: %Physicists have attempted to 

49: %explain the nuclear force in terms of perturbations to classical 

50: %gravity~\cite{shanti}. However, in the end they concluded that a 

51: %different force, the strong nuclear force, is responsible for nuclear 

52: %binding. Quantum Chromodynamics was developed, following the form of 

53: %Quantum Electrodynamics, to quantify the strong nuclear force. 

54: % 

55: % 

56: Experimentalists and string theorists face a yet incomplete task of 

57: detecting and incorporating the spin 2 graviton into a fully quantized 

58: and renormalized theory. 

59: % 

60: % 

61: %We can follow the lead of those who try to explain the strong 

62: %nuclear force in terms of gravity by attempting to modify the 

63: %classical Newtonian theory of gravity in the case of small 

64: %particles. 

65: % 

66: % 

67: If we use the surface-to-surface separation between these 

68: particles to quantify the gravitational attraction instead of the 

69: center-to-center separation, 

70: % 

71: %we find that the force between these 

72: %microscopic particles is the same as before in the limit of large 

73: %separations relative to the particle radii. At 

74: % 

75: % 

76: at small separations 

77: relative to the particle radii the force between these particles grows 

78: much larger than classical gravity, and may resolve the above issues. % \vspace{0.5in} 

79:  

80: %{\centerline{\bf \Large MODIFICATION OF THE INVERSE SQUARE LAW}}\vspace{0.2in} 

81: \section{Modification of the Inverse Square Law} 

82: As an example, for two coupled nucleons (Fig. 1a), I chose the Planck 

83: length $L = (Gh/c^3)^{0.5}$ as the surface separation, as it is the 

84: minimum possible spatial distance that makes any sense in 

85: physics. Assuming zero separation distance would imply that the two 

86: particles are joined to form one particle, losing their distinctions 

87: as separate particles. The diameter of the nucleon is about 1 fm 

88: ($10^{-15}$ meters). The Newtonian gravitational force is then $F_N = 

89: Gm^2/D^2$, where $D$ is the center-to-center distance, $\sim 1$ fm. 

90: If we select the surface-to-surface separation instead, the force 

91: would become $F_P = Gm^2/d^2$, with $d = L = 10^{-20}$ fm. 

92: The ratio of these two forces is $D^2/d^2 = 10^{40}$, which is also 

93: the strength of the proposed gravity 

94: relative to Newtonian gravity. 

95: % 

96: %, derived in a 

97: %natural way by using the value of Planck curvature. 

98: % 

99: As the nucleons are separated, $D/d$ shrinks, and $F_P$ rapidly 

100: approaches $F_N$~\cite{shanti}. A similar analysis can be made of the 

101: quark-lepton interaction (Fig. 1b). 

102: % 

103: % yielding the weak nuclear force coupling constant $10^{34}$. %(Fig. 2). 

104: % 

105: 

106:  

107: Nucleons are responsible for over 99 percent of gravity, therefore 

108: they are the primary focus of this paper. 

109: For nucleons, I recover Newtonian gravity at $1000$ fm. 

110: % 

111: %(about the radius of an atom). 

112: % 

113: This modification yields a force with high intensity at short range, 

114: rapidly falling off to a very low intensity at long range. 

115: 

116: The values 

117: of a field and its rate of change with time are like the position and 

118: velocity of a particle. This modification meets the uncertainty 

119: principle requirement that the field can never be measured to be 

120: precisely zero. 

121: % 

122: 

123:  

124:  

125: Einstein, in a paper written in 1919, attempted to demonstrate that 

126: his gravitational fields play an important role in the structure and 

127: stability of elementary particles. His hypothesis was not accepted 

128: because of gravity's extreme weakness~\cite{shrivatsava}. While 

129: Einstein's attempt is worth mentioning, it is not the foundation of 

130: my theory. Einstein could be wrong, but it seems he may not be. It 

131: has been proposed that the gravitational constant inside a hadron is 

132: very large, $\sim 10^{38}$ times the Newtonian 

133: $G$~\cite{shrivatsava}. This ``strong gravity'' inside the hadron is 

134: similar to my proposed modification, but in my modification, instead 

135: of needing to change $G$ itself, I change the distance measurement 

136: and get the same result. My theory does not create a conflict with 

137: the color force theory either. Strong gravity is consistent with 

138: string theory~\cite{shanti}. The short range forces are weakened at 

139: long range by a high order of magnitude. This makes other attributes 

140: of the short range forces, infinitesimal at long range.

141: 

142:  % \begin{figure}[!h] 

143: \begin{figure}[ht] 

144: \centerline{\psfig{file=Figure1.eps,width=7.5cm}} \vspace*{8pt} 

145: \label{figure1} 

146: \caption{\small Pictorial view of gravitational interaction 

147: showing surface and center separations (not to scale). $L$ is the 

148: Planck length, $10^{-20}$ fm. {\bf a,} Two nucleons at minimum 

149: separation; {\bf b,} A quark and a lepton, also at minimum 

150: separation. The standard inverse-square law would use the 

151: center-to-center distances to calculate the force between the 

152: particles; using the surface-to-surface distance yields a much 

153: stronger force for these separations, equal to the relative 

154: strengths of the strong and weak nuclear forces, respectively.} 

155: \end{figure} 

156:  

157: One may question the mathematically simple application of the Planck 

158: scale to a problem where the relevant distances seem to be fm. Frank 

159: Wilczek has written a series of articles~\cite{frank}, explaining how 

160: these scales can be reconciled and provided responses. While this 

161: may seem simplistic, it seems to be mathematically valid, and 

162: frequently significant problems can be solved simply in the end, as 

163: also illustrated by Morris and Thorne~\cite{morris}. Complexity in 

164: physics lies in the abstraction of simplicity. Classical centers of 

165: shapes and therefore surfaces, though used here only for intuitive 

166: reasoning are invoked in nuclear coupling constants by implicit 

167: comparison to Newtonian gravity and in other descriptions in modern 

168: physics. My model is very consistent and therefore suggestive, 

169: however it does not reconcile the fact that nucleons overlap. Thanks 

170: are due to Dr. G.'t Hooft for this comment. Quantum wormholes, as 

171: currently theorized, may resolve this issue and give a mathematical 

172: foundation to my model. 

173: % 

174: % \vspace{0.5in} 

175: %{\centerline{\bf \Large QUANTUM WORMHOLE CONNECTION}}\vspace{0.2in} 

176: % 

177: % 

178: \section{Quantum Wormhole Connection} I postulate that each 

179: particle is associated with a Planck length size wormhole. The 

180: wormhole's exit mouth then represents the entire mass of the 

181: particle and propagates its $1/r$ potential to the rest of the 

182: universe. All gravitational interactions become interactions between 

183: these wormholes. Radiation by particles would consist of energy 

184: being absorbed by one mouth of the associated wormhole and emitted 

185: by the other mouth. This would justify the use of point-like 

186: gravity. The mouth emitting the gravitational radiations does not 

187: have to be at the surface, allowing the nucleons to overlap. This 

188: may sound like a radical approach, but it is not. The direction of 

189: my proposal coincides with that in the particle related article by 

190: Einstein and Rosen~\cite{einstein}, introducing what is now known as 

191: Einstein--Rosen bridges. The abundance of Planck-length size 

192: wormholes required could have evolved from perturbations in the 

193: initial big-bang density. 

194: % 

195: %Think of two identical balloons pressurized with air. The more 

196: %they are subjected to pressure, the bigger they will grow. Upon 

197: %releasing the mouths, they will experience reaction force such that 

198: %the bigger balloon will experience higher force if the mouths are the 

199: %same size. (The mouth size in my theory is Planck length where 

200: %Compton wavelength equals gravitational radius.)  If the balloons 

201: %contained supercritical water, their mouths would transform water 

202: %into steam, more noticeable as a mixture at close range and as steam 

203: %at high range. Likewise nucleons will eject a graviton flux creating 

204: %a force as a function of the size of nucleons. My geometrical model 

205: %implies that the gravitational potential of a particle is 

206: %proportional to its diameter, while my quantum wormhole injection 

207: %implies it is proportional to the graviton flux. A potential 

208: %proportionality of the diameter and the graviton flux to the surface 

209: %tension would reconcile the issue. 

210: % 

211:  

212:   Stable wormholes require ``exotic", negative energy matter ``... it 

213: is not possible to rule out the existence of such material; and 

214: quantum field theory gives tantalizing hints that such material 

215: might, if fact, be possible''~\cite{morris}. The stability of 

216: wormholes is on firmer grounds now. ``...the theoretical analysis of 

217: Lorentzian wormholes is ``merely" an extension of $known$ 

218: $physics$-no new physical principle or fundamentally new physical 

219: theories are involved~''\cite{matt}. 

220: % 

221: %This exotic matter may mask the necessary Planck mass of the 

222: %wormhole, leaving a resultant effect at a point-like mass, equal to 

223: %that of the associated particle. Controversies surrounding the 

224: %large-scale negative energy %for cosmic wormholes may not apply to 

225: %tiny and harmless earthly %quantum wormholes. Casimir effect is an 

226: %example of negative energy %observed on earth. The time travel may 

227: %simply imply that an imaginary %traveller on his/her journey to the 

228: %quarks would see imaginary local %clocks going backwards in time.  My 

229: %hypothesis characterizes gravity %as long range nuclear force. 

230: % 

231: Literature search reveals no detection of any central force within nucleons, 

232: % 

233: %The prevailing view is that the nuclear force is a %secondary effect 

234: %of the color force, 

235: % 

236: raising a question about the existence of 

237: gravitons within nucleons. Fig. 2 shows the mental picture of the 

238: graviton flux from nucleons with some background data. 

239: % 

240: % as if it is a product of ``evaporation'' %. 

241: % 

242: Richard Feynman seems to have investigated transfusion of two 

243: particles into gravitons~\cite{acta_physics}, but not in this 

244: context. The structure of the quantum space-time is 

245: foamy~\cite{hawking}. The potential conversion of two gluons into one 

246: graviton and vice versa would be debatable. Such foamy structure may 

247: give green light for some form of particle transfusion. 

248: 

249: % \begin{figure} 

250: \begin{figure}[bt] 

251: \centerline{\psfig{file=fig3.eps,width=12cm}} 

252: \vspace*{8pt} 

253: \label{figure3} 

254: \caption{\small Mental image of nuclear 

255: interactions via quantum wormholes. The graviton flux would be 

256: proportional to the mass of the interacting particle, yielding 

257: couplings of $10^{40}$ for nucleons, $10^{34}$ for lighter 

258: quark-lepton pairs and $\sim 1$ for point-like leptons.} 

259: \end{figure} 

260:  

261: %The proposed wormholes might form a binary system with their 

262: %particles, potentially explaining the wave properties of %particles. 

263: %Introduction of this two way foamy structure %connecting the islands 

264: %of particles with the normal space-time may %impact some unsettled 

265: %issues. My modification does not impact the second law of 

266: %thermodynamics. 

267: %My potential link between nuclear force and gravity may be a typical 

268: %simpler example of other such links in nature. 

269:  

270: All long range forces are potentially simple, cumulative long range 

271: manifestations of their short range counter parts and vice versa 

272: with their intermediate range immeasurable by microscopic or 

273: macroscopic means. Since the spin-dependent nuclear force can be 

274: negative, my theory suggests investigation of photons instead of 

275: gravitons as the mediators of gravity. My model showing the strong 

276: gravity as a function of $D^2$ instead of particle mass (logical 

277: function of $D^3$) may point to holographic principle. Mach 

278: principle may imply that the universe spinning in the reference 

279: frame of nucleons may subject the nucleons to some form of gravity, 

280: not residual color force. So long as the observable characteristics 

281: of proposed wormholes are stable, their stability and types are of 

282: secondary importance because the coupling constants are averages of 

283: observations. The understanding of the coupling constants lies at 

284: the heart of our understanding other important issues. Using the 

285: concept of strong gravity, one can show the stability and structure 

286: of elementary 

287: particles, which could not be achieved by weak gravity~\cite{shrivatsava}. % \vspace{0.5in} 

288:  

289: %{\centerline{\bf \Large PREDICTION}}\vspace{0.2in} 

290: \section{Prediction} 

291: My model provides a consistent, intuitive and simplistic, but 

292: mathematical explanation of the observed relative values of coupling 

293: constants, something no other theory has done. Experimentally, my 

294: theory may be explored by a careful examination of the nuclear force 

295: at distances above $10$ fm. Recently published test results verified 

296: the gravitational inverse square law down to $218 \mu$m~\cite{hoyle}. 

297: The test results do not verify the higher dimensional theories that 

298: motivated the test, but they are not in conflict with my theory, as 

299: at these separations my modified force should be indistinguishable 

300: from Newtonian gravity. Spin-zero pions are 

301: %spin-zero, it is possible that they are 

302: % 

303: potentially pushing the 

304: nucleons apart to prevent the collapse of nuclei and not pulling them 

305: together as theorized. Their range matching the size of nuclei gives a 

306: green light for such an investigation. % \vspace{0.5in} 

307:  

308: %{\centerline{\bf \Large CONCLUSION}}\vspace{0.2in} 

309: \section{Conclusion} 

310: In summary, in the early part of last century, when the nuclear 

311: force was declared to be a separate force, the Planck length and its 

312: implications were not well understood. Planck's system of 

313: fundamental units was considered heretical until came the proposal 

314: by Peres and Rosen~\cite{peres}. The weakness of gravity was 

315: unquestioned. Therefore, it was impossible to explain strong gravity 

316: force in terms of Newtonian gravity and Einstein's view was 

317: undermined. In light of my article this issue needs to be revisited. 

318: My consistent results show that strong gravity creates an illusion 

319: of a different force between nucleons. 

320: % Qu

321: % 

322: Mathematically, the strong force coupling constant $C_s=D^2$, 

323: where $D=$ nucleon diameter in Planck lengths. %\vspace{0.5in} 

324: %{\centerline{\bf \Large ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS}}\vspace{0.2in} 

325: \subsection*{Acknowledgments} 

326: I thank the staff at the Physics Department, University of Notre Dame for comments. 

327: 

328:  

329: %{\center 

330: \begin{thebibliography}{00}%} 

331: %\linespread{1} 

332: \bibitem{shanti} S. G. Goradia, physics/0210040. 

333: \bibitem{shrivatsava} S. K. Shrivastava, {\it Aspects of Gravitational 

334: Interactions} (Nova Science Publishers, Commack, 1998), p. 90. 

335: \bibitem{frank} F. Wilczek, {\it Physics Today} \textbf{54}, 12 (2001). 

336: \bibitem{morris} M. S. Morris and K. S. Thorne, {\it Am. J. Phys.} 

337: {\bf 56}, 395 (1988). 

338: \bibitem{einstein} A. Einstein and   N. Rosen, {\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf 48}, 73 (1935). 

339: \bibitem{matt} M. Visser, {\it Lorentzian Wormholes, From Einstein to 

340: Hawking} (Springer-Verlag, New York, 1996), p. 369. 

341: \bibitem{acta_physics} R. Feynman, \textit{Acta Phys. Pol.} {\bf 24}, 

342: 697 (1963). 

343: \bibitem{hawking} S. W. Hawking, {\it Phys. Rev. \textbf{D}}{\bf 46}, 603 

344: (1992). 

345: \bibitem{hoyle} C. D. Hoyle {\it et al.}, {\it Phys. Rev. Lett.} 

346: {\bf 86}, 1418 (2001). 

347: \bibitem{peres} A. Peres and N. Rosen, {\it 

348: Phys. Rev.} {\bf 118}, 335 (1960). \end{thebibliography} 

349:  

350: \end{document} 

351: