Determination of the Observed Value of Cosmological

Constant from a Probable Theory of Quantum Gravity

a, b
Pradip Kumar Chatterjee

The Indian Physical Society

2A & B, Raja Subodh Chandra Mullick Road, Kolkata-700032, India,
and
Calcutta Mathematical Society
AE-374, Sector 1, Kolkata-700064, India.

ABSTRACT

Non-unitary relativistic quantum mechanics and supersymmetry derived from

Heisenbergs uncertainty relation lead to a probable candidate for quantum
gravity. D0-branes cupped inside Riemann spheres studded on the space-time
fabric are probable building blocks of nature. Apart from finding theoretically the
astronomically observed value of cosmological constant, and attempting to
resolve the coincidence problem, it also derives some well-established results of
string theory and loop quantum gravity, and provides strong support for
Maldacena conjecture. While tweaking quantum black hole entropy formula,
second law of thermodynamics is found to break down in singularity-free black
hole physics. This in turn possibly proves no loss of information in a black hole
and no preferred arrow of time. Perhaps time in standard quantum mechanics
has been established as an operator by re-examining Paulis theorem. Possible
violations of equivalence principle and Lorentz symmetry now offer testable
predictions of quantum gravity. Particle spin is now gleaned as rotation of the
particle around a circle or sphere of unit imaginary radius, and this spinning, as a
model for non-Higgs mechanism, probably generates particle mass initially.
Electric charge in Planck scale is found to equal square root of particle
mass/energy. The core principle of superstring theory is found to emerge from
the heart of quantum mechanics: The uncertainty principle. A fundamental
mass constant or mass gap, reaped from vacuum energy, may allow a peek into
a space-time-matter-less primary theory where all fundamental interactions
meld in nature. Physics perhaps mingles with mathematics in this confluence of
transphysical zone of transcendental numbers. Quantization of two formulas from
general relativity gives off gravitons as well as two purely quantum gravity

1
equations. This template tries to create a road map to find quantum gravity
analogs of various equations of general relativity. Some other overlapping topics
of current interest are also discussed to add more clarity.

Comments : 400 pages; 17 figures.

Key words: Cosmological constant problem, Quantum Gravity, Supersymmetry,

Spin, Lorentz Symmetry Violation, Quantum Electrogravity, Core Principle of

String theory, Quantum black holes, Singularity theorems.

PACS numbers: 98. , 04. , 12. , 11. , 03.

a
email address: pradipstring@gmail.com

b
Conventional address: Mangalik Coperative Housing Society Limited

Flat: B-04/03, (Ground Floor)

Street: E M Bypass (near Peerless Hospital)

Post office: Panchasayar

Landmark: Hiland Park.

City: Kolkata.

State: West Bengal

Country: India

Zip code: 700094.

2
Table of Contents:

Section [1] Introduction 8

Section [2] A Consequence from Heisenberg

Uncertainty Relation 13

Section [3] What is Spin ? 24

Section [3A] Core Principle of String Theory, and

A Second Thought on
Singularity Theorems in General
Relativity 33

Section [3AA] Why are Black Holes Hot? 43

Section [3AB] Quantum Raychaudhuri equation 46

Section [3B] Fundamental Mass Constant 76

Section [4] Massivity of Massless Particles

and Planck Scale Physics 81

Section [4A] Question of Division By Zero 88

3
Section [4B] Some Uncertainty Relations,
A New Derivative of a Function
in Planck Scale Physics, initial
State of Our Universe and Finding
Exact Solubility of QCD 92

Section [5] Black Hole Physics and Validity

of Singularity Theorems 113

Section [6] A Prediction from a Theory of

Quantum Gravity 123

Section [7] A Theory of Quantum Gravity

in Weak Field Regime 125

Section [8] Derivation of Supersymmetry

from Minimal Distance 134

Section [9] Compatibility of Lorentz Invariance and

Gauge Invariance with Quantum Mechanics
and Quantum Field Theory (QFT), and
Finding Mass Gap for Quantum
Yang-Mills Theory 158

Section [9A] A Quick Peek into Quantum Field Theory to Find

Evidence of Loss of Lorentz Invariance and Gleaning
Support in Favor of nonzero Uncertainties in Measured
Observables 169

4
Section [9B] Proof of Lorentz Symmetry Violation 180

Section [9C] Photon Wave Function 180

Section [9D] Dispersion Relation for Energy of Photon

Showing Lorentz Symmetry Violation 185

Section [9E] Energy-Dependent Speed of Light 190

Section [9F] Lorentz Violation in Scalar Mass 194

Section [9G] Time as an Operator or Observable in

Quantum Mechanics 195

Section [9H] A Prediction for Violation of Lorentz

Invariance 205

Section [10] Finding Quantum Vacuum

Energy, and Temperature of
Cosmic Microwave Background
Radiation (CMBR) 215

Section [11] Derivation of Theoretical Value

of Cosmological Constant, and a
Plausible Confirmation of String
Theory 223

Section [12] Black Holes: Entropy and its

5
 Meaning, and Information Loss
in it 234

Section [12A] Entropy of a Black Hole

and its Meaning 234

Section [12B] Information Loss in a

Black Hole, and Wave-Particle
Duality of Quantum Systems 240

Section [13] Extremal Black Holes of

Vacuum Particles Discretize
Quantum Space and Time 269

Section [14] Curvature of Space and Age

of the Universe 271

Section [15] What is Electric Charge ? A Theory

of Quantum Electrogravity (QEG) ? 274

Section [15A] Physics Meets Mathematics

in Transplanck Scale 296

Section [16] A Template for Quantum Gravity 323

Section [17] Relating Some Results to

String Theory 301

Section [18] Coincidence Problem: Dark

Energy and Dark Matter are

6
 One and the Same Stuff 311

Section [18A] Dark Matter: Source of

Attractive Force 313

Section [18B] Dark Energy: Source of

Repulsive Force 318

Section [18C] Equation of State 320

Section [18D] Reversible Holographic Principle 324

Section [18E] Is there any Problem of Coincidence? 326

Section [19] What is a String ? 326

Section [20] Closing Words 338

Acknowledgements

References

7
 [1] Introduction

One of the foremost intellectual challenges of theoretical physics is to find the

theoretical framework which would allow how to determine the observed tiny
positive value of cosmological constant ( [189], [185], [172] ), a form of dark
energy which is responsible for accelerating expansion of our universe. This
acceleration was first announced in 1998 from astronomical observations of
distant type A supernovae by two teams, the Supernovae Cosmology Project
and the High-z Supernova Search Team. The unexpected and worst discrepancy
between theory and results from such observations (see [255], [67], [68], [69] )
still exists, and to most physicists the value of seems truly weird and incredibly
fine-tuned. String theory, one of the leading primary theories to unify all types of
interactions in nature, is also reticent on the fine-tuning of cosmological constant
[379]. The eerie coincidence of near - equal densities of dark energy (a form of
which is cosmological constant) and dark matter (invisible matter present in our
universe) just at the present time has evoked mixed reactions in tweaking the
existing theories of quantum gravity. Are we special and truly favored by nature
to have been allowed to observe this strange coincidence of the two densities at
this specific time when we are just equipped intellectually and technologically,
and nature says, Go figure? The mass of our universe is only about 4% of its
actual mass. The rest 96% of mass is provided by dark energy and dark matter,
where the word dark implies more of their unknown nature than their complete
lack of visibility to detection. In 2010, the WMAP seven year results [326] arrived
giving a precise account of the constituents of our universe: 72.8% dark energy,
22.7% dark matter, and 4.56% baryonic matter (of which we and galaxies are
made of). We hardly know what our universe is made up of ! Panek recalls a

8
theorist who likes to say in public that Were just a bit of pollution ( see p. (xv) of
[326] )!
A few predictions from any theory of quantum gravity --------- which may be
tested with todays technology -------- are perhaps the most urgent need for
physicists today. A correspondence or equivalence among existing theories of
quantum gravity is also a welcome gesture that may substantially remove the
intellectual distance present among the physicists who have contributed their
maximal effort to the present knowledgespace of a slice of physics called
quantum gravity ( [89], [287], [288], [289], [290], [291], [292] ) ---------- joining all
known four interactions of nature into a single theory.
In this article I have tried to find a quantum theory of gravity that managed to find
a theoretical value of cosmological constant (is it really constant over space and
time?) as the dimensionless number

(Theoretical) l p2 = 3.6 10123

which is extremely close to observed number (see p.149 of [172] ):

(Observed) l p2 = 1.38 10123 .

The result obtained is consistent with astronomical observations carried out in the
recent past ( [67], [68], [69] ). The theory also studies the coincidence problem ---
--------- why we happen to exist at an era when dark energy density coincides
with dark matter density. The result obtained is perhaps unanticipated: Dark
energy and dark matter are the same stuff : The mass of vacuum particles. While
dark energy is derived as a repulsive force with negative pressure, dark matter
generates attractive force. In a way, nature perhaps has it both ways. Our
discussion of cosmological constant --------- I have accepted this form of dark
energy --------- and the related issue of nature of dark matter is fairly consistent
with CDM model [153]. The reason for accepting cosmological constant as
driving acceleration of our universe is that we have found the equation of state
exactly in the form

w = ( 1).

I have tried to find the mechanism with which dark matter creates attractive force,
and dark energy produces repulsive force to accelerate the expansion of the
universe. This led to a probable formulation of Quantum Electrogravity (QEG),
not along the line of geometrizing Maxwells electromagnetism a la 5-dimensional
Kaluza-Klein Theory ( [332], [333] ). Unanticipated, it showed that gravity is not at
all a fundamental interaction ! Gravity is generated by a quantum electric force of
attraction between two imaginary-valued quantum electric charges ( color charge
?) of opposite sign. A stimulating discussion of the origin of particle spin and
mechanism of its dynamics in quaternion space ( [2], [10] ) is followed by another
revelation that perhaps electric charge is square root of particle mass/energy. If

9
the last-mentioned formula is correct then mass/energy and electric charge may
be converted into each other completely in some preferred energy scale, perhaps
Planck scale. In this scenario, free electric charge (not seated on a massive
particle) may be a reality.
From energy of a quantum vacuum particle we could derive a universal mass
constant, and found that the universe may have been created without any
investment (free lunch). In the initial stage of birth of the universe, a specific
supersymmetry signature suggests an evolution of our universe from a space-
time-matterless stuff (a pure number or, operator space?). But why? Perhaps
this particular supersymmetry signature was required to evade all possible
questions about initial singularity.
A mass-giving particle, Higgs boson is now being hunted for its nature in particle
physics labs of Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN, Geneva. A Higgs boson-
like particle of mass about 125 GeV has been reported recently [208]. Physicists
are now trying to nail down the details of its nature before a final confirmation is
reached. Not all physicists were in urgent need for Higgs mechanism [30A] in the
Standard Model of particle physics ( see [295], [296], [297], [298]). I therefore
tried to find an alternative to Higgs mechanism [97], and this may provide a
plausible explanation of how and from where particles get their masses. The
first step along the road to find mass-giving source may be to investigate the
mechanism of particle spin, or more precisely, spinning motion. We have long
abandoned this sector by calling it a different beast [20A], guised as an intrinsic
form of angular momentum. In general, perhaps spinning motion generates
particle mass at the initial stage. In later stage, Einstein might have been correct
1
in associating Lorentz factor = with rest mass.
v2
1 2
c
22
The violation of Weak Equivalence Principle (WEP) at 10 level is predicted
from a non-unitary theory of quantum gravity described in this paper. It strongly
suggests that true origin of mass may be just inertial mass, or precisely, inertia,
(as is the current mainstream notion) the physical cause that resists acceleration.
The inertial mass of all particles (including stars in galaxies) were just equal to a
5
tiny speck of mass mc = 10 eV in Planck epoch. This fundamental or
2c
universal mass constant mc was in turn generated in that era from the spinning
motion in real extra dimensions (which have morphed into extra imaginary
dimensions in present-day universe). This spinning motion generates rotational
inertia, or moment of inertia. This inertia opposes any change of particle spin.
The rotational inertia created from spinning is imaginary-valued in low energy
regime. Rotational inertia actually cannot be called rest mass in special
relativistic context, because this inertial mass is produced from (rotational)
motion, and not from state of rest by any mechanism. The upshot of this is
perhaps profound: Nothing in the universe is at rest. Its natural corollary is: No

10
particle or entity can be at rest even in its so-called rest frames. Particle spin
just cannot be stopped ! Therefore there cannot exist anything called rest mass.
Spin is irreducible. The origin of mass is then rotational inertia I . A probable
mechanism of creating inertia of a particle is to keep something handy that can
oppose any change in velocity in linear motion. Haisch et al ( [298], [299] ) have
proposed such a mechanism where zero-point electromagnetic field of vacuum
opposes the acceleration of bodies. Thus inertia or loosely speaking, mass-
giving property originates in vacuum. But here I follow a mechanism where
zillions of quantum vacuum particles masquerade as dark matter particles. The
dark matter particles produce an attractive force, and are arrayed as 2D black
holes studded on the plane on which any other object tries to move. Being
attractive in nature, this force tries to pull down the object and nail it on the 2D
plane. The net result is an attractive force opposing (and therefore reducing)
linear motion (speed) of the object on the plane. Less than massless speed v < c
) is produced in this way. This phenomenon increases inertia of the object.
Further increases in the magnitude of Lorentz factor is equivalent to successive
increase in velocity, ultimately resulting in acceleration. But this is accompanied
by an increase of inertia of the object through the product of the increasing
quantity (Lorentz factor) and rotational inertia I , i.e. the term I increases.
Though I may be equal to the dated and hated term relativistic mass, I prefer
to call it just a measure of inertia of a particle instead of mass.
On the positive side of this non-unitary theory of quantum gravity are a few
predictions that may be tested in not-so-distant future. STEP mission [51] tests
18
validity of Weak Equivalence Principle (WEP) at 10 level. I find a violation of
22
WEP ( [285], [286] ) at 10 level. Violation of Lorentz invariance [269] of scalars
[380] has been detected here theoretically, and a quantum-mechanical formula,
an analog of Einsteins famous classical equation E = Mc = mc have been
2 2

derived in [37] :

2 v2
E = Mc 2
1 2 (E*)
8M c

31
which predicts a tiny difference of 1.25 10 eV between classical relativistic
and quantum relativistic energies of a 7 TeV proton in a proton beam of Large
Hadron Collider at CERN. I have theoretically calculated temperature of Cosmic
Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) by considering a possibility that the
last scattering spherical surface is peppered with vacuum particles. The
theoretical value of the on-site temperature that I obtain is 2.747 K, while the
observed temperature is 2.725 K as measured by FIRAS ( Far InfraRed Absolute
Spectrometer), a non-site device mounted on the COBE satellite [293]. It is
encouraging that the two temperatures differ only in the second decimal place,

11
and this discrepancy may arise due to difference in distances of Temperature
measurement sites.
The age of the universe calculated from this theory is
(Theoretical) TA 35.26 10 years
9

while the WMAP team measured it in 2003 from CMBR (see p.13 of [153] ) as
(Measured) TA = (13.84 0.14) 10 years,
9

and the WMAP seven year result (see p.242 of [326]) reports an age
(Measured) TA = 13.75 10 years .
9

It is comforting that the theoretically derived age is of the same order of

magnitude as the measured age, and compatible with the ages of the oldest
known galaxy clusters.
We have also discussed the plausible non-existence of naked singularities, and
have questioned the premises of singularity theorems based on Raychaudhuri
equation ( [44], [43], [189], [89A] ) by first deriving a quantum Raychaudhuri
equation, and then finding the consequences in the set-up of Planck scale (where
high focusing of geodesic congruence is likely to occur). Since a set of space-
time events { p, q,...} cannot occur in quantum space-time due to restriction
imposed by Heisenbergs uncertainty relation, a local extremely small Minkowski
flat space is hardly available to construct a Lorentzian manifold so that one
cannot embed the events p, q . This loss of event points in quantum theory
probably severely blocks the path of a smooth derivation of singularity theorems.
The most fortuitous part of this paper is dovetailing quantum mechanics with
string theory [89]. As if supersymmetry [12A] and string theory were latent in
Heisenbergs position-momentum uncertainty relation [ 284] ! Instead of quantum
particles ( having wave and particle behavior), a significant result from
uncertainty relation leads us to three (or, perhaps four) supersymmetry
signatures in different energy scales relating to three different phase transitions in
the evolution of the universe. A little penetration into these signatures revealed
possible existence of D0-branes in the structure of quantum mechanics. This
desired connection probably gifts string theory its point of origin in quantum
mechanics. This connection has been leveraged across many topics of string
theory in this paper, especially T-duality, S-duality, universal slope parameter ,
extremal black holes, meaning of entropy of a black hole, holographic principle,
Maldacena conjecture, M-theory, etc [92]. The most adventuresome topic What
is a string? has been discussed in the last section with some queasiness
resulting more from lack of comfortability in this field than its speculative nature I
found consistent. What is perhaps the most adventuresome attempt in this work
is to find the internal structure of elementary particles, for instance photons and
electrons. It might turn out disappointing and an instance of fulfillment of the age-
old proverb: For fools rush in where angels fear to tread. But nothing starts
without false starts.

12
Various current problems of physics described in the various sections has
sometimes overlapped, not (hopefully) due to lack of relevance. It is just
suggestive of the fact that many of these unresolved problems are interrelated
and may have answers in a new physics.
A slight quantum correction has been obtained in Bekenstein-Hawking entropy of
a black hole. All information that went into a black hole may be fully retrieved
provided a black hole eventually emits Hawking radiation ( [192], [115] ). No
information is destroyed. An outline of formation of primordial black holes in early
universe, now permeating entire space as dark matter is presented as the
plausible cause of discrete nature of space and time. The horizon surfaces of
these tiny 2D-black holes discretely block the continuum of classical space-time.
Therefore these inaccessible polka dots in space fabric create quanta of space
and time. Success of loop quantum gravity [183] in this area has been stressed to
further investigate to connect the quanta of space with their intervening
inaccessible regions to 2D disc horizons of primordial black holes.
All calculations have been shown explicitly and new ideas are discussed in an
expanded mode with the single hope of making the paper accessible to a wide
readership, given the recent interest generated by the topic of mass-giving
particle, Higgs boson and results that were reported from the experiments
carried out in Large Hadron Collider at CERN in the first week of July, 2012 [208].
There are nineteen sections and one concerning concluding remarks. Section
headings are quite elaborate in nature, and therefore I do not detail about the
topics discussed in individual sections. But most of these almost always try to link
with related topics of other sections. These occasional forays (which sometimes
may appear avoidable diversions) could not be avoided. A look at the section
headings in the Contents above may reveal these overlaps.

[2] A Consequence from Heisenberg Uncertainty

Uncertainty Relation

Heisenbergs position-momentum uncertainty relation

13

x p (1)
2

first introduced the notion of uncertainty that is inherent in the physical world.
Even classical error-less measurements are not immune to these uncertainties
built in the physical underpinning of our world. These uncertainties have played a
major role in the evolution of Quantum Mechanics. Uncertainties in position and
momentum of a particle in the paradigmatic two-slit experiment reveal The heart
of quantum mechanics. Experimental results defied logically consistent
interpretation in the framework of standard quantum mechanics. The prevailing
situation was such that Feynman [368] said in as late as 1965, I think I can
safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics. In this section we
highlight a few consequences which may be derived from Heisenbergs position-
momentum uncertainty relation [1]

xpx . (2)
2

If we want to explore further the Heart of quantum mechanics we immediately

find that these consequences remove most of the divergences generic to physical
theories with no distance regulator. These promote the need for a minimal
distance and minimal momentum associated with a quantum object. Uncertainty
relations are usually derived from the generalized uncertainty relation for a
particle in a particular state [2] :

1
AB AB BA (3)
2

where A, B are Hermitian operators (bounded and continuous) corresponding to

incompatible observables of the quantum system in state . A special case of
the inequality (3) is relation (2) where x and px are uncertainties in position
and momentum of the particle. Relation (2) is obtained from the canonical
commutation (CCR) relation

x p x x = i1 .
xp

Position and momentum operators x and p x ------- where the explicit form of

momentum operator p x is i , ---------- are embarrassingly unbounded in
x
the Hilbert space L2 () of equivalence classes of square-integrable functions [3].
For square-integrable functions, for example, ( x) (where ( x) is complex-
valued and measurable) the position operator x does not send x ( x) in general
to the fold of square-integrable functions. Similarly, the momentum operator acts

14

on ( x) to form i . But i is not well-defined because ( x) need
x x
not be differentiable, and even continuous. The position and momentum
operators are unfortunately not bounded in the space of square-integrable
functions L2 (). To add more trouble, unbounded operators do not have norms
or adjoints through the special result of Hermiticity of operators in Hilbert space
H.

One can find a way to get around the difficulty by requiring a condition, for
bounded and unbounded operators, quite similar to Hermitian operators. It is very
close to the concept of self-adjoint operators [4] ----- but not exactly the condition
for self-adjoint operators [5]. A self-adjoint operator is defined as an operator (A,
DA ) with dense domain on Hilbert space H such that it is equal to its adjoint :
A = A on the common domains DA and DA , and most crucially:

DA = DA
.

But the equality of the two domains stands in the way of defining the position
operator x in quantum theory. To construct such an operator, one must be able
to make the operators (or, observables in the real physical world) self-adjoint.
For an engaging discussion of this topic we refer the reader to section 56 of [3].
We learn from that discussion that position operator x may be made self-adjoint
[6].

For the unbounded momentum operator, i , we also need to extend its
x
domain in order to prove that it is self-adjoint. This proof is rather delicate, but,
finally it may be proved that the momentum operator is also self-adjoint (see Ref
[6] for details). Converting these unbounded operators to unitary operators (which
are bounded) and imposing some restrictions on the domains of position and
momentum operators, we finally arrive at the uncertainty relation [7]

xpx . (3Q+)
2

Since x and px are real-valued uncertainties in position and momentum of a

particle, these are elements of a real field. If the position of a particle is measured
exactly, i.e. x = 0, then inserting this value in the above uncertainty relation, a
simple multiplication (0).p x = 0, (see p.56 of [13] ) yields an absurd result :

0.

15
Our assumption that x = 0 is therefore wrong. The lesson is : x is always non-
zero. This implies that the position of a quantum particle cannot be measured
with absolute precision [37]. Its position in space must retain an irreducible
nonzero uncertainty. Similarly, if the measured momentum uncertainty is zero,
we obtain the same unacceptable result : 0. Momentum cannot be measured
with absolute precision either. These results are startling consequences of
Heisenbergs uncertainty relations. We shall later give an alternative proof of
these results in Eq.(S21) of Section [9] below.
It may be raise a question that if the position uncertainty is exactly zero (not tends
to zero: x 0 ), what would be the magnitude of momentum uncertainty ? In
standard quantum mechanics, p x is considered as standard deviation, a
nonnegative number. p x therefore takes up any value from the real number set
between 0 to . If

px 1+ = {r | r + {}} (3S+)

+
where is the set of all nonnegative real numbers, then p x is a nonnegative
real number other than . If it is possible that when x = 0 , p x 1 , then the
+

uncertainty relation (3Q+) yields

(0).px .
2

Since division by zero is not allowed [9], the only options left for mathematical
operations are :

(1) To divide by a positive number px , provided px 0.
2

Then the result is 0 (px ) . The right side is a
2
+
positive number a . Therefore it implies an absolutely
+
preposterous result : a 0.
This also includes the case of p x , (but p x ), and
+ +
then the positive number a 0, (but a 0 ). The end
+
result is the same : a 0.

or

16
 (2) To carry out the multiplication on the left side of the relation,

and find a similarly silly result : 0.
2

We have left out the value p x = from our discussion. If it is possible (without
referring to operational feasibility) that when x = 0, the uncertainty p x = ,
the inequality takes the form of

(0.) .
2

According to Courant and Robbins (see p.77 of [13] ), the symbol for infinity
cannot be included in real number (or complex number) field, and at the same
time carry out a fundamental rule, multiplication in (0.) , of arithmetic. In fact the
product (0.) is meaningless. Therefore, in all cases, setting x = 0, (or
px = 0 ) in the uncertainty relation invites trouble. This may be cured by
accepting that uncertainty in measurements of position of a quantum particle is
always nonzero : x 0, which will not necessarily mean (as we shall see
shortly) that x > 0. Similarly any momentum measurement carries a nonzero
uncertainty : p x 0. We shall have more to say on this (division algebra) in
Section [4A] later.

These results offers a quick solution to a difficulty that arises in noncommutative

quantum mechanics [364] in formulating noncommutative space-time
suggested by string theory. The problem of measuring position is linked with
noncommutative operators, and a precise measurement of eigenposition of a
position operator leads to complete uncertainty of the other operator. If we
introduce irreducible uncertainty in position, then no precise eigenvalue of
position exists. This would not trigger uncontrollable uncertainty in eigenvalue of
the other operator.
This result yields an important spin-off: When x = 0, the reduced planck
constant may be zero. There is also the same possibility if both x = 0 and
px = 0 in Eq.(2). We then find that = 0. This is symptomatic of classical physics
where measurement of position as well as momentum of a particle can be exactly
specified simultaneously. The entire classical physics is then a theory in which
planck constant is set equal to zero, not by 0. We derived this result from
Quantum Mechanics. Logically then, Quantum Mechanics may contain the entire
classical mechanics into its fold. (For an additional interpretation I refer to a
discussion in section [8] ). This conclusion indicates that Bohrs correspondence
principle may be a valid concept [8]. We also mentioned in page 37 of [36] that
measurement events in quantum mechanics actually constitute all classical

17
space-time points. Quantum mechanics is a broader and universal theory.
Classical mechanics may be derived from quantum mechanics not by a limiting
condition 0. But by simply setting = 0 in the canonical commutation
relation (CCR):

= 0, xp x p x x = i 1 = 0, xp x = px x , (3 a )

we may preserve commutativity of canonically conjugate dynamical variables of

classical physics, and this result in classical physics is a special case of quantum
mechanics. The underlying quantum-mechanical ingredient of uncertainty is
deleted by turning the basic operator equation of CCR into a commutative
relation (3a ) . Classical physics may be enclosed in quantum mechanics. Not the
other way around. This is the current notion and a dominant one [8A].
We must now discuss a nicety in deriving the above results. If x = 0 in the
Heisenberg uncertainty relation (2) then

[(0).(px )] .
2

Division by zero has a well-defined meaning only when the appropriate

mathematical setting is considered. For real and complex numbers, which obey
the axioms of a field, division by zero is not allowed. For instance, there is no real
number a that satisfies

(a).(0) = b,

where b is unique and b 0. Even in fields other than real, division by zero is
not allowed [9]. Every field, real or complex, is a division algebra. Division by zero
is not possible in division algebras [10]. Every real or complex field is a
commutative division algebra. There are four division algebras : The reals
( dimension d = 1), the complex (d = 2), the quaternions (d = 4), and the
octonions (d = 8). The field axioms do not allow a multiplicative inverse, for
example,
a 1 , (3!!)

if a = 0 [11]. We shall discuss about subtlety of division by zero in a separate

subsection
subsection [4A] below.
We must now state something about the meaning of the conclusion x 0 . It
does not mean at all that x > 0 in all circumstances. What it means factually is
that x 0 . It is possible that x is not a real-valued number. We shall quickly
prove that the minimal uncertainty in position is an imaginary quantity. It is not an
element of an ordered field (provided we do not consider partial ordering. The
position x of the measuring device particle may not always be a real number.
We shall later discuss about the relevance of D0-branes [12] below. These D0-

18
branes may be seated on a line (which may serve as a 1-brane, or string)
parallel to the imaginary axis at two equiprobable positions

x1 = +i, and x2 = i. (3A)

The D0-branes are here conjectured as pointlike particles embedded in complex

(or imaginary) space-time. But not in real space-time ever ! (See Fig.(1) below).
The D0-brane particles are in fact endpoints of a taut string which is stretched
with such high tension that it vibrates briskly between these endpoints, each of
which is attached attached to a D2-brane. The particle nature of D0-branes will

Fig. (1): Transverse vibration of real line constitutes a string vibration along
an extra imaginary dimension. A probability wave pulse executes to
and fro motion along the imaginary direction, alternately condensing
as a D0-brane situated at position ( x) min. = (i ).

not be observable because these are seated on two D2-branes separated by an

imaginary minimal distance d = x1 x2 = 2i , according to Eq.(3A) above. Strings
are perhaps the ultra-high transverse vibrations of the real line [36] which
vibrates between two (almost) point-like particles called D0-branes. The

19
probability pulse along the transverse direction of the real line (or, string) moves
up and down touching the end-point positions ( i ) (where it momentarily
condenses as a D0-brane alternately) in low-energy regime.

One can easily imagine the incredible amount of energy required for executing
such ultra-high frequency of vibration of the mathematical entity probability
density wave pulse that mysteriously ---------- (perhaps not. See [36] for details) -
------ produces almost point-like particles or D0-branes. In low-energy regime,
this energy is not high because it turns out to be an imaginary quantity. String
vibrations per se are perhaps mathematical entities called probability density
pulses created by brisk to and fro transverse motion (perpendicular to real line
direction) of the real one-dimensional spatial line . The probability density pulse
moves along the string vibrations alternately creating (by condensation, or
reduction of wave vector [36] ) a D0-brane at ( i ) along an extra imaginary
direction. The transverse vibration of the real line is conjectured as string
vibration. The real line is parallel to D2-branes on which the endpoints or D0-
branes are attached. The ultra-high vibrations (between two end-points) of such a
probability density pulse (called a string vibration) orthogonal to the real line
whip up creation of a D0-brane. It alternately swaps two equiprobable positions
(as if creating an illusion of two endpoints ) fixed on two D2-branes. Note that
while vibrating, this D0-brane cannot ever pass through a real position
eigenvalue placed on the real line. If it ever passes through such an exact real
position, then at that instant it would violate the position uncertainty constraint
x 0. This fact is imposed by position-momentum uncertainty relation, and it
may suggest that the D0-brane would rather hop the space between the
equiprobable positions (+i ) and (i ) to avoid touching the real line, instead of
tracing out a continuous trajectory along the imaginary direction. This particular
phenomenon of space-hopping [369] may create the necessity for a discrete
space as well as time (because no time exists when no distance is traveled). I
have discussed possible existence of primordial black holes in section [13] whose
2D disc-like horizons discretize space and therefore time. If space-hopping
comes out true, then what happens to the D0-brane during the transit time of
space-hopping may not be known by any means. The reason is, the magnitude of
spatial area hopped in each transit is l p , which is the disc area of 2D horizon of
2

a primordial black hole where l p is planck length. This area is also equal to
entropy of this black hole. Since entropy implies missing information, what
happens to the D0-brane while hopping will not be available as information. We
have calculated the entropy in section [13].
Strings are thus required to vibrate along an extra dimension described by an
imaginary axis, which is sliced normally by stacks of D-2 branes in low-energy
regime. This imaginary-valued extra dimension is compactified into a circle or
sphere of radius i , when D0-branes have no other motion except spinning
along a circular loop or a great circle of the sphere (these are Riemann spheres,
to be discussed later). The compactification is necessary to accommodate the

20
mysterious feature of spin in quantum theory. We shall talk about the
visualizable part of the mechanism of spinning later.
Consider a not-too-unreasonable assumption that these two end-point positions
of the D0-brane are equiprobable. Since the particle positions are ( +i ) and ( i ) ,
and length of line element between these points is 2i , the (linear) probability
1
density P (equal to total probability per unit length l ) must be equal to . This
2
makes total probability an imaginary number, which is quite compatible with
complex space-time of quantum mechanics (see p.36 of [36]):
1
= Pl = (2i ) = i ,
2
1 1
x = Pi xi = (+i ) + (i ) = 0 ,
i 2 2
and

1 1
x 2 = ( +i ) 2 + ( i ) 2 = ( 1) .
2 2
Therefore,
( x ) = x2 x = ( i ) .
2 2 2

The positive square root yields

x = ( i ) . (3a)

Although Re ( x ) = 0, x is not necessarily real. One question immediately

crops up: If position uncertainty is complex or imaginary, how do we get definite
results of measurements at all? And almost at all times? This happens because
there are always two complex (and therefore, observationally inaccessible)
eigenvalues of almost all observables (like energy, momentum, angular
momentum, position etc) of the particle. The two eigenvalues come from two
eigenstates, i.e., left-mover and right-mover particle eigenstates (for instance, Eq
(13) and (14), page 8 of [36] ). For example, consider two momentum

eigenvalues: ( k i ). We assume reasonably that the two eigenvalues are
2
equally probable. If the particle is prevented from taking a sharp real position
eigenvalue ----------- as the Heisenberg position-momentum uncertainty relation
demands, ----------- then it will simply vibrate so rapidly between two
equiprobable eigenmomenta as to foil any attempt to observe it at only one fixed
eigenvalue. This can only happen if the vibration is too brisk to be detected in
sub-Planckian energy scale. In other words, if the vibration period is ultra-small,
but greater than the order of planck time. The average momentum of the particle
observed would be just the expectation value

21
 1 1
px = k + i + k i = k .
2 2 2 2
(3a2)

It is this average value that we actually measure by a device. Perhaps nature

fools us into believing that the above average value is an eigenvalue of
momentum of the particle ! This experimental observation of always-the-
expectation-value of an observable also surfaces exquisitely in case of
searching for superpartners in any supersymmetric theory (see [58A], [58B],
[58C], [58D]).
For instance, perhaps there is no provision of truly massless particles like photon,
neutrino, graviton, gluons in nature (see Section [4] below for details). Spin-0
states ( implying zero intrinsic angular momentum states) are really unwanted in
nature, because spin in a particle is generated by the imaginary part of
momentum eigenvalue. For example, recall Eq. (3a2):

Im( px ) = Im i = .
2 2

We shall give further details about mechanism of spin in Section [3].

[3] But if the
particle is spin-0, then this imaginary part is absent in its momentum eigenvalue.
The spin-0 particle has an exact real-valued linear momentum p . The
momentum uncertainty is then zero: p = 0 . But if we insert it in Heisenberg
uncertainty relation, we are in trouble! :

xp , (x)(0) , 0.
2 2

This is probably a theoretical evidence that spin-0 particles cannot exist in nature,
because that would violate Heisenberg uncertainty relation ------- the heart of
quantum mechanics. The recently discovered Higgs boson-like particle [259] ----
----- a spin-0 particle ----------- may turn out to be a composite particle
1
comprising two spin- particles orbiting in opposite direction so as to cancel out
2
any total rotation or spin. The underlying mechanism is simple: In Eq. (3t#) of

[4] we found a universal mass constant mc =
Section [4] 105 eV . We have
2c
1
proved below that a spin- particle of imaginary mass (imc ) orbits with a speed
2
c to produce the required irreducible imaginary momentum

i i
p = (imc )c = c =
2c 2 .

22
This imaginary momentum generates spin of the particle. Its spinning motion
cannot be observed in real space-time. But in case of a spin-0 particle, the
particle contains a doublet, i.e. two imaginary masses, each of magnitude (imc )
.
One mass bead orbits with speed + c and the other orbits with the same speed
but in opposite direction. The spin-0 doublet is a closed system, perhaps each
rotating bead separated from the other by a minimal distance. The total imaginary
momentum of the composite system is

p = [(imc )(+ c)] + [(imc )(c )] = (imc )(c c ) = 0.

Thus net spin of the particle is zero. The Higgs boson may not be a truly
1
elementary particle, but a composite particle composed of two spin-
2
elementary particles rotating in opposite directions.

From the perspective of real space-time, all observed (real) eigenvalues are
uncertain by the magnitudes of their imaginary parts. But, from the perspective of
complex space-time background of quantum dynamics [36], all complex-valued
eigenvalues of observables are precise, and do not suffer from any kind of
uncertainties (from the mathematical point of view). Therefore Quantum
mechanics per se is completely deterministic from mathematical perspective, but
partially uncertain in operational setting, because of our observational inability to
access the window of imaginary eigenvalues with a device. But it should be
emphasized that this deterministic non-unitary quantum mechanics, embedded in
complex space-time, is generically different from the deterministic avatar of
quantum mechanics that Einstein would have dreamed (see [12 ] and the
references in it ). Operationally, quantum mechanics does contain uncertainties
reflected in the inaccessible imaginary eigenvalues of observables.
We now prove that the consequences, namely x 0 , and px 0 have a major
spin-off in quantum gravity and quantum vacuum physics. It shows that the
minimal distance possible in low-energy quantum physics is (i) . We shall show
later in this paper that this is one of the signatures of supersymmetry [12A].
To prove the existence and value of minimal distance in low-energy physics, we
recall that non-zero position uncertainty x 0 implies that in the formula for
variance

x2 x .
2
(3b)

Without loss of generality, we consider a particle with two eigenpositions x1 and

x2 . We further assume -------- not unrealistic perhaps -------- that these positions
are equiprobable. The inequality (3b) then implies

23
 2
1 2 1 2 1 1
2 ( x1 ) + 2 ( x2 ) 2 ( x1 ) + 2 ( x2 ) .

Simplification leads to two unequal eigenvalues, i.e., the trivial result : x1 x2 . We

now consider the simplest case of two unequal positions : x1 = + x, and x2 = x .
From these, we find the following expectation values: x 2 = x 2 , and x =0.
The positive square root of variance gives the position uncertainty:

x = x . (3c)

To find momentum uncertainty, we refer to Eq.(58) of page 27 of [37] where the

quantum-mechanical version of the classical formula E = Mc2 has been derived:

2 v2
E Mc 2 1 . (3d)
8M c 2

Replace the pass symbol M by m , where m is rest mass of the particle to

obtain quantum energy of this free particle

2 v 2
E mc 2 1 (3e)
8 m c 2

where in addition E = with frequency of the quantum particle . If the

particle is at rest, quantum rest energy of the particle is

2
E = mc 2 . (3f)
8m

Instead, the classical rest energy is Ecl = mc 2 according to special relativity. It is

interesting to find that classical rest energy of a particle is higher than its quantum
rest energy. The reason for this unequal magnitudes may perhaps be pinned
down on a very small slice of classical energy (which needs no in-house
provision for energy to cater to nonclassical particle spin!) that has been spent
on producing intrinsic (spin) angular momentum of the particle in quantum realm.
We shall show that the minimal momenta that any particle may possess are
i
pmin. = . This imaginary momenta hand over an extra energy equal to
2

p 2 1 i 2 2 2
Espin = min. = = (3f1)
2m 2m 4 8m

24
to the quantum particle for quantum spinning. This accounts for the last term in
Eq.(3f). But wherefrom this energy term emerges? This term is in fact David
Bohms brainchild: Quantum potential [370]. From non-unitary quantum
mechanics [36], if the particle is at classical rest, i.e. v = 0, the wave function of a
free particle is [36]

1
x it
=e 2
(3f2)

Therefore, position probability density is

1
x
P( x ) = = e , and so A( x) = P( x) = e
x
2
2
. (3f3)

The quantum potential formula for such a particle is [37]

2 2 A 2 1 1 2
VQ = 2
= A( x) = (3f4)
2 mA x 2 mA 2 2 8m

which is exactly equal to energy ESpin required for particle spin , as prescribed by
Eq. (3f1).

[3] What is Spin?

The last term in Eq.(3f) has been speculated as quantum potential in [37]. Only
this term is missing in any classical theory. The presence of mass m in the term
perhaps smells of self-gravitational energy of the particle. This term is sufficiently
small in low energy scenario, as it should be. This term triggers the quantum
jitters (named by Brian Greene [172] ) in the particle. We cannot equate this
energy term with any kind of kinetic energy resulting from any real-valued
momentum, because the particle is classically free and at rest. But it may have
a kind of momentum that is not real-valued. A subtle hint comes from the fact that
no truly elementary particle can be perfectly motionless, because at least it
cannot be spinless. It may be possible that the last energy term in (3f) comes

25
from some unknown kind of particle momentum that is not available from
classical physics. Let this unknown kind of momentum be designated as pmin .
This generates an energy ( p 2 min / 2m) that may be equated to the last energy
term in Eq (3f). This gives out a weird momentum to a quantum particle that is
thought to be at classical rest :

i
pmin = . (3g)
2

This momentum is imaginary. Therefore it cannot be measured in real space-

time. (The subscript in the momentum refers to the fact that it is the minimum
possible momentum in quantum physics. Exactly zero-momentum particles,
pmin . = 0, turn out to be entirely spinless ! ). Another kind of momentum is
angular momentum, whose value is

r p = n (rp sin )

where n is unit vector perpendicular to the plane containing r and p . Equating

this with the term in (3g), we find that if r = i , = and p = .This indicates
2 2
that the particle may be moving around a circle (or along a great circle of a
sphere) of radius i with a clockwise or counter-clockwise minimal linear
momenta

Linear
pmin. = . (3 g1 )
2

Since momentum p = = , where is space-time dependent phase, we
x
find

1
. = = min . = , min . = = .
Linear
pmin (3gg)
2 x x 2

This result is disastrous ! But we may reconcile it with fact by realizing that the
Linear Linear
signs of pmin. denote directions of momentum; this implies that pmin. in Eq.
(3g1 ) is a vector. This in turn requires the corresponding min. to behave as a
wave vector :

26
 1 1
min. = = ( ) = ( ) min.
2
2

1 1
min . = min . = ( ) =
2 2. (3gh)

Here, is a unit vector along the vector . The last Eq. (3gh) yields

1
= min. = . (3 g 2 )
x min. 2

This removes a transient confusion. The angular momentum ( r p ) is intrinsic

because the radius r = i, is an imaginary quantity and it cannot be observed by
1
devices in real space-time. This constitutes the spin of a spin- particle. What
2
is spin ? The orbital angular momentum of a particle rotating along a circle (or,
rotating on the surface of a sphere along a great circle) of imaginary radius i
(see Fig.(2)).
We now prove that it is indeed so. Since spin has three components, a simple
complex analysis with one imaginary unit i is not sufficient to describe the three
components. We therefore summon up quaternions [12B], which is a division
algebra. The spinning particle rotates along the circumference of a circle of an
imaginary radius, for instance, the pure quaternion basis element z = i . The
basis quaternions are {1, i, j , k} with the usual properties

i 2 = j 2 = k 2 = 1,
ij = k , jk = i, ki = j,
i = kj , j = ik , k = ji.

with a distinct property of non-commutativity:

ij = ( ji ) .

Since the instantaneous linear momentum of the quantum particle is tangential to

the radius z = i , we consider an infinitesimal quaternion arc dz along another
quaternion basis element j ,such that dz = jds (see Fig.(2) below). The angle
dz jds
subtended by dz at O is d = = .
z i

27
Fig.(2). A particle subtends an angle jds orbiting a circle on drawn on ( i, j) plane
of the basis (ii, j, k).

Fig.(3). A particle of momentum + j orbiting along a loop of radius i generates
2
spin along +k.
k.

28
If the particle rotates in counter-clockwise direction

dz j ds j
d = = = d ,
z i 1 i

where d is the angle subtended by ds at the center of a unit circle. The

following relation

= P
APA

holds in case of pure quaternion bases, as shown in [12C]. Therefore, j = iji

and, we use the two relations, ij = k and ji = k , as well as d = 2 in a unit
circle in the following expression

j j iji
d = 2 i = 2 i = 2 ijii
1
, or 2 i 1iji = 2 ij, or 2 ji .
i

Making use of quaternion basis relations, we finally obtain total rotation angle

= +2 k , or 2 k .

The spin component of the quantum particle is now calculated from the standard
formula of an orbiting object along an intrinsic (unobservable) loop (or, more
generally, moving along a great circle on the surface of a sphere) of imaginary-
valued radius i :

S z = Intrinsic angular momentum

= Lz = r p = i j = (i j ) = (ij ) sin(i, j ) = k . (3G)
2 2 2 2

Since the particle rotates along circumference of a circle of radius i (see Fig.(3)

above), its tangential momentum has been taken as j instead of i .
2 2
We use a different quaternion basis element j instead of usual unit i because
more than one extra imaginary dimension is generally not expected to be

29
identical. More so because they are mutually orthogonal vectors. The product
rule for quaternions is different, and it glaringly exposes the distinctiveness of
each basis element: i j. To prove it, we recall the formula for quaternion
product of two pure quaternions [2]:

pq = p.q + p q (3gx)

which includes scalar as well as vector product. If the extra imaginary dimensions
are identical, then we may write p = q = i . Eq. (3gx) then yields

pq = ii = (i 2 )cos0 + (i 2 )sin 0 = (i 2 ) = 1. (3gy)

But properties of quaternions tell us ii = 1, and since ij = k , we find

iij = ik .
But ik = j. Therefore

iij = j , (ii ) j = (1) j , (ii ) jj 1 = (1) jj 1 , ii = (1).

This result cannot be reconciled with what we obtained in Eq. (3gy) where we
assumed that basis elements are equivalent. This assumption is now proved
wrong. The lesson is transparent: Each of the extra imaginary dimensions are not
equivalent, and we need to use quaternions as an ineluctable mathematical
device in this case. We shall later find that this same reason forces us to use
octonions to describe wave function of a particle in low-energy quantum theory
with extra imaginary dimensions.

The value of S z obtained above in Eq.(3G) explicitly reveals that the particle has

a spin component along z axis.
2
Note that a quaternion with components {q0 , q1, q2 , q3 } is equivalent to complex
numbers when only one of the elements of {q1 , q2 , q3} is nonzero. This implies that
each of the non-real quaternion elements corresponds to rotations in the
following 2D independent subspaces:

(1) i : Rotation in yz-plane keeping x-axis fixed.
2

(2) j : Rotation in zx-plane keeping y-axis fixed.
2

(3) k : Rotations in xy-plane keeping z-axis fixed.
2

30
Any quaternion may be written in the basis {1, i, j, k} as

q = 1q0 + iq1 + jq2 + kq3 .

It is quite comforting that the behaviour of quaternion units is closely related with
Pauli spin matrices 1 , 2 , 3 [12D]:

(1a) 1 behaves as 2 2 identity matrix,

(2a) i behaves as (i 1 ) ,
(3a) j behaves as (i 2 ),
(4a) k behaves as (i 3 ) .

This in effect helps interpret the role of quaternions in the context of particle
spin in quantum mechanics. The space in which such nonclassical motion as
spinning or intrinsic orbital motion takes place along a circle (or sphere) of unit
imaginary radius is known as complex Banach space [211], which is a complete
normed linear space capable of being equipped with quaternions.
Before switching to related topics, I am amazed to find an inseparable link
between linear motion and spinning motion from an everyday vehicular motion on
the street. A particle travels along a path called a geodesic [189] when it is not
experiencing any non-gravitational force. This path may be called a straight line
in curved space. A curve C is called a geodesic if the shortest path L between
two infinitesimally close points A and B on the curve belongs to the curve C . It
may be argued that this motion may be absolutely translational motion without
requiring the particle to undergo spinning motion. But if a body is only allowed for
translational motion --------- and not rotational motion in tandem, along an axis
perpendicular to tangent to the geodesic ---------- then that would be like
mimicking a motorbike motion in a highway where the motorbike wheels are
dragged on the motorway horizontally and the wheels are not allowed to rotate at
all ! This would result in a disastrous and perhaps a very short and fatal ride. The
reason is obvious. The bike risks a tremendous friction for dragging the wheels
on an uneven road. This is known as linear frame-dragging in general relativity
caused by linear momentum, and has the same logical status as its famous
cousin Lense-Thirring effect or rotational frame-dragging [261]. If space-time is
really a physical entity, like a paved road ready to offer friction, then the object in
linear-only motion would finally come to a halt. The easiest way for nature is to
let the object roll over space along the geodesic. This rolling of the object (which
need not be necessarily round-shaped) constitutes rotation or spinning motion
along an axis perpendicular to the tangent to the geodesic curve. This leads to
the golden rule of motion : For a progressive motion to be feasible, an object
must have an irreducible spin even in classical general relativity. This conclusion
of impossibility of spinless motion in classical physics may help clarify the
generally accepted notion that its quantum counterpart too cannot afford spinless
motion. We may cite a reason why spinless particles are incompatible in the
framework of quantum mechanics. Since the minimal momentum in quantum

31
 1
mechanics is i (from which a particle gets a label spin- , the minimal
2 2
spin) and not zero, a spin-0 particle has possibly no place in quantum mechanics.
Another difficulty emerges for a spin-0 elementary particle from the relations [7A]

Sz = 0 , (3G1)

S 2 = 0 (3G2)

where Sz is the z-component spin operator that acts on the spin eigenvector
to gift eigenvalue 0. The vector is the simultaneous eigenvector of S 2 and
Sz . Since cannot be zero ( which implies there is no eigenvector
corresponding to spin-0 state) we infer

S 2 = 0,

and also, S z = 0 . (3G3)

But we know the total spin operator satisfies the relation

S 2 = Sx2 + S y2 + Sz2 ,

and we have no option but to acknowledge that Eq.(3G3) leads to

Sx2 + S y2 = 0.

This in turn implies S x = 0, and S y = 0. Recalling Eq.(3G3), we find that all the
observables S x , S y , and S z have simultaneous eigenvectors, because in this
particular case, all the commutators vanish :

[ S x , S y ] = 0,

[ S y , S z ] = 0,

[S z , S x ] = 0 .

This result kills the heart of quantum mechanics: The spin-component uncertainty
relation.

32
All these results question the existence of spin-0 particles (for instance, spin-0
Higgs boson), and more precisely, existence of scalar fields [426] in nature such
as Higgs boson, inflatons or dilatons, unless these represent composite particles.
We tried cure the unwanted features of Klein-Gordon equation in [37], and we are
stunned by finding that it never described a spin-0 particle, contrary to standard
description. From Eq.(50) in [37] we find that the imaginary part of momentum
1
(that measures spin of a particle) is indicative for a spin- particle. More
2
staggering is the fact that photon wave function Eq.(20) in [37] also spawns
i 1
particles with imaginary momentum ------- which is the hallmark of spin-
2 2
particles! The mystery perhaps lies in the fact that particle spin is generated by

units of D0-branes of universally constant mass of magnitude mc = orbiting
2c
with speed of light along a loop or sphere of unit imaginary radius. We have
explored this phenomenon in more detail in Section [19] titled What is a string?,
and conjectured that perhaps all elementary particles are composite in nature:
1
one rotating D0-brane generates an electron or spin- particle, two D0-branes
2
3
produce a photon or spin-1 particle, three D0-branes create a gravitino, or spin-
2
particle, and four D0-branes build a graviton or spin-2 particle (see Figs.(14), (15)
and (16) in Section [19] . These particles have distinct internal structure with
rotating D0-branes in circles or spheres of radius i in standard model energy
scale. The orbiting D0-branes seated at end-points of a diameter, or vertices of
an equilateral triangle, or vertices of a square correspond respectively to spin-1,
3
spin- , and spin-2 elementary particle. As such, an electron with a structure of
2
a single orbiting D0-brane is truly structureless, as commonly held true in
particle physics. In this perspective, a scalar field composed of spin-0 particles
may be visualized as circles or spheres with no massive entity (that might be
generated by spinning motion ). Since there is no D0-brane rotating in these
loops or spheres, no spinning axis or direction emerges ---------- which is
essential for a vector field. We may ultimately settle the issue by stating that a
scalar field amounts to a field composed of non-rotating entities sans mass (or
equivalently spinning motion ). The underlying reason that there is nothing like

quantum spin in units of in classical physics may be traced to non-existence
2

of in that realm. Or, more precisely, absence of D0-branes of mass . Of
2c
course there remains scope of scalar fields in quantum physics if two D0-branes
orbit in opposite directions on a 2-surface with their orbits equidistant from the
great circle of the sphere. The resultant spins generated self-cancel the spin-
generated mass. This might turn out a composite particle with spin-0. But it is

33
worth citing Rolf-Dieter Heuer, Director General of LHC project in this messy
situation, who said in a 2011 talk [428] :

Higgs particle is neither matter, nor force. It is just different. (Italics mine).

Since fermions build matter, and force-carriers are bosons, then this statement is
suggestive of the Higgs particle being something different from both bosons and
fermions ! This might indicate an alternative to Higgs mechanism, that may be at
work in mass-giving job of nature.
But one thing requires a neat answer: A scalar particle is initially massless if
spinning motion truly gives mass. Then from where does a scalar particle such as
Higgs boson obtain mass? Spinning motion, and then translational motion of the
particle gaining inertia because of growing Lorentz factor in the non-invariant
mass M = m (according to Einsteins original formulation in special relativity)
might be a sketchy attempt to describe origin of mass in particles.
We now pick up the thread of our conjecture of non-existence of D0-brane-free
internal structure of a particle. This might remind us of superstring theory where
in low energy phenomena, the theory requires not one scalar Higgs boson, but
two Higgs bosons (see p.127 of [246] ). Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model
(MSSM) requires two Higgs doublets [427]. Some theories require singlets,
doublets and also triplets.
Another singular aspect of particle spin is that it cannot ever be stopped ! We
shall prove in Section [4]
[4] shortly that perhaps there is no truly massless particle in
quantum physics. This may suggest that massivity of particles is a direct
consequence of particle motion. Nothing perhaps can be weaned away of motion,
whatever may be its differentness. It is perhaps this spinning motion that gives
mass to all elementary particles. In broader perspective, motion may be
responsible for mass-giving. If the predicted mass-giving Higgs mechanism
and its associated Higgs boson of standard model ( [389], [383] ) fail to respond
to tests carried out by LHC, then particle spin may be investigated as an
alternative mass-giver.

[3A] Core Principle of String Theory, and a Second Thought

on Singularity Theorems in General Relativity

The investigation of irreducible spin of a particle might have far-reaching impact

in the context of Raychaudhuri equation [262] when applied in the context of
quantum gravity, where singularity theorems ( [263], [264] ) pehaps require fresh
probe. Raychaudhuri Equation examines the fate of flow of a cross-sectional area

34
enclosing a congruence (family) of geodesics and arrives at negative expansion,
or focusing of null and timelike geodesic curves in real space-time ( [102], [103] ).
Rotation of the geodesics in an enclosing area during a flow means synchronized
regular rate of shift of points where the geodesics fictitiously pierce the cross-
sectional area. In quantum theory these geodesics are constrained to lie on
complex space-time. Also, they cannot rub shoulders with each other with zero
distance or arbitrarily small (infinitesimal) distance between them, particularly in
ultra-high gravity, where a minimal distance is respected by almost all theories of
quantum gravity. Heisenberg uncertainty relation in fact generates the main
ingredient of minimal distances at different energy scales so as to make way for
amplitudes of vibrating strings ( which are not particles) to cover these minimal
distances. And this results in need for supersymmetry signatures which kill the
dreaded infinities that had plagued quantum field theories before the rise of
Renormalization [383]. In this scenario, string theory seems to have
foundational roots stemming from unceruncertainty
tainty relations of Quantum Mechanics.
Most string theorists feel a lack of core principle (see p.376 of [91] ) as the
fountainhead of string theory, like what equivalence principle serves for general
relativity. In my opinion, string theory may be directly linked with quantum
mechanics by designating Heisenberg uncertainty relation as its core principle,
because supersymmetry may be shown to spring from it (see Section [8] below).
We shall have more to say on this in later sections.

The atypical space-time fabric generic only to quantum theory, as described in

[36], is the point of departure for a comprehensive treatment of the singularity
theorems. The effect of rotation or spin of a particle with axis parallel or anti-
parallel to its motion (helicity states) is hardly possible to accommodate in a small
cross-sectional area enclosing a single pointlike quantum particle. But theories of
quantum gravity has almost firmly established the need for non-pointlike
extended objects (like strings) in extreme cases of ultra-high gravity. And
singularities, if any, live in this energy scale comparable to planck or transplanck
energy. A single extended object traversing a geodesic may well itself be of the
form of a planck-sized disc (or D0-brane) of radius equal to planck length l p . (
The plane of disc is perpendicular to geodesic motion). And if the disc spins,
there is no way to bend the law of minimal distance to see to it that the disc of
cross-sectional area l p2 occupied by a single quantum object can decrease, and
thus enter a singularity. If there is a family or congruence of such n fat ( i.e. disc-
carrying) geodesics (that cannot be slimmed down any further due to presence of
stringy objects vibrating orthogonally to the locally straight geodesic) they can at
best huddle together. No mathematics is perhaps required to find that they ------
containing n transversely vibrating strings constituting a minimal radius nl p of a
cross-sectional area ------- cannot focus to a singular point any more with lapse
of time. l p cannot be minimized. Focusing of course does not ensure a
singularity. But non-existence of locally straight lines or paths (of dust or
quantum particles) called geodesics in a quantum theory certainly seals the pit
of singularity. We now try to show this by preparing some convincing results that
question the validity of general relativity even in a very small local region. If this

35
is confirmed in laboratory experiments where free-falling particle paths are
monitored carefully in an ultra-small region, and the path followed locally by a
particle in that region deviate only slightly from straight lines or geodesics ---------
-- then we may claim to have found evidence of violation of Local Lorentz
Invariance (LLI).
Einstein based general relativity in his pursuit to find what happens to particles in
non-inertial frames. He identified that inertial motion occurs in this case in curved
geometry in Lorentzian manifold [212], which is not in real domain 4 . Einstein
replaced the fixed Minkowski metric with a dynamic 2-tensor g that lives in
Lorentzian geometry --------- a generalization of Minkowski geometry. But there is
an important step in this generalization: Locally, i.e. in a very small region,
Lorentzian metric must look like Minkowski metric (see p.483 of [40] ).
Consequently, Local Lorentz invariance is a requisite component for validity of
general relativity. But in Eq. (60A) of Section [9] we have pulled out a violation
of local Lorentz invariance of scalar mass of a particle. We have shown in
Section [4] that photons have an imaginary rest mass

m ph = ( im) , (3g)

and this grossly violates the energy-momentum relation of special relativity: In

special relativity as well as standard quantum theory, photon energy is

ESR = pc

But in non-unitary quantum theory (where photons have imaginary mass), photon
energy is related to momentum as (see Eq. (3g ) above for m ph )

EQ2 = p 2 c 2 + m 2ph c 4

m2c 2
i.e. EQ2 = p 2c 2 m2c 2 , EQ = pc 1 (3g1)
p2

Therefore, photon energy is not Lorentz invariant in non-unitary quantum theory:

EQ < ESR . (3g2)

The energy deficit ( ESR EQ ) is utilized in providing spinning energy to the

photon. There are two types of Lorentz transformations:

36
 (1) Observer Lorentz transformations,

(2) Particle Lorentz transformations

.
Observer Lorentz transformations involve measurements made in two inertial
frames (inertial ?) differing by constant speed and orientations. In particle Lorentz
transformation, the same observer may study a single reference frame, may
observe experiments that may be rotated or boosted relative to each other.
These transformations are called particle transformations [430]. If one particle is
at rest and another particle moves with constant speed v in the same inertial
frame, then physical laws will not be the same for the particle at rest and the
particle in motion, albeit both being in constant relative motion. To find the
measure of particle Lorentz violation, note that rest mass of a particle according
to special relativity is

E
mSR = SR2 . (3g3)
c

But in non-unitary quantum physics, energy of a particle moving with speed v in

the same inertial frame is [37]

2 v 2 2 2 2
EQ = mSR c 2 1 2
= m c 2
= c m 2
.
8 mSR c 8 mSR 8 mSR c
SR 2 SR 3

If the quantum rest mass of the moving particle is designated

EQ
mQ = 2 ,
c

1 mc2
2
2
then mQ = mSR = mSR 3 = mSR . (3g4)
8mSR 3c 2 2c 2 mSR 2mSR 3

Here mc = is mass of a D0-brane or the imaginary part of vacuum particle
2c
mass. This result

mQ < mSR (3g5)

is compatible with Eq.(3g2). This miniscule Lorentz violation

37
 mc2
= 3
(3g6)
2mSR

is global in character. It ensures an automatic violation locally, jeopardizing local

Lorentz invariance in general relativity. It may also induce a large Lorentz
symmetry violation, as pointed out by Kostelecky and Tasson in [429]. In 2000
31
Bear et al [431] reports a Lorentz violation at 10 GeV level, while we have
31
found a Lorentz violation in scalar mass at 10 eV (in Eq. (60D) of Section [9B]
below).

Another problem that general relativity has to face is the theoretical evidence of a
i c
non-zero quantum vacuum energy value Evac = of quantum vacuum
2
particles that permeate the universe today. The observed form of this constitutes
the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR). This fixed background
might be employed as a preferred frame ------------ which would possibly bring in
breakdown of general relativity.

Another possible instance of a preferred frame may be the frame where a

quantum measurement event [36] takes place. When a particle in its rest frame
coincides with the reference frame containing a device particle, only then the
measured eigenvalues of observables are real numbers. This coincided frame
constitutes a special reference frame, because only in this frame a senseful
practical measurement is possible.

Even in case of a measurement with the device particle greeting the incoming
particle, there exists no single eigenstate of the particle. Actually there are no
observable standalone eigenstates in quantum mechanics in Banach space,
[226] embedded with supersymmetry signatures. What are measured ------- are
actually expection values of (mostly) a pair of equally weighted complex
eigenvalues). This merger of the two particle frames makes way for a unique
reference frame. This coincided reference frame is the preferred frame because
measurement of physical quantities are possible only in this frame because
measurement results (which are expectation values) are real numbers.

38
 FIG.(4): Extended observer is seated at measurement point P along

imaginary direction. When (s)he looks at the left, the probability

density is different from what (s)he measures while facing the

outgoing particle in the right direction. When the two particles on

either side reside in a very small region, this difference is a

measure of Local Lorentz Invariance (LLI). It also confirms that

quantum space-time (unlike space-time in general relativity) is

not isotropic.

Therefore we have gathered enough evidence in favor of local Lorentz violation,

existence of a preferred frame and questionable isotropy in the underpinning of
general relativity when examined under the scanner of basic tenets of quantum
theory. This already provides enough raison detre why singularity theorems
might not survive in the context of quantum theory. But there are more reasons to
question one basic and famous infrastructure of general relativity, the curvature
of space-time.

39
Although the curvature of four-dimensional space-time is immune to our
visualization, we may suppress two dimensions, and consider the popular rubber
sheet analogy dented by a heavy massive body. Our earth is a massive body,
albeit insignificant compared to the sun. The earth must slightly warp the space-
time locally, however tiny it may be. A light ray or photon path must bend slightly
while traversing the warped region in the vicinity of the earth. It is quite surprising
that Heisenbergs uncertainty principle does not allow rectilinear path of a photon.
For instance, we align the x-axis along the direction of propagation of a photon.
The photon cannot traverse the straight path along x-axis, because if momentum
of photon along y-axis is zero, then p y = 0, p y = 0. Similarly, if pz = 0, then
the momentum uncertainty pz = 0 . These constrains a photon, ready to follow a
rectilinear trajectory, to travel approximately along x-direction with nonzero
momenta along y- and z-direction. According to general relativity, mimicking the
famous bending of ray of light experiment, a photon should travel around the
earth in a slightly curved path. In the figure below, if an observer at A sends a ray
of light to another observer at B, the deflection angle u may be measured (see
Fig.(4A) below), however small the bending might be. A nonzero deflection angle
u then assures the observers that the massive earth has really curved the 4D
space-time conforming to expectation from the theory of general relativity. Since
simultaneity of events are not possible, one observer at C (after just a few
seconds of completion of the previous test by A, B observers) now sends a
similar ray of light along CD to a detector at D, and the tiny angle v of the leading
order ( [130], [189] ) is measured by a sensitive device. This result assures these
observers that the earth had made a physically real dent on the 4D space-time in
the site opposite to the previous test. The classic Shapiro test (1964) involving
both bending of light and time dilation near a massive body [153] may be
commissioned instead as a dual test.

40
 Fig. (4A) : An observer at A sends a slim beam of photons along AB
to an observer at B. The deflection angle u may be measured
by a state-of-the-art device. If u is nonzero, the observers are
assured of the physical reality of the small warping of the 4D
space-time by the massive earth. (Since simultaneity is ruled
out by the theory), just after this experiment, another observer
at C sends a similar beam of photons along CD to an observer
at D. The nonzero angle v of deflection of light measured by a
sensitive device indicates a slight dent made by the earth on
the 4D space-time in the opposite side of the previous test.

If these tests are successful, then these observers may claim that space-time is
curved not only at the bottom of the massive earth (which is the popular rubber
sheet picture) but also at any patch at the top of the earth. Since top or down are
merely arbitrary notions, the space-time curving (however infinitesimally small)
must occur at the left or right or at any other arbitrary place near the earth. If the
physical reality of tiny curvings of space-time does not depend on verification by
carrying out such a test, then we must agree that the earth (or the sun or other
massive objects) is always covered on all sides and encapsulated by the tiny
curvature created by its mass. In the rubber sheet analogy, the rubber sheet
enclosing the earth is dented at all points by the massive earth. This would have
physically observable effects. A light ray from a strong source would somehow

41
close it on itself ----------- encircling the earth. Since no such effect has been
detected to date, we seem to converge on the conclusion that, at least quantum-
mechanically, a measurement event [36] of bending of light or space-time
curvature actualizes the reality of the concept of space-time. Space-time in
general relativity is not a static membrane warped by the earth only at its bottom.
Space-time probably acquires physical reality only when quantum measurements
are actually carried out.

A definition of geodesics in Lorentzian geometry needs locally straight lines for

null or timelike paths. To describe these local geodesics in concrete
mathematical terms, one needs local inertial frames in an infinitesimally small
region. We may prepare such frames by simply placing the quantum particle at
the origin of a local inertial frame. But this implies that the particle position at the
origin is

x = 0, y = 0, z = 0.

The resultant position uncertainties are then x = 0, y = 0, z = 0. But, as we

already know, these uncertainties violate Heisenberg uncertainty principle. The
upshot is, one cannot have a local inertial frame equipped with a well-defined
origin. In short, local geodesics are incompatible with quantum theory, given the
absence of local inertial frames. An inevitable prequel to a singularity is the
ruthless exposure to the occurrence: geodesic incompleteness . The Hawking-
Penrose theorem and other singularity theorems ( [433] - [435] ) prove that
geodesics (which represent motions of freely falling bodies ) must end at an edge
of a Lorentzian manifold, and these geodesics cannot be extended over an
infinite proper time (for particle geodesics) or infinite affine parameter (for light
paths). A rough analogy would be to say that a freely falling body stops falling
after a certain time during its fall (without there anything like a ground, or
Newtons head at the receiving end) !
Before proceeding further let us examine a key property of geodesics: parallel
transport. A geodesic is the shortest distance in a curved space. Just as a
straight line in an Euclidean space routinely parallel-transports its own tangent
vector, similarly a geodesic parallel-transports the tangent vector along its curve
[189]. But an immediate and fundamental question -------------- that is not at all
pesky in classical general relativity ----------- arises: Is it true that a straight line in
Euclidean space is the curve that parallel-transports its own tangent vector ? (
see p.166 of [436] ). The answer seems dubious in the context of quantum
mechanics, if not in quantum gravity. Take a tangent vector PT at a point P on
a curve living in an Euclidean plane . If the curve is just a straight line, then the
gradient describing the tangent to the straight line y = f ( x) is

dy y
= lim at P, (3g16)
dx x0 x

42
where one may also consider it equal to tan . The tangent makes zero angle
with the straight line. The angle is enclosed between the straight line and the
tangent at P. In quantum mechanics at Planck scale ------ (where questions about
singularity generally crops up) ---------- the limit x 0 is not allowed because
of a minimal distance ( x) min . = l p , respected by theories of quantum gravity. It is
dy
quite difficult in this regime to conjure up a y = 0 to hand out a = 0 to
dx
help parallel-transport the tangent vector as a constant vector in Euclidean
space. In fact an uncertainty y = 0 is ruled out by uncertainty principle. Instead,
if we prefer tan in place of the gradient, then from definition of an angle in
radian unit ,

s
= . (3g17)
r

To parallel-transport the tangent vector, one must require a vanishing tan and
. ( The validity of these arguments however hinges on a coordinate-dependent
theory of gravity ). It is reasonable to expect that the tiny arc s cannot become
zero : s = 0. This violates the uncertainty relation ( such as s = 0 ) and also the
minimal distance regulator imposed on a theory of quantum gravity. Of course,
things like space-time will turn out more dynamically violent in quantum gravity
than the large-scale well-behaved space-time structure of general relativity. While
it is perfectly possible in classical (zero minimal distance) general relativity, it
becomes hardly possible to satisfactorily carry out parallel-transportation of
tangent vector in a flat Minkowski space in an infinitesimally small local region in
a standard quantum field theory. And translating this local parallel-transport
feature of tangent vector along a geodesic into a global property is certainly a
daunting mathematical problem. The trouble starts once we recognize that local
Lorentz invariance is a basic ingredient of general relativity. In a very small local
patch in the space-time of general relativity, a curve ( joining two almost adjacent
points P and Q on a geodesic ) may itself be a straight line. Unfortunately, in low-
energy quantum physics, the physical quantities involved in parallel -
transportation such as space coordinates x, y, the radius r and the arc s (
and therefore the angle ) are all complex numbers [36]. In quantum domain,
parallel-transportation along a quantum geodesic then is more difficult to carry
out. Add to this the generically complex space-time of quantum physics [37]. I do
not know to what form a classical geodesic would transform !

But it is a pleasant surprise that these difficulties exposed in Eqs. (3g16) and
(3g17) are still consistent in the concerned realm of singularities: Planck scale
physics. In Eq.(3g16), the minimal distance increments in this scale are equal to
supersymmetry signature

43
 ( x) min . = l p .

The gradient becomes

dy Planck Scale y
= 1.
dx x x = y = l p

The same result surfaces once we set minimal distance in Eq.(3g17):

s = r = l p , or 2l p .

s 2l
tan = = p = 1.
r 2l p

0
Since the slope is 1, all quantum geodesics are inclined at 45 . This implies that
all objects or particles of arbitrary mass travel at speed of light. This reminds us
of Eq.(5) of Section [4B] below where we have reached the same weird
conclusion. This result offers a deep insight into the inner workings of dynamics
in quantum gravity. The first thing to note is that all particles in quantum gravity
are light-like particles. Are all particles light-like? The answer is a qualified yes.
The reason is that quantum geodesics are not the general relativistic null paths.
The supersymmetry signature in standard model energy is ( x ) min . = ( i ), while in
Planck scale it switches to ( x) min . = l p . As a result, the space-time interval
changes from light-like or time-like separated

ds 2 = dx 2 (cdt )2 = dx 2 + ( i )2 (cdt ) 2 = dx 2 + ( Slow ) (cdt ) 2 0

SUSY 2
(3g18)

to space-like separated interval

ds 2 = dx 2 + (i) 2 (cdt )2 ds 2 = dx 2 + (l p )2 (cdt ) 2 = dx 2 + ( S Planck

SUSY 2
) (cdt )2 > 0
(3g19)
SUSY
Here we have introduced a new symbol S to describe various
supersymmetry signatures at classical, nonclassical low (standard model),
Planck, and Transplanck energy scales:

(1) SClassical = 0; (2) Slow

SUSY SUSY
= (i ); (3) S Planck
SUSY
= l p ; (4) STransplanck
SUSY
= 1.
(3g20)

44
The effect of being sent to space-like separated regions is quite surprising : All
quantum gravity events are thus causally disconnected in the classical sense.
Peculiarly, this violation of classical causal structure of space-time takes place
not because of possibility of a signal propagating at super-causal (or
superluminal) speed ! But for a reason that had long been conjectured by
Hawking [441] in his attempt to exorcise the initial or big bang singularity and
advance an innocent-looking concept of Imaginary time in his no-boundary
proposal. But unfortumnately, it was scantily heeded and/or pursued to explore
the inherent implications of imaginary time. Imaginary time had been introduced
in quantum statistical mechanics (see p. 262 of [389] ), quantum tunneling [442],
in relating Euclidean quantum field theory and classical statistical mechanics
[389], emergence of our present universe from nothing (zero-energy universe) (
[443], [444] ), and even in classical motion of swings in a pendulum [445].
From Eq.(3g19) we retrieve proper time ( time clocked by a co-moving observer
along a quantum geodesic in Planck scale) as zero time spent along a geodesic,
because

Re ( ) = 0, (3g21)

where quantum proper time is

ds 2 ( dx 2 + l p2c 2 dt 2 ) ds 2
q = = = i = it. (3g22)
c2 c2 c2

This is perhaps a robust result confirming Hawkings conjecture of imaginary

time, and it states that quantum geodesics must travel in imaginary time in ultra-
strong gravity such as in the interior of black holes and in the territory of quantum
gravitational singularities. This is probably a paradigm shift in the discussion of
time in singularity theorems and quantum gravity.
Before quantizing Raychaudhuri equation, we would like to find a precise
physical origin of the mysterious thermodynamic temperature and behaviour of
non-relativistic black holes which are now shown to evolve in imaginary time.
Penrose (see p. 827 of [156] ) and Zee (p.264 of [389] ) have discussed at length
about this uncanny connection between imaginary time and black hole
temperature, the last-mentioned author with a caveat that his slick arguments
should not be taken too seriously. But I would like to seriously consider this
uncanny relation of imaginary time with temperature to show that we have really
missed something profound. This unwraps the mystery we usually associate with
Hawking temperature [389].

45
 [3AA] Why are Black Holes Hot ?

Let us recall that if we ignore gravitatational effect, then static and non-rotating
Schwarzschild black holes are non-relativistic quantum objects stripped of
gravity. We now prove that any non-relativistic particle or macroscopic object in
quantum-mechanical formalism behaves as a source of heat or temperature field
if the quantum system lives in imaginary time (it ) (not in regular time t ). This is
not just a mathematical trick to wick-rotate [446] regular time into imaginary time
= (it ) to convert Minkowski space into Euclidean space by replacing ( c 2 dt 2 )
in the space-time interval by +(cd (it )) = +c d , where = ( it ) is imaginary
2 2 2

time; then perform physics in Euclidean space without worrying about a hovering
scare of dreaded divergences (see p.769 of [156] ), and then wick-rotate
imaginary time back to regular time and serve the results on a relaxed platter of
Minkowski space. Hartle and Hawking [448] introduced this idea of
Euclideanization by way of Wick rotation of real time t in a counter-clockwise
direction to align it to the imaginary axis in the positive and negative direction to
prepare imaginary time = ( it ) .
But we explicitly find here that if a quantum object (obeying Schroedingers
equation) evolving in real time t is made to evolve in quantum imaginary time
q = (it ) or cyclic imaginary time

q = (2 it ) (it ),

because 2 = 1 , (as we shall prove later in Eq.(62N) of Section [15]

[15 ) then that
quantum object is transported to a process of thermal evolution. The quantum
object is thermalized, just by letting it evolve in imaginary time because
Schroedingers equation is now converted into Heat equation [212]. All
thermodynamic properties of compact objects in strong-gravity regime such as
black holes stem from this imaginary time.

We have already proved in Eq. (3g22) that in quantum gravity, objects move in
imaginary time q = ( it ), t . To describe their evolution, we may invoke
Schroedinger equation for a free quantum system, but modify it slightly :

2 2 ( x, t ) ( x, t )
= i ,
2m x t
2
(4g1)

46
 2
=
(it ) 2m x 2

2
= , (4g2)
q 2m x 2

which is identical with heat equation [449]

u ( x, q ) 2u ( x, q )
= (4g3)
q x 2

once we regard ( x, q ) u ( x, q ), i.e. the wave function in ordinary energy

now becomes heat wave function, or field u . Since temperature is proportional
heat quantity, we may as well consider u as temperature wave or temperature

field. The physical quantity = is a positive number called thermal
2m
diffusivity, and is related as

K
= ,
m C p

where K is thermal conductivity, m is mass density of the object, and C p is

specific heat capacity. In this case of an object such as a quantum Schwarzschild
black hole of mass m , its thermal diffusivity is

= , (4g4)
2m

which is minimal quantum-mechanical speed v of black hole. It is remarkable that

a non-relativistic quantum black hole has quantum jitters, as usual. But what is
more stunning is the result that since in Planck scale all arbitrary masses shrink

to a tiny mass mc = , all quantum black holes of mass mc acquire a spinning
2c
speed (because angular speed or frequency = v in quantum theory) :

2c
= v= = = c . (4g5)
2mc 2

47
This perhaps indicates that even quantum Schwarzschild black holes cannot be
stripped of spin! In quantum thermodynamical perspective the black holes receive
a hike in speed of thermal diffusion of temperature field

2c
= = = c . (4g6)
2mc 2

Heat speedily conducts through the quantum black hole to reach a thermal
equilibrium. It is then no longer a mystery wherefrom quantum black holes
acquire thermodynamic behaviour, and specifically, their Hawking temperatures.
The source is the imaginary time in which quantum gravity evolves. We need not
introduce an ad-hoc Wick rotation (see p.265 of [389] ) of ordinary time t to
Euclidean time : t (i ). Note that Eq.(4g5) assigns an energy

E = = c = (2mc )c 2

to such a black hole. The energy term is provocative enough to consider the
black hole as made up of two 2D black holes (each a D0 brane of mass mc )
separated by a minimal distance.
This particular role of imaginary temperature has been first conjectured by
Gibbons and Perry [447] in an elegant use of purely imaginary period of time
2 iT , with T Re(t ) . According to statistical mechanics, such periodic time
corresponds to temperature T TBH of a black hole (see pp.827 - 833 of [156] ).
Physicists nevertheless remain skeptical about the source of heat generation in
quantum black holes by this imaginary periodicity of time ( [156], [447] ). Our
reformulation of Schroedinger equation in imaginary time yields Heat equation
(Eq.(4g3)) transparently, and this equation signals the source of temperature in a
black hole, and provides the emergent physical process -------- (lack of which is
sometimes rued) ----------- of rapid heat conduction in a quantum black hole.
An interesting but not over-optimistic interpretation may be a link of our heat
wave function or temperature field u to a recent result obtained by Witten (see
p.269 of [465] ) by studying the workings in the interior of a black hole in the bulk.
Recalling Maldacenas conjecture (see pp.920-923 of [156] ), he also
investigated what the boundary perspective (now reduced by 1 dimension) of the
black hole --------- regarded as equivalent description of the same physics -------
produced. It is amazing that the with-gravity interior of a black hole is equivalent
to a no-gravity hot quantum field theory at the boundary of the black hole !
Fortunately, Wittens result offers a spin-off assuring us that there is no loss of
information in hot QFT which is equivalent to black hole interior perceived to store
information contained in matter/energy that eventually formed it. We have
obtained below theoretical confirmation of no information loss in a black hole -
-------- (we shall prove this later in Section [12B] ) -------------- and this re-enforces
Witten and Susskinds conclusive evidence [320] that there is no loss of
information in a black hole. Now one can try to join by a thread of mathematical

48
physics the three different pieces of evidence of black hole temperature obtained
from heat equation containing temperature field u ( x, q ) , Gibbons-Perry
imaginary period of time, and Wittens reduction of black hole interior to a hot
quantum field theory.

Solve Heat equation (4g3).

[3AB]
[3AB] Quantum Raychaudhuri equation

Note that quantum analogs of classical general relativistic geodesics are not
precisely defined, and therefore this classical theory may spawn singularities. But
it remains to be seen how geodesic incompleteness in a quantum theory of
gravity is achieved in the absence of a properly defined quantum geodesic. If in
addition, space-time is discrete at a fundamental level ---------- as obtained in the
structure of Loop Quantum Gravity (LQG) [183], the continuousness of a
quantum geodesic representing free-fall motion of a particle is lost. Prospects of
a solution then become more unclear.

We now re-examine singularity theorems from the vantage point of quantized

version of the classical Raychaudhuri equation ( [189], [44], [190], [283] ). To find
the quantum version of the end result of expansion parameter ( ) obtained from
Raychaudhuri equation, we quote the inequality [189] involving proper time and
rate of change of area or volume enclosing a geodesic congruence with proper
time :

d ( ) 2
(3G1)
d 3

We now directly refer to the solution of this equation from Carroll ( see pp. 462
465 of [189] ):

1 1
+ . (3G1a)
( ) 0 3

But proper time of a quantum black hole is imaginary time ( it ) as revealed in

Eq.(3g22): q = (it ) . We consider only the plus sign in proper time without
loss of generality. Replacing real by imaginary proper time q in the afore-

49
mentioned equation, we immediately discern that one must settle with an equality
instead of the inequality in relation (3G1a) because imaginary numbers are not
elements of a totally ordered field. Therefore Eq.(3G1a) now reads

1 it
= +a
(it ) 3

where a is an imaginary constant. The expansion parameter is now

it + 3a
(it ) 1 = ,
3

3
(it ) = . (3G1b)
it + a

If we set the constant a = it0 , where t0 , then the expansion parameter is

manifestly imaginary:

3i
( q ) = . (3G1c)
t + t0

This result carries a striking resolution to the dreaded singularity that occurs in
general relativistic framework. The expansion parameter in real space-time is
fortunately zero:

3i
Re = 0.
t + t0

This implies that after any period of proper time q = it , there is zero expansion
of cross section or volume of a bundle of free-falling dust particles. This
eliminates any possibility of convergence of the geodesics in real space-time.
And thus the geodesics may be extended arbitrarily without causing geodesic
incompleteness, the hallmark of singularity. We know that the set of points { p}
are neatly punctured in the quantum space-time, and therefore, the conclusions
derived from this premise are flawed). The positive increment ( or, change) in
area or volume with proper time , containing dust particles, is the expansion
parameter ( ) . If it is positive, the geodesics are pulled apart inside the area or
volume, and therefore no focusing of geodesics is possible. But singularity or no
singularity, convergence of geodesics seeking a singular point must happen in
very strong energy scale in quantum gravity. Raychaudhuri equation has no input
from Einstein equation [40]. But when it is linked via energy condition, gravity

50
unwraps its attractive nature. The nearest energy constraint that is required for
convergence is called strong energy condition or (SEC) for timelike geodesics.
There are also other energy conditions, namely, Weak Enegrgy Condition
(WEC), Dominant Energy Condition (DEC), as well as Null Energy Condition
(NEC) for null geodesics. There is an excellent article on the prese).nt status (or,
health bulletin?) of these energy conditions [266]. We shall show that these
energy conditions mostly fail in quantum domain precisely because of complex
eigenvalues (of rest mass-enegy density of matter-energy) which are quantum
cousins of SEC (for congruence of timelike geodesics) as well as NEC or
Averaged NEC (for congruence of null geodesics). It may be added that almost
all energy conditions are violated in quantum field theory. We now forget
Eq.(3G1) (for reasons to become clear later) and consider instead a shear-less,
rotationless Raychaudhuri equation that states

d ( ) 2
= R U U . (3G2)
d 3

In fact proper time is likely to be non-real in quantum gravity. For example, in

quantum vacuum it is an imaginary quantity. We have proved that time is
complex in quantum mechanics ( [36], [37] ); it is imaginary in quantum gravity of
vacuum energy. We can prove it by recalling that a quantum vacuum particle has
i c
energy equal to Evac = . As a result,
2

ic ic
Evac = = , = ( ) = ( Evac ) = =
t t 2 2

To reconcile both sides must be imaginary. Therefore,
t

i c i c
= = ,
(it ) 2 i 2

where phase i = ( i ) , and time i = it in quantum gravity is imaginary. But what

about proper time of a particle in quantum gravity of vacuum? To answer this
question we determine the spacetime interval in imaginary time:

dsq2 = dx 2 c 2 d i2 = dx 2 c 2 (it ) 2 = dx 2 + c 2t 2 0

which reveals an Euclidean geometry for quantum gravity. The proper time q in
quantum vacuum is obtained from

51
 ds 2 ds 2
q2 = 2 q , q = i 2q = i (3G4)
c c

where real corresponds to proper time of classical gravity. Armed with

imaginary proper time of quantum vacuum, and complex time tc = t + it , and
complex space xc = x + ix of quantum theory ([36],[37]) we may derive the local
space-time interval available in a sufficiently small region

dsc2 = dxc2 c 2 dtc2

and proper time
ds 2 dsc2
d c2 = 2c , d c = i (3G5)
c c2

Unlike quantum vacuum, if dsc2 is not real, then

ds
d c = i c (3G6)
c

is most likely complex unless dsc itself is imaginary. In general, proper time q in
quantum gravity may be real or complex.
We rewrite Raychaudhuri equation (3G2) as

d ( q ) 2 ( q )
= R U U . (3G7)
d q 3

which plays a central role in the proofs of singularity theorems. For timelike vector
field U , strong energy condition demands that the last term is nonnegative:

R U U 0.

But quantum energy eigenvalue of any kind of matter-energy (whether non-

relativistic or relativistic) has been shown to be generically complex. In case of
quantum vacuum, it is imaginary. Therefore, energy density representing
R U U cannot be real in any theory of quantum gravity. Let us denote

R U U = + i ,

where and are real. Inserting this term in (3G7), we obtain

52
 d ( q ) 2 ( q )
=
( + i ). (3G8)
d q 3

If at least ( q ) and q of the above equation are complex, the strict inequality of
the earlier Eq.(3G1) is no longer valid. To show that terms containing ( q ) are
d ( q )
complex, we merely ask what happens if ( q ) and were real in
d
q
Eq.(3G8)? The answer is : The density of energy eigenvalue is real:

= 0.

This can be possible only when the Hamiltonian is Hermitian, which is

guaranteed only when the energy observable of the quantum objects moving
along the geodesics is measured by a device at a measurement event. ( Even
then the mandatory nonzero distance between the particle and device spoils the
real-valuedness of eigenenergy). Particles converging in trajectories to seek a
singularity under the spell of ultra-high gravity are not accessible to any energy
measuring device (which itself may be swept away by strong tidal forces in the
surround of a singular point). This ground reality of operational measurement
forces us to accept that the Hamiltonian is non-Hermitian, and eigenenergy
density is complex, i.e.

0.

(In fact even in the hypothetical case of a measurement (of energy) made
possible in foreseeable future by upgraded technology, we shall show later in Fig.
(13) of section
section [19] that the measured eigenvalue is always complex. The real
line is never available in quantum theory. The real line ------- we shall see later
while discussing strings in that section ------------ vibrates briskly to make room
for strings in ultra-high energy scenario). A look at Eq. (3G8) now convinces that
the first two terms of

d ( q ) 2 ( q )
+ + ( + i ) = 0. (3G9)
d q 3

are indeed complex. This nonlinear differential equation is known as Riccati

equation [265] . To linearize it we set [44]

3 df
( q ) = . (3G10)
f ( q ) d q
Consequently,

53
 2
d 3 d2 f 3 df
= 2 2 .
d q f d q f d q
And
2
1 2 3 df
( q ) = 2 .
3 f d q

Plugging these into Eq.(3G9) we obtain a simple equation:

d2 f 1
2 + ( + i ) f ( q ) = 0. (3G11)
d q 3

d
We define the operator := Dq . Eq.(3G11) now becomes
d q

2 1
Dq + 3 ( + i ) f ( q ) = 0. (3G12)

+ i
The characteristic roots are i . The solution is then
3

+ i + i
i q i q
f ( q ) = Ae 3
+ Be 3
. (3G13)

From Eq. (3G10), we obtain the expansion of congruence of geodesics:

3 df
( q ) = ,
f ( q ) d q

or, more explicitly in terms of proper time q , the expansion becomes a complex
quantity:

+ i AeiT Be iT
( q ) = 3i iT iT
(3G14)
3 Ae + Be

where T contains proper time q :

54
 + i
T =q . (3G15)
3

Since T is complex, it is hardly possible to send a complex expansion ( q )

toward a real negative infinite value. To put some life into the discussion of
focusing, we equate the arbitrary constants A = B , and simplify Eq.(3G14):

+ i
( q ) = 3i tanh(iT ) , (3G16)
3
where
+ i
T =q = ( R + i I )
3

is a complex number. Inserting T in Eq.(3G16), the expansion becomes

+ i
( q ) = 3i tanh( I + i R ). (3G17)
3

But we must recall that this complex-valued expansion exists only in weak gravity
when the energy scale (possibly standard model energy) corresponds to the
supersymmetry signature

( x )min. = ( i ) .

We shall derive below the three supersymmetry signatures that exist at three
different energy scales. When the above signature switches to planck energy
scale (where the process of convergence of family of geodesics is generally
expected to dominate), the transition

( x) min. = (i)
Supersymmetry
lp

occurs. Expansion parameter ( q ) in quantum gravity now becomes

+ l p
( q ) = 3l p tanh( I + l p R ). (3G18)
3

Unlike the previous expansion, this is real. Planck length l p 1033 cm . But ( q )
cannot ever be negative. But what happens beyond Planck scale epoch ---------
approaching the big bang? The situation is perhaps worse than anticipated. The

55
supersymmetry signature flips from a spatial dimension to a space-less pure
number 1:

( x) min. = l p 1033 cm
Supersymmetry
1.

At the point of breakdown of general relativity at this transplanckian scale, space

and time become meaningless concepts when they morph into pure numbers !
Proper time is stripped of seconds. Expansion becomes a dimensionless
number meaning nothing like convergence or divergence:

+ (1)
( q ) = 3(1) tanh( I + (1) R ) = 3( + ) tanh( R I ). (3G19)
3

The above study of probable fate of expansion in the context of quantum

gravity creates more confusion than a specific answer. But to some extent it
shows how many extra miles of involved calculation and physical insight are still
in store for us !
But we are still required to show that NEC or null energy condition for a
congruence of null geodesics fails in case of quantum theory of light ( i.e.
photons). To determine this in general relativity, one requires observers
comoving with the null geodesics. In Quantum language this amounts to
determining the density of rest mass-energy of photons. In Section [4] below we
have discussed the massiveness of massless particles, for example, photons.
We have already posted the rest mass of a photon in Eq. (3g ):

m ph = im.

Here m is real. We have ascertained that a spin-1 photon requires imaginary

part of its mass

m = 2mc = mF = (3G19A)
c

in section (19), where we have ventured into finding the internal structure of
elementary particles, such as electron, photon etc. The energy density of photon
then comes out as imaginary too:

Null = i . (3G20)

56
Here is real. Raychaudhuri equation for null geodesics is almost the same as
the timelike case [189] and we follow the same steps as in case of timelike
geodesics:

d (q ) 2 (q )
= i , (3G21)
d q 2

where q is the controversial quantum counterpart of affine parameter of

general relativity, = a + b , where a and b are constants. Since proper time for
null paths is always zero in classical general relativity ------------ photons never
grow old in their rest frames -------- this result is perhaps not true in quantum
gravity. Said oxymoronically, perhaps photons grow old in imaginary time, but
they never grow old in real-valued time. A photon at its rest frame is equivalent to
a non-relativistic particle of vanishing real momentum. But the (non-relativistic)
momentum of photon in the rest frame is

p ph = mass velocity = imc . (3G22)

Therefore,

Re( p ph ) = 0 ,

which is consistent with rest-frame physics. Since photon momentum is

imaginary in rest frame, it only indicates that it conceals some kind of motion.
We shall try to find out the correct nature of this motion in a while. The imaginary
rest-mass translates to an imaginary rest-energy

E0 = 0 = mc 2 = (im)c 2 = i (2mc )c 2 = i c 2 = ic , (3G23)
c

where we replaced m by 2mc from Eq.(3G19A). If we accept the formal

definition of frequency in real space-time as

0 = ,
t

we immediately run into difficulty because Eq.(3G23) then requires

0 = = ic,
t

57
which is not acceptable. We are then compelled to invoke existence of imaginary
frequency such as i0 for massless particles instead of a real 0 to recover rest
energy of a photon:

E0 = (i0 ) = ic, 0 = = c, = 0 = c. (3G24)
t t

The imaginary frequency then leads to imaginary quantum proper time q for
photons:

i0 = (i)(0 ) = (i) = = = , (3G25)
t (it ) (it ) q

where proper time of photon measured in its rest frame is imaginary:

q = (it ) . (3G26)

Since Re( q ) = 0 , there is no clash with general relativity. But what is the nature
of photon momentum in its rest frame? We know that in quantum mechanics
frequency equals particle speed, as is visible in Eq.(3G24): i0 = ic . Imaginary
momentum pi is then proportional to imaginary wave number i :

i ic
pi = i = i = 0 = = i, (3G26A)
c c c

i
and this momentum resembles the minimal momentum that generated
2
1
spin of a spin- particle. If we initially considered the most general photon mass
2

(im) = ( i 2mc )

we too could have gotten rest-frame momentum of photon pi = ( i ) . This

momentum is intrinsic angular momentum or spin of a photon. It is obtained from
the standard formula for angular momentum

Intrinsic angular momentum = (Intrinsic radius) (momentum) ,

58
which implies that if we introduce quaternion basis as {1, i, j, k} , then angular
momentum of photon orbiting along the circumference of a circle or great circle of
a sphere of (unobservable, or) intrinsic radius j is

L z = r pi = j ( i) = ( j i) = ( )( ji)sin( j , i)

L z = Sz = ( )(-k)sin = ( k) .
2

The imaginary momentum produces a spin angular momentum of photon. To

obtain photon rest energy of Eq.(3G23) from rotational energy (spinning energy) ,
we recall that this kinetic energy is equal to

E0 = K = I 02 = Ic 2 = ( Mr 2 )c 2 = [(i 2mc )( j) 2 ]c 2

= (i ) ( j2 )c 2 = (i)(c)(1) = ( ic ) ,
c

where we have assumed that r = j , and the moment of inertia of photon is

I = Mr 2 . This corresponds to rotation of a thin circular ring [306] (perhaps
created by two D0-branes, each of mass mc , rotating with maximal angular
speed 0 = c so as to mimic the shape of a circular ring) about an axis
perpendicular to the plane of the ring.
After this detour we go back to Eq.(3G21) with a slice of comfort that the
controversial quantum counterpart of affine parameter q is no longer
controversial, and we rewrite Eq. (3G21) replacing q by q . Now the quantum
version of Raychaudhuri equation for photons becomes

d ( q ) 2 ( q )
+ + i = 0. (3G27)
d q 2

This equation and the quantum-mechanical timelike equation Eq. (3G9) are quite
similar. So are the results. It is hard to find caustics, where the geodesics cross
each other. Of course this may not hint a singularity, but absence of any kind of
convergence among neighboring geodesics is certainly a disadvantage for fail-
safe proofs of singularity theorems. To import our result and find the
consequences in Planck scale physics, which is in the neighborhood of the region
of purported singularities, we understand that the spacetime interval or metric for

59
a null path in a sufficiently local region in ultra-small Planck scale distances must
be a special relativistic invariant space-time interval

ds 2 = dr 2 c 2 dt 2 , (3G27A)

which is just a distance squared.

As an aside, arbitrarily small differentials may not at all work in this territory due
existence of minimal distance and time. One requires to address the problem of
constructing planck differentials , if that is at all possible. Planck differentials are
meant for physical space-time-matter in contradistinction to what a differential in
mathemetical setting is formally defined. For instance, if y ( x ) is a function of an
independent variable x , then differential of y is defined as [371]

dy = y dx

where y is the first derivative with respect to x , and dx is the change in the
independent variable x . Generally, if x , and the whole real line is spanned
by x such that x sends y (also spanning the entire real line) from to , then
a change in y , denoted by dy may be obtained even in case the change dx is
arbitrarily close to zero, i.e. dx 0, when dx is not exactly zero.
But in case of planck differentials, with differentiation operating not on a space-
time continuum, but on a Planck space-time constrained by minimal spatial and
time changes, which cannot be arbitrary, the minimal distance is l p and minimal
time is t p . In case of any limit, the continuous approach of the independent
variable toward zero is stalled when it equals the minimal x permitted by Planck
physics. This limiting value of x restricts the value of the planck differential of
the function y ( x ) , which we would like to designate by d p y , where the subscript
p stands for planck, similar to the subscripts in planck units in {m p , l p , t p } . And a
planck derivative of any arbitrary function f ( x) in planck physics may be defined
from

df f ( x + x) f ( x) Planck Scale Physics f ( x + x) f ( x)

= f ( x) = lim
dx x 0 x x x = x p

df f ( x + x p ) f ( x)
and branded as planck derivative = ,
dx p x p

60
where x p = minimal magnitude of the variable x permitted in planck scale
physics. To find the second order planck derivative we recollect a symmetrized
definition [371]

d2 f f ( x + 2x) 2 f ( x + x) + f ( x)
= lim , whose
dx 2 x0 ( x) 2

planck version is

d 2 f f ( x + 2 x p ) 2 f ( x + x p ) + f ( x)
2 = . (3G277)
dx p x 2p

To have a feel of how smart the laws of nature in planck scale physics are, we try
to tease out acceleration of a particle in this regime moving with speed v that
varies with time. The function is evidently

x = f (t ) = v(t )t .

We assume time is discrete in this regime, and its forward or backward increment
is in steps of planck time t p : Any arbitrary time in this scale may be defined as

t = nt p , where n is a positive integer, n .

Then varying speed v(t ) may be written as

v(t ) = v (nt p ) ,

where the integer n is now a variable in place of t . The function

f (t ) = v(t )t = tv(t ) = (nt p )v(nt p ) .

The derivative

df df 1 df (t ) 1 d{(nt p )v(nt p )}
f (t ) = = = =
dt d (nt p ) t p dn t p dn

61
 tp d{nv(nt p )} d dn dv(nt p )
i.e., f (t ) =
tp
dn
= { nv ( nt p )} = v ( nt p )
dn
+ n
dn dn

dv(t ) dv(t )
or, f (t ) = v(t ) + n = v (t ) + nt
p = v(t ) + nt p a , (3G278)
dn d ( nt p )

where acceleration of the particle is

dv(t ) dv(t )
a= =
d (nt p ) dt
.

dx
We know that distance x = f (t ), v(t ) = = f (t ) .
dt

Making use of this result in the left side of Eq.(3G278), we find

v(t ) = v(t ) + nt p a, nt p a = 0, a = 0,

since n and t p are nonzero. The upshot : Acceleration of any arbitrary particle
in Planck scale is zero. This is consistent with our result (to be derived below)
that all massive particles travel with a constant speed c (speed of light or causal
connections) in Planck scale physics.
Note that standard differentiation in this particular discrete time variable t = nt p is
justified without utilizing planck derivative because there is minimal gap of 1 in
the discrete variable n , which is a positive integer ---------- not a continuous
variable. A more rigorous result may perhaps be obtained from Einar Hilles
theorem ( [372], [373] ) which states that for any > 0,

n t p f (t )
n

f (t + ) = lim n
(3G279)
t p 0 +
n =0 n ! (t p )

where t p is the n -th finite difference operator [373] with step size t p .
n

After this nontrivial detour, we get back to space-time interval in Eq.(3G27A).

2
Although ds is just distance squared, nevertheless we cannot write for the null

62
path ds = 0 , as one expects from special relativity. Nonzero minimal distance in
2

this scale is planck length l p , and the least approachable distance on either side
of ds is l p , and therefore, the minimal separation is 2l p . Eq.(3G27A) for null
path is now

ds 2 = dr 2 c 2 dt 2 = (2l p ) 2 = 4l p2 = , (3G27B)

which is a typical signal of violation of Local Lorentz Invariance (LLI) if the

nonzero value for null path is tested in an infinitesimally small region of space-
time. If tested positive, it would be a wake-up call to examine the basics of
general relativity. In a restricted sense, the non-invariance of space-time interval
in Eq.(3G27B) for a null path

ds 2 0 (3G27b)

signals a collapse of one of the key postulates of special relativity in this energy
scale. If the real line is never available for one-dimensional motion in
1

quantum theory, as observed in the following derivation of minimal separation

between two event points in the deleted neighborhood of origin in low-energy
quantum physics ( by which I mean sub-planck energy scale),
( x) min . = ( i ), x1 = ( +i ), x 2 = (i ),

then the minimal separation in one-dimensional motion in this energy domain is

d = ( x1 x2 ) = 2i, d 2 = (2i) 2 = (4).

In standard model physics, the minimal space-time interval for a null or lightlike
path is then

ds 2 = d 2 = (4). (3G27d)

The negative interval in this equation indicates that we are in trouble, because
photons seem to trespass into lightlike regions where they shouldnt be. This is
typical of all massless (?) particles, including neutrinos; this result certainly
suggests that photons and neutrinos are not strictly massless particles. Then
Lorentz violation may be held responsible for tiny mass of photon and especially
the ultra-small masses of three neutrino family members (which have been
detected in 1998 ( [381], [382] ) ).
In Eq. (3G27B) above, is slope parameter of string theory and perhaps may
be identified with minimal area in quantum gravity, because this particular one
quarter figures prominently in quantum entropy of a black hole -------- known as
Bekenstein-Hawking entropy [283]:

63
 A A
S BH = = ,
(4l p2 ) Amin .

where we set Boltzmann constant k B = 1.

In this energy scale proper time of photon is

4l p2
2
ds 2 lp
= 2
= 2
= 2i = 2i t p = 2it p ,
2
(3G27C)
c c c
44
where t p is planck time 10 s. As a result, even when null paths are
examined in a sufficiently small region in planck scale, quantum proper time of
photon q = 2it p is imaginary and not zero. This exactly nonzero proper
time of photon may signal another evidence for violation of Local Lorentz
Invariance (LLI) of a scalar quantity ( [374], [375] ). Of course, in Planck scale
physics, the supersymmetry change ( i ) l p may change = 2it p to an
irreducible real proper time, albeit with no hope for a singularity, because the
derivative in that equation changes to planck derivative

d ( q ) p
. (3G27D)
d q t p

When plugged into Eq.(3G27), integration is not possible without the existence of
a time differential. Therefore, fate of the solution of Eq.(3G27) in Planck scale
remains the same, or, is at best of very low visibility.
We defer the discussion about quantum Raychaudhuri equation for a moment
and take a closer look at the final result obtained from classical Raychaudhuri
equation [307] :

d 1 1
2

, + . (3G27E)
d 3 ( ) (0) 3

Therefore if the congruence was initially converging, i.e. at = 0, (0) < 0 , then

1
0_
( )
and
( ) ()

64
 3
within a finite proper time , (3G27F)
(0)

which states that in any classical spacetime with strong energy condition (SEC)

R U U 0, (3G27G)

a congruence of timelike converging geodesics will inevitably converge to a point,

called a caustic (where geodesics cross). Although this may not signal a
singularity, an infinitely sqeezed volume of congruence is required to establish
geodesic incompleteness, the hallmark of existence of a singularity.
3
But if = , then Eq.(3G27E) yields
(0)

1 1 1 3 1 1
( ) (0) + 3 (0) = + . (3G27H)
(0) (0)

Since initially (0) < 0, it means (0) > 0. Therefore

1 1
(0) + (0) = 0.

3
From Eq.(3G27H), we find that if = , then
(0)

1
0. (3G27J)
( )

1 1
CASE(1): If = 0, then ( ) = 0 , which is meaningless because zero
( )
has no inverse. (We have discussed about division by zero in a section earlier).

1
CASE(2) : If > 0, then ( ) > 0 .
( )

65
 3 1
Therefore if = , then
0 implies that either ( ) is physically

(0) ( )
and mathematically meaningless, or expansion ( ) is positive. In any case, if
the congruence was initially converging, ( ) does never tend to () , and
there is no possibility of convergence to a caustic. We leave out the remaining
possibilities in quest for a quantum-mechanical version of Raychaudhuri
equation. The expansion ( ) is defined as the fractional rate of change of the
cross-sectional volume V [307] of the congruence :

1 d
( ) = V . (3G27K)
V d

We consider a small volume V = ar , where a is a constant and r = r ( ) ,

3

which ensures that the volume changes with proper time . Plugging V into the
ansatz for ( ) in Eq.(3G27K), we obtain

1 d 3 1 2 dr 3 dr
( ) = 3
ar ( ) = 3 ( 3r ) = (3G27L)
ar d r d r d

We set the energy condition = R U U 0 , and Raychaudhuri equation,

d
2

= (3G27M)
d 3

is rewritten as:

3 dr 1 3 dr
2
d
=
r d 3 r d
d

3 d 2 r 3 dr 2 1 9 dr 2
or, =
r d r 2 d 3 r 2 d
2

3 d 2 r 3 dr 3 dr 2
2

= 2
r d 2 r 2 d r d

66
 3 d 2r
= ( ) (3G27N)
r d 2

where is a constant independent of . This equation is rewritten as

d 2r
2 + r = 0, (3G27P)
d 3

d 2r
where 2
may be regarded as relative acceleration once we assume r as
d
the characteristic separation between two extreme geodesics in the congruence
(see p.223 of [307]). To quantize Eq. (3G27P), note that we simplify definition of
acceleration a as being recorded in a very small locally Minkowski space

F 1 dp
a= = (3G27P1)
m m d

E
where F , p , and m = 2
have their usual special relativistic meaning.
c
Eq.(3G27P) may now be read as

a + r = 0. (3G27Q)
3

We recall that the operator corresponding to radial momentum is [39]

1
pr := i + (3G27R)
r r

In infinitesimally small local region, we quantize Eq.(3G27P1):

1 dp 1 1
acl . =
a := i + .
m d m r r Quantum

Substituting this operator for a in Eq. (3G27Q), we obtain quantum-mechanical

Raychaudhuri equation:

67
 i 1
+ ( r , ) + r ( r , ) = 0. (3G27S)
m r r 3

Here ( r , ) represents wave function of the congruence of timelike geodesics

in small volume V . Although r := r ( ) in general relativity, in quantum theory
dr
the classical momentum mv = m = p has been represented by the operator
d

1
p := i + , (3G27s1)
r r
and note that the classical temporal variable has no trace in the quantum
domain. Instead it has been replaced by the spatial observable r which is no
longer a function of in quantum domain. The temporal dependence of r is just
deleted in quantum theory.We can find it transparently in

dr p 1 1
= i + (3G27T)
d cl m cl . m r r Quantum

Similar things happen with classical energy. Total classical energy

2
1 dr
Ecl . = m + V (r ) , which contains a space-dependence in the potential is
2 dt
totally replaced by temporal dependence through the energy operator

E := i in quantum theory. However, a compatibility of correspondence
t
may be gleaned by recalling that quantum-mechanical energy is

E = =
t

and this is represented by an operator that also has time-dependence:

E := i .
t

68
Similarly, while quantum momentum is related as

p = = ,
r

it is obtained by utilizing the observable that also contains only r:

1
p := i + .
r r

Dynamical variables of classical physics are not carried over in their pristine
forms in quantum theory. This is evinced from the fact that while the classical
d2
equation Eq.(3G27P) simply contains the operator 2
, the quantum-
d
1
mechanical equation Eq.(3G27S) contains both r and : + .
r r
We go back to Eq.(3G27S) and insert the the ansatz

(r , ) = 1 (r ) 2 ( )

where in general both 1 ( r ) and 2 ( ) are complex. Rearranging the terms, we

obtain

1 i m
1 (r ) 2 ( ) + 1 (r ) 2 ( ) = r 1 (r ) 2 ( )
r r 3

1 d 2 d 2 d 1 i m
1 (r ) + = r 1 (r ) 2 ( )
r d d dr 3

Dividing both sides by 1 ( r ) 2 ( ) , we arrive at

1 1 d 2 1 d 2 1 d 1 i m
+ = r.
r 2 d 2 d 1 dr 3

Multiplying by r throughout, the equation becomes factorizable:

1 d 2 r d 1 i m 2
1 + = r ,

2 d 1 dr 3

69
i.e. in separable form

i m 2
r
1 d 2 3
= = Constant independent of r and = b . (Ga)

2 d
1+ r d
1
1 dr

00
We shall later find that b cannot be real. The second equation is rewritten as

i m 2 r d 1
r = b 1 + .
3 1 dr

1
Multiply both sides by and recall that this division is possible because r is
r
always nonzero, for if r = 0, the uncertainty r = 0, and this violates position-
momentum uncertainty relation. The division yields

d 1 1 i m
+ = r 1 . (Gb)
dr r 3b

Since 1 is complex, we prepare the following ansatz remembering Borns rule:

1 (r ) = P1 (r )ei ( r ) ,
1

and plug into Eq.(Gb) to find

d 1 1 dP1 d1
=1 + i .
dr 2 P1 dr dr

d
As usual, we set wave number = 1 . Eq.(Gb) is now
dr

1 dP1 1 i m
1 + i + = r 1
2 P1 dr r 3b

70
 1 dP1 1 i m
+ i + = r (Gc)
2 P1 dr r 3b

Equating real and imaginary parts of both sides two equations emerge:

1 dP1 1
+ = 0, (Gd)
2 P1 dr r

and
m
+ r = 0 (Ge)
3b

We solve Eq.(Gd) to find radial probability density

A
P1 (r ) = , (Gf)
r2

where A is a real positive constant, and as it has been stressed quite often r 0
so as to prevent blowing up of probability. Removal of this point r = 0 from
quantum space ensures that the bundle of geodesics of volume

V = ar 3
never shrinks to a point of zero volume.
Eq.(Ge) yields radial momentum of geodesic bundle along a cross-section of V
normal to their geodesic motion:

m
p ( r ) = ( r ) = r.
3b

The momentum is radially inward. From Eq.(Ga), we solve the equation

d 2
= b 2
d

By setting the complex 2 ( ) = P2 ( )ei2 ( ) we find

1 dP2
+ i ( ) = b. (Gh)
2 P2 d

71
 d2
Here we have, as usual, set frequency = . If b is real, then
d
dP2
= 0, P2 ( ) = Constant.
d

We shall prove later (in Eq.(3s) in section [4] and also in Eq.(16II) in section [16] )
that if P2 ( ) = Constant , then conservation of probability forces us to accept a
complex b = b1 + ib2 , with b1 and b2 real. From Eq.(Gh), replacing b by
(b1 + ib2 ) , we obtain the following:

= (b2 ) (Gi)
and,
1 dP2 2 b1
= b1 , P2 ( ) = De (Gj)
2 P2 d

where D is a positive constant. We divide Eq.(Gb) by 1 :

1 d 1 1 m 1 m 2
= i r = 1 + i r . (Gjk)
1 dr r 3b r 3b

Introducing a complex b (b1 + ib2 ) in this equation, we explore the final form of
quantum expansion Q by quantizing Eq.(3G27L):

3 dr
[ ( )]cl . = ,
d cl .
r
and find another form of quantum Raychaudhuri equation

3 i 1
Q (r , ) = + (r , ) (Gk)
r m r r

which takes into account Eq.(3G27T) describing the transformation

dr p 1 1
= i + . (Gl)
d cl m cl . m r r Quantum

72
As stated earlier, the wave function of the congruence ( r , ) = 1 (r ) 2 ( ) ,
where in general both 1 ( r ) and 2 ( ) are complex quantities. Eq.(Gk) is
rewritten as

3i 1 1 d 1
Q 1 2 = 2 + 2 ( ) . (Gm)
m r r dr

Dividing by 1 2 throughout, the equation becomes

3i 1 1 1 d 1
Q = 2 + .
m r r 1 dr
Make use of Eq. (Gjk) to arrive at

3i 1 1 1 2 m
Q = 2 + 1 + ir
m r r r 3b

i.e.

3i 1 1 2 m 3i i m
Q = 2 1 + ir = = .
m r r 3b m 3b b

(in quantum theory) coming from classical energy

Since b = (b1 + ib2 ) , and
condition = R U U 0 is rarely real. in quantum theory is generally

complex. These considerations turn expansion

(1 + i 2 )
Q = (Gn)
(b1 + ib2 )

Into a complex constant. It cannot have a real value predicting an inevitable

convergence of the congruence of geodesics hitting a caustic. When the energy
scale is super-high such as planck energy, the supersymmetry signature exits
from ( x ) min. = ( i ) to ( x) min. = l p , and consequently expansion parameter
becomes a finite negative quantity

(1 + l p 2 )
Q = . (Gp)
(b1 + l p b2 )

73
In case we try to make Q as large a negative number as possible, we may set
b1 = 0, with l p = 1.616 1033 to obtain an expansion

(1 + l p 2 ) 1 2
Q = = (6.1 10 ) +
32
(Gq)
l p b2 b2 b2

which may at most hike quantum-mechanical expansion to a finitely large

negative quantity, not to infinite rate of contraction of the elemental volume
carrying the geodesics. Moreover, a strange thing occurs in the quantum regime;
the expansion is a constant independent of proper time . Effectively, negative
expansion or convergence stops with proper time. This quantum effect does not
signal an inescapable geodesic incompleteness.
In transplanckian epoch in the neighborhood of big bang, the supersymmetry
phase transition occurs from ( x) min . = l p to a mere number ( x ) min . = 1, and the
entire term for

(1 + 2
Q = (Gr)
(b1 + b2 )

is just a pure number stripped of any physical feature or concept of negative

expansion or convergence.
The main ingredient of singularity theorems is thus rendered toothless. Without
such powerful resource from quantum Raychaudhuri equation, singularity
theorems may find it hard to ensure geodesic incompleteness in quantum
gravity.

Apart from this, there remain a few questions to be answered yet:

1 Almost all singularity theorems requiring non-spacelike geodesic

incompleteness ( [267], [268], [263] ) need at least one of the energy conditions
mentioned above. Since rest-mass/ rest-energy density of all objects traveling
along null or timelike geodesics are complex-valued, the question of their non-
negativity or positivity is irrelevant, because unlike real numbers, complex
numbers are not blessed with an ordered field. Partial ordering of complex
numbers is of no use either. They cannot afford to satisfy strict inequalities (for
required energy conditions) of the following form for non-spacelike geodesics (if
available) in quantum gravity

R U U = + i > 0.

74
 2 Gravitational spacetime of general relativity is compatible with geodesics (
implying trajectories of freely falling particles) as the straightest possible distance
in curved geometry. This geometry is called a Lorentzian manifold (M, g), where
the Lorentzian metric g replaces the Minkowski metric . But Lorentzian metric is
locally Minkowskian, albeit not globally. While the line element ds 2 in general
relativity is a tensor ( and not a differential squared) defined in Lorentzian
manifold as

ds 2 = g dx dx (3G28)

in which dx , dx are basis one-forms or dual vectors (but not differentials), we

should recall that the above line element locally becomes the following special
relativistic line element:containing differentials:

ds 2 = dx dx (3G29)

to preserve Local Lorentz Invariance (LLI). This local Lorentz symmetry is

violated in quantum theory when we realize that the null or timelike space-time
interval is actually squared difference between two position observables dr and
cdt

ds 2 = dx 2 + dy 2 + dz 2 c 2 dt 2 = dr 2 c 2 dt 2 . (3G30)

In classical physics the positions dr and cdt may be measured precisely. But in
quantum mechanics, these position outcomes in a measurement entail
irreducible uncertainties ------------ as we have proved in Section [2]. Generically,
both dr and dt are complex in quantum mechanics ([36], [37]). This destroys the
real values of ds 2 and instead produces complex numbers. As a result, null,
spacelike and timelike intervals become meaningless due to our inability to
compare complex numbers with real numbers:

dsc2 = drc2 cdtc2 , > , < 0. (3G31)

Consequently, meaninglessness of any kind of local geodesics in the local

Minkowskian space cannot perhaps guarantee geodesic completeness, or
geodesic incompleteness in a Lorentzian manifold. And null or timelike geodesic
incompleteness is generally accepted as sufficient condition of space-time
singularity. In the absence of local geodesics, the notion of incompleteness
probably remains incomplete in the smallest possible patches of local space that
are sewn together to form the Lorentzian manifold (M,g g).

75
 3 At the local Minkowski space, infinitesimal coordinate displacements dx
between neighboring geodesics cannot be arbitrarily small once the congruence
enters the ultra-high planck scale domain (approaching toward central or initial
singularity) equipped with a minimal distance ( namely planck length l p 1033 cm )
of separation between two observers or devices along the geodesics.

4 Sean Carroll (see p. 242 of [189]) describes a trapped surface as a 2D

submanifold which is compact. It has the peculiar property that outgoing future-
directed light rays converge in both directions everywhere in the submanifold.
This effect traps all the light rays inside the surface. But convergence of outgoing
photons need negative values of expansion ( q ) on both sides of the emitter
placed on a small sphere in the submanifold. As we have seen before, ( q )
always turns out as a complex number. Negativity of ( q ) is hardly possible.

5 It has been stated in the proof of singularity theorems [304] that generalized
affine parameters live in the interval [0, ) . But if = 0, the affine parameter
defined as ( a + b) in affine geometry [212] ( where a is an invertible map
and b is constant ) undergoes a change: = 0, (a + b) = a (0) + b = b. Since
we shall prove below in section [4] that all massless particles have imaginary rest
mass ( im) , their proper time is not strictly zero.
Therefore inclusion of = 0 in the interval [0, ) is a pathological choice.
The discussion about possible existence of singularity in quantum-mechanical
description of the underpinnings of singularity theorems perhaps opens up new
questions about inevitability of a singularity in a quantum setting of general
relativity.

6 We refer to the impeccably singular singularity theorem of Hawking and

Penrose (see Theorem 5.6 in [304]) that states:

If the chronology, generic and strong energy conditions hold, and there
exists at least one of the following:

(i) a compact achronal set without edge,

(ii) a closed trapped surface S ,
(iii) a point p such that the null geodesic families emanating from
p reconverge,
then the spacetime is causal geodesically incomplete.

At the end of the proof we find Finally if p exists, Proposition 4.2 applies, and
either { p} is a trapped set or (V4 , g ) is null geodesically incomplete.

76
Since p is an event point of a geodesic, we proceed to examine if p really exists
in quantum theory, and if a trapped set { p} is at all possible to construct in
quantum theory of gravity.
A profound consequence of Heisenbergs uncertainty relation in the realm of
special relativity is that distances such as ( dx + cdt ) = ds1 , and (dx cdt ) = ds2
cannot be measured with arbitrary precision. There remains always an irreducible
uncertainty in the measurement that is unique to only quantum theory. The null
interval for light, for instance is described in special relativity by

ds 2 = dx 2 c 2 dt 2 = (dx + cdt )(dx cdt ) = ds1ds2 = 0,

where
ds1 = ( dx + cdt )
and
ds2 = ( dx cdt ) .

These distances may be rewritten as

ds1 = ( dx + cdt ) = ( dx + dX )
and
ds2 = ( dx cdt ) = ( dx dX ) ,

where we introduced another variable X = ct , dX = (cdt ) = d (ct ), with the

obvious consequence that in quantum theory the null interval

ds 2 = dx 2 c 2 dt 2 = 0

has to be quantized :

ds 2 = ds1ds2 = ( dx + dX )( dx dX ) = 0.

The last operator equation may be solved for quantum null path by observing that
ds2 = 0,
has solutions

dx = dX . (3G31a)

This strongly points toward equivalence between the position operators x and
X . The symmetry evinced in Eq. (3G31a) immediately places the operators x
and X on the same footing. Since the operator X contains a constant c , we
cannot ignore the possibility of time t as an observable in quantum mechanics:

77
 X = ct . (3G32)

We shall examine the no-go theorem for time as an operator in quantum

mechanics due to Pauli in section [9A]. The relevance and necessity of Stone-
von Neumann Uniqueness theorem in establishing equivalence of Heisenbergs
matrix mechanics and Schroedingers wave mechanics ( and a probable failsafe
route to form a position-momentum uncertainty relation ) will also examined in
section [9A].
Since both X and x measure positions, the nonzero standard deviations
X 0 , and x 0 are prerequisites to respect Heisenberg Uncertainty
relation. Since the positions X = ct = 0, and x = 0 have zero uncertainties such
as X = 0 , and x = 0 , these two positions have no place in any quantum
theory. Therefore the event point p ( x = 0, t = 0) , i.e. the vertex of a double light
cone is excised from quantum space-time. The past and future light cones are
disjoint in quantum theory with a conspicuous difference (from special relativity
and general relativity) that the ( x, ct ) -plane is torn at the event point p at origin
(0,0) . A missing origin in complex quantum space-time thus quietly erases the
now-here or present space-time location from the fabric of real Minkowski
space. Timelike future and timelike past regions are thus disjoint sets with the null
set {} wedged between the two cones. The lesson is :
(3G32a)

Quantum space-time does not generically contain the now
now--here
here or, event-
points or end-points p .

Since in the congruence of geodesics, each co-moving observer clocks the

proper time , the now-heres are elements of the set of event points { p} .
Since any event point p is neatly removed in quantum space-time, the condition
(iii) of this singularity theorem stating that null geodesic families emanating from
p runs into difficulty due to questionable physical existence of the set of
endpoints { p, q,...} .

7 We do not discuss Raychaudhuri equation for congruence of null geodesics

because null paths are not allowed in any quantum theory. We have proved that
no curves can converge to an event p because the vertices of all light cones are
missing in quantum theory. Null geodesics do not exist because we have shown
in section [4] that massless particles such as photons have imaginary mass.
Photons also live in nonzero (imaginary) proper time which clashes with the
proverbial statement that photons do not grow old. If photons also satisfy a null
interval in quantum theory, ds = 0, (as light does in classical special relativity),
2

78
then they must respect the formula x = ( ct ). Since magnitudes of x are
precise, with zero uncertainty x = 0 , Heisenberg uncertainty relation blocks use
of null geodesics in quantum theory.

To summarize, given the results harvested from quantum Raychaudhuri

equation, and missing event points p , proofs of singularity theorems are now
most likely to face more hurdles in a setting of quantum gravity.

[3B] Fundamental Mass Constant

We are still not sure of how standard model particles obtained their mass, given
the recent report from CERN [208] that a Higgs boson-like particle has been
discovered, but its properties are yet to be matched uniquely to identify the
predicted Higgs boson. A section of physicists have always thought that a
fundamental mass constant could be immensely useful ( [282], [287] ). We derive
such a fundamental mass constant here with a short detour to Lorentz invariance
violation.
The number of eigenmomenta in Eq.(3g) of Section [3] are two. It is quite
reasonable to expect that these eigenvalues are equiprobable. Then the
2
expectation values of pmin. and pmin. are

2 i
2
pmin = and pmin = 0 pmin = . (3h*)
4 2

From Eq. (3h*) and Eq.(3g) we find

i
pmin = pmin = . (3h)
2

This equation is analogous to Eq.(3c). Notice the product of minimal

uncertainties

(x) min (pmin ) = . (3i)
2

From (3c) and (3h), aided by (3i), we form the product

79
 i x
( xpmin ) = = ( ix) = ( ix)( x ) min ( pmin ) .
2 2

Canceling pmin from the first and the last products, one arrives at

x = (ix)(x) min . (3j)

But Eq.(3c) says x = x . Therefore, Eq (3j) reads

(x) min = ( i ) . (3k)

We take the minimal value of both sides of Eq (3c):

(x ) min = ( x ) min . (3l)

Combining (3k) and (3l) we finally conclude that the minimal distance in low
energy physics is

( x) min = (i ). (3m)

This result constitutes one of the signatures of supersymmetry at low energy

regime [12A].
The result from Heisenberg uncertainty relation that particle position cannot be
exactly measured seems to clash with the formula derived in Eq.(68), page (26)
of [36]:

P( s) = e s (3 m )

where, the probability density for detecting a particle is measured in terms of the
separating distance s between the particle and the measuring device particle.
Uncertainty relation demands that s 0 s 0. Therefore, probability density
is never equal to 1 when the particle happens to be detected at the measurement
point in the device ! The problem is resolved once we realize that the uncertainty
in position does not lie along the real number axis. The uncertainty arises
because eigenposition of a particle is always a complex number with its
imaginary part orthogonal to the real axis. The imaginary part consists of the
uncertainty in position because this imaginary part cannot be measured by a
device placed in real space-time. When the particle reaches the device, the

80
minimal uncertainty (in low-energy scale) is i , but the minimal distance s
along the real axis is zero. This ensures that P(s = 0) = 1 at a measurement event
in real space-time. A whole particle is ensured to be detected in a measuring
device.
Another signature of supersymmetry is revealed at planck scale energy. This
signature wipes out the low-energy minimal distance of Eq (3m) and imposes the
minimal distance

G
( x )min = 3
= l p = 1.616 1033 cm (3n)
c

at planck scale physics. We shall prove this below. Before leaving this issue of
minimal distance, we take a close look at the quantum-mechanical energy -
momentum relation Eq (3e). We find here that a Lorentz scalar, rest mass of a
particle depends on reduced planck constant which is entirely unwelcome in a
classical theory like special relativity. This is particularly explicit in Eq (3f). We
obtain a quadratic equation to find quantum rest mass mQ from quantum rest-
energy E0 :

8mQ2 c 2 8mQ E0 2 = 0.
The solutions are

1
mQ = 2 E0 E02 + 2mc2 c 4 ,
2c

where mc = is a fundamental mass constant, because it contains only the
2c
natural constants (reduced Planck`s constant) and c (speed of light in
vacuum). If these quantities are measured anywhere in the universe (i.e. in
nature), they give the same results.

The inadmissible root is easily identified when we use Bohr`s correspondence

2c 2
principle. Setting the quantum term 2mc2 c 4 = to zero we obtain special
2
relativistic rest-mass from the above equation

E E
m= 0 2 0 ,
2c

which requests to reject the negative sign to retrieve classical rest mass :

E0 = mc 2 .

81
The quantum rest-mass is then

1 2c 2
mQ = 2 E0 + E0 + . (3nn3)
2c 2

Lorentz symmetry has been retained intact in almost all quantum field theories.
But rest-mass of a particle, a Lorentz scalar should remain Lorentz-invariant in
quantum theory. But Eq.(3nn3) refuses to equate quantum rest mass with
special-relativistic rest-mass

mQ m .

This constitutes a vilation of Lorentz invariance. Several theories of quantum

gravity also require violation of Lorentz invariance, such as string theory. Several
authors have studied the possible hiding places from where it can emerge ( [269],
[270], [271] ).

What is more baffling from Eq (3f) is that a particle with zero (quantum) energy
may still manage to have a real mass mR :

2 mc
mR c 2 = mR c = pR = , mR = = ,
8mR 2 2 2 2c 2

where pR is real momentum of the energy-free particle. This particular mass mc

= {see Eq(57A) in page 26 of [37]} as well as mR = are both
2c 2 2c
fundamental constants of mass built up of natural constants and c . Both mR
and mc cannot be lowered further in magnitude because the denominator can be
increased only at an increased risk of accepting a speed greater than speed of
causal connection c . Which means violating causal connections. It is important
to note that speed of light need not be the causal speed c . If any particle, that
respects causality, is experimentally observed someday to move with a speed
greater than speed of light, that new superluminal speed will always be equal to,
or less than the speed of causal connection c . Since

> mc = > mR = >0
2c 2 2c ,

mR = = 1.243872926 1038 g = 6.977616135 106 eV / c 2 (3n1)
2 2c

82
or, maybe

mc = = 1.758836318 1038 g = 9.866349215 106 eV
2c (3n2)

is perhaps the mass gap > 0 envisaged in quantum Yang-Mills theory [30 A1 ].
The particle of mass mR or, mc is likely to be the imaginary part of mass (in low
energy regime) of the Lightest Supersymmetric Particle (LSP). This particle lives
in imaginary time (as we shall later ) in low energy phenomena. We have proved
above that mR or mc = cannot be lowered further, since speed of causal
connections c is the maximal speed possible in a physical world respecting
causality. This ensures that there cannot be any eigenvalue of mass operator in

the interval (0, mR ) [or, (0, mc ) ]. Twice this mass, i.e. 2mR = (or, perhaps
2c

mF = 2mc = ) may turn out to be the mass of a glueball, a composite particle
c
consisting of gluons only. We shall later prove that all arbitrarily massive particles
morph into this lightest supersymmetric particle of mass mc (or, mR ). Most
important is of course the finding in Eq.(62MD) of section [10] that the quantum
vacuum energy in standard model regime is equal to

c
Ec = i (mc c 2 ) = i c 2 = i . (3n3)
2c 2

The modulus of this vacuum energy is

2 c2 c
Ec = Ec E = i
*
c
2
= = mc c .
2

4 2

The mss gap is then

Ec
= 2
= mc = . (3n4)
c 2c

83
[4] Massivity
Massivity of Massless Particles and Planck Scale Physics

With reference to classical Yang-Mills field [330], we now prove that any quantum
particle (including photon) cannot have a mass exactly zero in both its real and
imaginary parts. Massless particles are actually particles with imaginary rest
mass. This deletes the possibility of uncomfortable singularity in the propagator
1
2 of massless particles ( m = 0 ) when momentum tends to zero. Note that
m
any equation of classical physics may be quantized provided the appropriate
operators corresponding to classical observables may be constructed. For
example, we quantize two classical equations containing constant momentum
and energy in nonrelativistic quantum mechanics :

p = mv (3 o1 )

and E = E0 . (3o2 )

Without using our ansatz of wave function prepared from Borns rule, we follow
standard textbook procedure. We first quantize Eq. (3o1 ) :

p = mvI ,

where I is identity operator. The wave function may derived from the explicit
form of the above equation

i ( x, t ) = mv ,
x

where ( x, t ) = 1 ( x) 2 (t ) is assumed, as is usual. This turns out, after a little

simplification,

d 1 imv imvx

= dx, 1 ( x) = 1 (0)e . (3o3 )

1

Quantizing Eq. (3o2 ) in a similar way, we find

( iE0t )
d 2 d 2 (iE0 )
i 1 = E0 1 2 , = dt , 2 (t ) = 2 (0)e . (3o4 )
dt 2

84
Now we introduce de Broglie and Einstein relations

p = mv = ,

E = E0 =

in Eqs. (3o3 ) and (3o4 ) to arrive at the standard free particle wave function in
stationary state

( x, t ) = (0, 0)ei x it . (3o4 )

Similarly, rest energy of a classical particle, E = mc 2 ,when quantized, yields

( x, t )
i = mc 2 ( x, t ) . (3p)
t

We assume separation of variables and use Borns rule, now experimentally

confirmed [30B], to form the following ansatz for ( any) wave function

( x, t ) = 1 ( x) 2 (t ) = P1 ( x)ei ( x ) P2 (t )ei ( t ) = P1 P2 ei ( x ) +i (t )
1 2 1 2
(3q)

where P1 P2 = P1 ( x) P2 (t ) = P( x, t ) is the probability density in the neighborhood of

space and time coordinates x and t .
Given masslessness, the rest mass m = 0. Inserting this and the ansatz (3q) in
Eq.(3p), we pull out the spatial part of wave function and finally find

1 dP2 d
i P1 P2 ei1 +i2 +i 2 = 0 (3r)
2 P2 dt dt

dP2
Comparing imaginary parts of both sides, one finds = 0, P2 (t ) = , an
dt
arbitrary real constant. The total probability for detecting the particle is obtained
through normalization:
P1 ( x) P2 (t )dx = 1, P2 (t ) P1 ( x)dx = 1,
a .a . s a.a.s

1
= . (3s)

a .a . s
P1 ( x)dx

85
where the limit a.a.s implies integration over all available space. Since
P1 ( x)dx is a definite integral having a definite value, it is not an arbitrary
a.a.s

number. But Eq.(3s) tells that an arbitrary constant is equal to a non-arbitrary

definite number. This is not possible. This contradiction is resolved once we
remove the assumption that rest mass is real. If we set only the real part of mass
dP
as zero, and the imaginary part as m , 2 becomes non-zero. Eq.(3r) then
dt
becomes
1 dP2
i ( ) = imc
2
(3t)
2
2 P dt

d2 d
where frequency is defined [30C] as = 2 = . The real parts of of
dt dt
both sides of Eq.(3t) yield the real part of complex eigenenergy:

E = Re( Ec ) = = 0.

The imaginary parts yield

i dP2 2mc 2t
= imc 2 ln P2 (t ) = + Real constant.
2 P2 dt
/
2 c2tm

i.e. P2 (t ) = P2 (0)e
.

The wave function of the particle is then

c 2tm
( x, t ) = 1 ( x) 2 (t ) = 1 ( x) P2 (0)e
ei2 ( t )
(3tt)

The energy eigenvalue of the particle is

H E i d
= = = imc 2 2 = imc 2 , (3tt1)
t dt

since = 0 . All massless particles thus have imaginary mass. This impels us to
revise our notion of mass in quantum theory. Mass m in Eq.(3p) is in general a
complex number:

m m + im . (3tt 2)

86
By a mass gap > 0 , it is implied that there are no massless particles carrying
gauge-symmetry charge in the S-matrix. The propagator of a free particle of
1
mass m in the limit of zero momentum is a finite constant proportional to 2 . In
m
case of massless particles, the propagator becomes singular when momentum
tends to zero. But if massless particles really have imaginary mass, as we have
1 1
proved, the propagator constant becomes 2 = 2 , i.e. non-singular, and
m m
the problem is resolved. This also proves that both real and imaginary parts of
particle mass cannot be zero. The upshot of this is that truly massless particles
like photons, gravitons etc. are not allowed in quantum theory.
Note that a photon can only acquire a non-zero mass -------- even imaginary
mass -------- if Lorentz invariance is broken. We shall discuss violation of Lorentz
invariance in Section [9] below.
If supersymmetry signature ( x) min. = (i ) 1 prevails, then the imaginary mass of
massless particles undergoes the transition

m Supersymmetry mc
(imc ) = (i )mc = c = mc . (3t*)
(i ) 1

This gives us enough space to investigate massivity of massless particles, like

photon mass, or the now-discovered neutrino mass [30 A2 ]. It is plausible that m
is either equal to

mc = , (3t#)
2c
or the lower mass

mR = . (3tT)
2 2c

There are a few observational supports for this conclusion. Schaefer [30 A3 ], for
instance, had reported three Gamma Ray Bursts (GRB) among others, that lead
to photon masses very close to the values of mc or, mR :

(1) GRB 910607 1.7 1038 g

(2) GRB 910625 1.3 1038 g
(3) GRB 930131 7.4 1038 g ,

while the fundamental masses are mc 1.75 10 38 g , and mR 1.24 10 38 g .

Neutrino mass have been calculated by Sivaram [30 A4 ] from a formula, and
found its mass 1.2 1037 g . This is just one order of magnitude higher than mc or
mR . According to Liddle [30 A5 ] , the masses of all three neutrino species are less

87
than 5 10 4 eV . This also supports mc or mR as candidate for neutrino mass
because

mc 9.866349215 10 6 eV 10 5 eV (3tt3)

mR 6.976562437 10 6 eV 10 5 eV , (3tt4)

are both less than 10 4 eV . In fact in section [19],

[19] we shall understand that mc is
the building block of spin angular momentum of massless particles. All massless
particles have masses which are multiples of the building block mass (imc ) at
low energy scale. But at higher energy regime, for instance during the
supersymmetry transitions in cosmological time scale, for instance from
( x)min . = (i ) (l p ) (1) , massless particles can acquire real masses which
are expected to be multiples of mass constant mc . This non-unitary theory
1
predicts that a spin-massless lepton, such as the three neutrinos have a real
2
mass equal to mc during the phase transition belonging to ( x ) min . = (1) . Similarly,
massless spin-1 particles in low energy regime (when they actually have
imaginary masses), such as photons and gluons may acquire mass equal to 2mc
3
. If any massless spin- particle exists, then it may acquire a mass 3mc during
2
phase, or supersymmetry transitions of real signature. A massless spin-2 graviton
is expected to have a mass equal to 4mc during the regime of supersymmetry
signature ( x ) min . = (1) .

We now remove a confusion regarding the dimensions of mR , or, mc = . One
2c
startling facet of quantum mechanics (even in non-relativistic case) seems to
point to non-dimensionalization ( or dedimensionalization) of space ! In Eq. (69)
of page (27) in [36], I obtained the complex eigenvalue of energy of a free particle
in low energy regime as

1 1
Ec = E + iE = + iR = + iv
2 2 (3t1)

where we proved that R = v , (i.e. particle speed) after normalizing the wave
function in page (9) of [36]. For a more rigorous proof of R = v , compatible with
the result x 0 (found from Heisenberg uncertainty relation), see the
normalization procedure yielding this result in Eq.(40a) below. Since the
imaginary part of energy Ec may be written as , we rewrite the above
equation as

88
 v
Ec = E + iE = + i = + i (3r)
2

Comparison of imaginary parts of the last two equations in (3r) yields an

important result
1
= v . (3R)
2

Dimension of both sides this relation now requires

s 1 = cm.s 1 , or 1cm = 1 ,
(3RR)

which leaves us breathless! Space melts into pure numbers ! In fact, one shall
often find below numerous cases of swapping frequency for speed. For instance,
quantum vacuum energy has been derived below as

1 1
Evac = vac = ic vac = ic. (3s1)
2 2

But a closer look at it may reveal something more weird. We realize that
frequency defined as

vac = = vac
t t (3ss)

need not scare us. But the dimensional comparison of both sides of Eq. (3s1)
yields something really uncomfortable:

s 1 = icm.s 1 icm. = 1 2icm. = 2 .

It seems to imply that a length equal to 2 centimeters measured along an

imaginary axis just amounts to a pure number 2 ! Or, in other words,

2i = 2cm1 i = 1cm 1 (3s$)

i.e. an imaginary number unit is equivalent to inverse length ! This may be an

indicator of the nature of extra imaginary dimensions. The imaginary position
coordinate, for instance ix in an imaginary dimension may turn out to be a pure
number:

ixcm i ( xcm) (icm1 )( xcm) = ix. a dimensionless number. (3sE)

89
It is also plausible that position of a particle in extra imaginary direction is
measured in inverse length cm 1 , just as position in real space dimension is
measured in cm . One extra dimension is inverse of another regular dimension !
A handy example is from T-duality of string theory [89]. A massless string state
of string length R * ------- which is called self-dual radius --------- satisfies a
stringy property called T-duality, in which

1 R*
= ,
R* (3sF)

where is the universal Regge slope. Here, one spatial dimension is inverse of
an extra spatial dimension. It poses no problem in quantum mechanics because
dimensionally it is easy to realize that

1
[(cm)] = [ ] [(cm) ] = 1 = (1cm) ,
2 2

(cm)

because of Eq. (3RR).

Another example from quantum mechanics may explicitly help in understanding
this. The eigenvalue of momentum for a relativistic particle with wave function
(see Eq.(50) in page 24 of [37])

1
( x vt ) + i x it
( x, t ) = e 2
, for x > vt , (3sI)
is

p i 1
p= = = + i = + i .
x 2 2 (3sJ)

This implies a complex wave number:

1
c = + i (3sG)
2

2 1 1
Obviously, dimensions of = and i should be same. In this case, if
2 2
is magnitude of wave vector, then c is just a complex magnitude of wave vector
1
with dimension cm 1 . But, if happens to be a pure number, then imaginary
2
unit i must have the dimension (cm1 ) to get along smoothly with dimension of
wave vector .

90
All these perhaps tend to indicate that there is a subtle difference between
ordinary 3D physical space and extra-dimensional abstract mathematical space.
We now go back to discussing dimensional anomaly of fundamental mass

constant mc = .
2c

We have shown (in page 7 of [36]) that minimum momentum of a particle with
real part of energy zero, immersed in quantum vacuum is

(mv) min in [quantum mechanics] = in [quantum vacuum]
2

We compare the dimensions of both sides:

g .cm.s 1 = erg .s 1cm = 1cm 2 1cm = 1. (3s#)

In quantum gravity of vacuum, spatial dimension melts into a pure number.

Space is dedimensionalized and consequently loses its usual meaning ! The
dimension of fundamental mass constant

[ mc ] = [ ] = [erg .s. / cm.s 1 ] = [ g .cm] = [ g .]
2c

where we have made use of spacelessness: 1 cm = 1. This intriguing relation

restores dimension of mass to mc .

[ 4A ] Question of Division
Division by Zero

Digression over, we come back to the topic : division by zero. This is required to
remove complication associated with multiplicative inverse of zero in Eq. (3!!) of
Section [2] above. In fact, there are instances where division by zero is possible.
This is the case with Riemann sphere, or Extended complex plane C . This
sphere is the union set { } , defined as C , where is the set of complex
numbers and is a symbol representing complex infinity. Complex infinity
has an unknown or undefined complex argument

91

b
= tan 1 , where z = a + ib = z ei .
a

The Riemann sphere or extended complex plane does not form a field, since real
is just a symbol and does not have a multiplicative inverse. Nevertheless, it is
customary to define division by zero, and on C as

z z
= , and = 0 .
0

But apart from this particular case, one must recall that the element does not
have a multiplicative inverse in the context of a real or complex field. Therefore,
a
the division (where a , or, ) has no meaning at all. Infinite number

is not the entity number per se. We cannot use it in mathematical operations
[13]. Therefore, statements like exact localization of a particle throws out an
infinitely large uncertainty in momentum of the particle, i.e. If x = 0 ,
Heisenberg uncertainty relation implies momentum uncertainty is

2 ( 0 ) =

is, perhaps, not supported by mathematics. Even if we are able to derive an

uncertainty relation in the form of an inequality,

ab d

where a , b and d are elements of the extended complex plane, then

d
b b does not have any meaning, because unlike real number
0
field, complex number field does not have the property of total ordering. Put
simply, complex numbers are not comparable (except in case of partial ordering
)..The difficulty in comparing stems from the imaginary unit i : It cannot be used
as a means of counting ! [14]. This incomparability perhaps rules out an analog of
uncertainty relation involving a strict inequality between complex-valued
uncertainties.
In the context of standard theories of Quantum Mechanics, Relativistic Quantum
Mechanics and Quantum Field Theories, the position of a point particle or
mathematical field point is a physically volumeless Euclidean point having no
extension. The non-trivial result of nonzero position uncertainty of a quantum
particle stemming from Heisenberg uncertainty relation suggests that quantum
particles are possibly extended objects ---------- not concentrated to a volumeless

92
or dimensionless Euclidean point [15]. This provides us a clue to why string
theory or quantum gravity theories almost always point towards a nonzero
G
minimal extension or length, for instance, planck length l p = = 1.616 1033 cm
c3
( in Planck scale) describing such objects. Non-pointlike quantum objects in
string theory are strings of length ls such that x > ls > l p [16,17, 18,19].
We take advantage of the above non-exact position of any quantum particle to
revisit one of the underpinnings of special relativity:

Inertial frames .

Even in the context of considering light as a quantum electromagnetic field, it is

hardly possible to construct an inertial frame. The problem arises out of the
operational meaning of a particle placed at the origin of the inertial frame. We
require an origin particle to at least measure distances of other particles from it
with a tape-measure at any point of time. In classical physics, the origin particle
has the cartesian coordinates x = 0, y = 0, z = 0 . But this deceptively simple
coordinates of the origin wipe out the concept of origin from quantum physical
space. The uncertainties involved in these position coordinates are exactly zero:

x = 0, y = 0, z = 0.

But as discussed earlier, zero uncertaintites of position cannot be

accommodated in quantum mechanics due to a constraint imposed by position-
momentum uncertainty relation. A little distance is always required for the
vibrations of strings. A quantum version of special relativity has to face the
question of existence of inertial frames without a fixed origin. Any quantum
position space or momentum space must exist as punctured planes with an
exactly located origin removed : the space {0} . This is of course not new in
mathematics. If real space is a subset of complex plane then this troublesome
origin emerges in analytic continuation of a curve or line that passes through it.
It is not possible to define a a function element f ( z ) = z on a disc centered at
the origin. Only monodromy theorem (see pp. 307-309 of [250] ) avoids this
difficulty.

Before leaving this controversial issue, that seems to tell us to do Quantum

Mechanics in the deleted neighbourhood of origin, we find that, irreducible
uncertainties in almost all cases of uncertainty relations constitute a generic
feature of any viable Quantum Theory. Later, we shall define very sharply the
nature of these uncertainties, why these cannot be reduced to zero, and most
importantly, why these uncertainties turn out as necessary evils to resolve some
of the crucial and seemingly intractable problems of present-day physics : For
instance, the theoretical determination of the experimentally observed tiny
positive cosmological constant, that elusive dimensionless magic number : 10123 .

93
The existence of possible nonzero position uncertainty has been discussed in
[20]. What is perhaps the most startling fact about these uncertainties is that
these seem to rule out position, momentum and energy eigenstates with real
eigenvalues in quantum mechanics. Position and momentum eigenkets are
usually represented by Dirac delta function [20A]. The meaning of the wave
function ( x) in terms of Dirac notation is the amplitude of the state to be in
the position eigenket x . The same meaning holds when we speak of Dirac delta
function ( x x ) in terms of two position kets x and x : x x = ( x x) .
Since we have shown that Heisenberg uncertainty relation does not allow a
particle to have an exact real-valued position x = x , the composition of the
sharp position kets x and x into x x which is defined as ( x x) is
irreconcilable with nonzero position uncertainties. In fact the trouble starts with
the realization that Dirac delta function cannot be housed in separable Hilbert
space [358]. The plane wave function for a free particle

( x, t ) = Aei x it (3ss1)

has the same fate. Failure in normalization and other difficulties refuses its entry
in separable Hilbert space [358]. As a result I have formulated a different wave
function for a free particle (in [36], [37] ) that lives in complex Banach space [212]
and is easily normalizable.
If delta function is a distribution, it must be continuous suitably. Delta function is a
distribution of order zero. It is also a distribution with compact support, the
support being a set with a single element 0: {0}. But support of a function is the
set of points where the function is not zero, or the closure of the set. But, if x = 0
is an eigenvalue of delta function then the support {0} simply clashes with the fact
that the eigenposition x = 0 with zero uncertainty is undesirable for the disaster it
brings to quantum mechanics :

0.
(3sw)

The actual support is the null set containing no element. We have discussed
earlier that this loss of support may be traced to brisk commute of the particle
between the equiprobable positions

( x )min. = (i )

along the imaginary axis. And while doing this, it avoids the real line ,
conveniently forgetting the troublemaker origin x = 0. We thus find that the
difficulty in the concept of eigenposition dispossesses the distribution delta
function of compact support [20B].
One way to rigorously define delta function is to consider it as a measure, which
approves as an argument of a subset X of the real line , and returns ( X ) = 1

94
if 0 X , and otherwise ( X ) = 0 . The discussion above is sufficient to show that
the subset X contains no element 0 [20C].
Formally, delta function is a linear fuctional from a space of test functions g
[20D]. The action of on g is generally denoted as [ g ] , and this gives the
value of g at 0 for any function g . But if g is the position operator or function x
of a particle, then g = x = 0 x = 0. But, ------ to repeat an excusable statement
------ zero uncertainty is unacceptable in quantum theory. Therefore, this formal
definition of delta function perhaps fails in quantum physics. All the above
discussions about delta function seems to evince a fundamental difference
between the mathematical structure per se and its application in the theoretical
structure of experimentally accessible and verifiable world of physics.

[4B] Some Uncertainty Relations, a new Derivative of a

Function in Planck Scale Physics, Initial State of Our
Universe,
Universe, and Finding Exact Solubility of QCD

One of the generalized uncertainty relations involving position and momentum

(generally accepted in theories of quantum gravity) implies a nonzero minimal
position uncertainty of the following form

[ xpx ] 1 + ( px ) +
2
(4)
2

where , are positive, and independent of x and px , but may depend on the
expectation values of position and momentum operators x , p x .The inequality
blocks both the cases x = 0 , and px = 0 , in agreement with the results x 0
and px 0 , derived from the uncertainty relation. Relations like (4) have been
obtained in the context of Quantum Gravity and string theory [21] and
independently from other considerations [22].The loss of position and momentum
eigenstates with real eigenvalues have led some to abandon Hilbert space
representations, and pick up instead some other mathematical space [23]. We
here tentatively pick up complex Banach space [257] to incorporate eigenstates
of a quantum particle that throw up complex eigenvalues of observables.
A generalized uncertainty principle have been found [24] from which a basic
conclusion follows that a minimal length of the order of planck length l p emerges

95
naturally from any quantum theory of gravity. Such uncertainty principles have
already appeared in string theory ( [25], [26], [27], [28], [29] ). A review may be
found in [30].
In quantum theory, one cannot send a probe arbitrarily close to origin particle;
therefore, all derivatives implying the following limit

dA A
= lim
x 0 x

dx (4A)

lose their mathematical meaning. We should take care of the difference that
exists between a mathematical space and a physical space. While an Euclidean
volumeless point may be relevant in a mathematical space, physical space
containing physical entitities cannot accommodate such points in the realm of
quantum theory. One must be prepared, at least in any Quantum Gravity theory,
to accept the widely acknowledged concept of a minimal distance, l p = 1.6 10 33
cm, and stop approaching zero by ultimately setting x = l p , the planck length:

dA A A( x + lp ) A( x)
= = . (4a)
dx QG x x =l p lp

This is a generic feature of any derivative in planck scale physics. This approach
to a new formulation of derivative has interesting results in planck scale
phenomena. For instance, any particle of arbitrary mass m travels with the same
speed as that of causal speed c , i.e. arguably, the speed of light:

dx x x (t + t p ) x (t )
v= = =
dt t t =t p tp
(4b)

where planck time t p 10 44 s . In planck time only a distance equal to at most

planck length can be covered. Therefore,

x ( t + t p ) x ( t ) = l p . (4c)

The above formula for velocity, which is independent of mass of the particle, then
states that any particle of any arbitrary mass travels with massless speed of
causality, c in Planck scale physics:

x l
v= = p = c. (5)
t t =t p t p

96
Since all massless and massive particles travel with this same speed c , this
phenomenon is certainly a case of symmetry making (converse of
symmetry breaking ). Looking back from the planck epoch, a certain symmetry
(in which all particles, massless or massive, move with the same speed c ) has
broken with the sole intent to differentiate massless particles from massive
particles.
Note that we have almost always used conventional derivatives and integrals in
this paper later. Much of the results thus obtained are clearly wrong if the energy
scale involved is near or at planck energy. The results would then look
completely different, and deserve completely new interpretation. To summarize, if
this planck scale derivative survives experimental tests, then theories of
quantum gravity are most likely to look mathematically simpler, ---------- not
cluttered with derivatives and integrals. Hopefully, Singularity theorems would be
much easier to understand.
One cannot fail to recognize that validity of special relativity is mercilessly denied
at this energy scale by the meaninglessness of Lorentz factor in the energy-
momentum relation for a massive particle:

E 2 = p 2 c 2 + m 2c 4 , (5a)

where, momentum
p = mv (5b)

becomes meaningless because of the relation v = c at this energy scale:

1
= .
0

Special relativity breaks down when this symmetry is unbroken at planck scale.
Since special relativity does not work in planck scale, the invariant planck length
does not conflict with Lorentz-Fitzerald contraction. The latter cannot afford to
exist at such high energy. A remarkable spin-off of causal speed c accessible to
any arbitrarily massive particle in planck scale is that a particle of arbitrary mass
m will have a linear momentum p = mc . Since no truly elementary particle can
afford to remain spinless, and the least spin of a particle {rotating along the
circumference of a circle (or, along the great circle on the surface of a sphere) of
imaginary radius i with a tangential clockwise or counter-clockwise linear

momentum p = } is , we may set the arbitrary linear momentum
2 2

p = mc = . And we hit on an unanticipated result that is true only in planck
2

97
 1
scale: Any arbitrary mass m of a spin- particle becomes whittled down to just
2
an ultra-small mass

m = (6)
2c

in planck scale physics . This is just the fundamental mass constant mc = ,
2c
but also with a negative sign! The negative mass may indeed have an
interpretation. If the mass of a spinning particle rotates in a circle of imaginary
radius i in counter-clockwise direction it may called positive. The mass rotating in
clockwise direction may be called negative mass. Of course, like electric charges
of proton and electron, this assignment of any particular sign to a mass is
completely arbitrary.
Similarly, any spin-1 particle of arbitrary mass m morphs to a tiny mass m in
planck scale, obtainable from momentum

p = mc = (),
which implies

m = (6A)
c
1
If we consider the spin-1 particle as a meson, and the spin- particle as a
2
proton, then mass of meson m is

m =
c

from Eq.(6A). The proton mass mP may be obtained from Eq.(6)

mP = .
2c

Zee ( see p.375 of [389] ) specifies the road to solve QCD (quantum
chromodynamics) : Calculate the ratio of the mass of the meson m to the
mass of the proton mP , and see if it is a pure number such as 2 and .The ratio
of these masses comes out as

98
 m
= = 2 , (6B)
mP c 2c

a pure number, as Zee ( See p.375 of [389] ) hails this result as a dream of
exact solubility of QCD.

(6) assures us that the total gargantuan mass of the present universe may be
reduced in planck scale to just a tiny speck of mass equal to the fundamental
mass constant

mc = = 1.758836318 1038 g = 9.866349215 106 eV . (6*)
2c

More specifically, we now prove that in planck scale, planck mass is not the
hallmark (or, standard unit) of mass. Some physicists feel quite uncomfortable,
not without reason, when faced with the question, why planck mass is so large [
30 A4 ] , nearly 105 g ! All standard model particles discovered so far are
minuscule compared to this mass. We may try to find an altogether different
c
meaning of planck mass mP = , where, by G , we shall always mean
G
Newtons constant of universal gravitation. One finds a simple result from the
following product:

c G
mPlP = 3
= = 2 = 2mc .
G c c 2c (6ab)

2mc
This yields mP = = l , i.e. mass per unit length (providing we recall from
lP
discussion of Eq. ( 3s #) that 1 cm = 1, in the foregoing relation). Usually, mass
per unit length is characteristic of stretched strings. Since mass per unit length or
linear density is planck mass, we are perhaps reasonable to associate mP to
these stretched strings (or one-dimensional objects) as 1-branes or strings of
superstring theory [89,90,91,92]. The dimension of mP is gram, but it can
masquerade (and perhaps, has always done so) as linear density l because
dimension of linear density is ( g cm 1 ), which is just ( g ) , given 1 cm = 1, a pure
number in quantum theory.
If mP happens to be linear mass density of a string, what we are to make of
planck energy mP c 2 ? We now show that if indeed mP = l , planck energy is equal
to the tension T of the string.

99
The fundamental mode of vibration of a string has two nodes at the endpoints of
a string, i.e. wavelength of vibration is twice the length ls of a string:

= 2ls (6
)

Wave velocity v in a stretched string is related to string tension as

T T
v= = (6 )
l ( m / ls )

where m is total mass of the string. If each endpoint of the open string carries a
fundamental particle ( or, a D-zero-brane, i.e. D-0-brane) of fundamental mass

constant mc = 1038 g , ------- this being the least possible mass --------the total
2c
mass the string carries is

m = 2mc = . (6a )
c

A further constraint is now imposed: If the string length is the minimal length
l p 1033 cm . , then

m 2mc m p l p
l = = = = m p 105 g / cm . (6 )
ls lp lp

The magnitude of linear density is equal to planck mass. Inserting this in Eq. (6 )
, the wave velocity in the string is

T T
v2 = = T = mp v2 . (6 )
l mp

Note that any particle of arbitrary mass travels at maximal speed c in Planck
scale ------ as shown in Eq.(5). Any wave, we know, transports energy, or
equivalently, mass. At planck scale , this mass-energy transport, irrespective of
its magnitude, takes place at speed c . Replacing v by c , Eq. (6 ) yields the
desired result: Tension in the string is equal to magnitude of planck energy:

T = m p c 2 = 1.22 1019 GeV . (6 )

Of course, tension T has dimension of force, for instance, g cm s 2 , while planck

energy has magnitude in Joules or ergs i.e. g cm 2 s 2 . Once we recall the

100
intriguing relation cm = 1, everything falls into place. Planck energy (or,
equivalently, planck mass) is probably the tension in a maximally taut string of
planck length size, --------- not the energy required to probe the ultra-small
strings. In short, this result, if true, is like a manna to string theorists!
The fundamental vibration has frequency

v v 1 T 1 mpc2 c 1 1 1
= = = = = = = , (6 )
2l p 2l p l 2l p mp 2l p 2 ( l p / c ) 2t p

where we have made use of Eqs. (6 ), (6 ), (6 ) and t p = 5.39 1044 s is planck

time. Period of vibration of fundamental mode is

1
= = 2t p . (6 )

Frequency is defined [93] as the number of occurrences of a repeating event

per unit time. Consequently, if an event repeats, it must be sighted at least twice (
like the forward swing and return swing of a seconds pendulum with a frequency
1 1 1
= hertz, which has a period = = = 2 s = 2 (time of one swing), i.e. time
2 1

2
1
for a single swing = . ). Analogously, Eq. (6 ) only ensures that time taken by
2
the string for one swing, i.e. forward displacement (from equilibrium position) is
not less than the minimal time, namely, planck time. While planck mass was out
of sync with shortest distance physics, the fundamental mass unit, (which is

twice the fundamental mass constant) mF = 2mc = is easily normalized with
c
natural units of particle physics:

= c = 1. (6 )

A primary theory, which subsumes all the forces may, hopefully, work with the
following natural units of mass, length and time that are the least possible quanta
of these dimensions available in nature: Quantities less than these are simply
meaningless :

Mass = mF = = 3.517 1038 g (61 )
c
G
Planck length = l p = 3
= 1.616 1033 cm (6 2 )
c
G
Planck time = t p = 5
= 5.3911044 s. (63 )
c

101
A look at the magnitudes of the units probably satisfies the criteria of shortest
distance physics, putting an end to the controversial largeness of planck mass.
Note that the wave of a Klein-Gordon particle (see Eq.(50) in page (24) of [37]) is

1
( x, t ) = exp ( x vt ) + i x it , when x vt. (6 )
2

Energy eigenvalue of this particle (which at time t is at position vt , and since

vt x, is yet to reach the energy measuring device at x ) is

E i i 1 1
E= = = v i = + iv. (6 )
t 2 2

If such a particle is at position vt at time t such that vt x, the particle has

traveled past the measuring device at x, and the energy eigenvalue may be
calculated from the wave function

1
( x, t ) = exp (vt x ) + i x it , when x vt. (6 )
2

The energy of the particle is now complex conjugate of E :

E i 1
E* = = = iv. (6 )
t 2

1
The Klein-Gordon particle has equal probability to be at a location vt x, and
2
x. Eqs. (6 ) and (6 ) help to deduce the average particle energy at any point
of time:

1 1 1
E = ( E ) + ( E*) = (2 ) = . (6 )
2 2 2

1
The imaginary-valued part of energy eigenvalue iv is supplied by the
2
vacuum particle at low energy physics. But, at Planck scale physics, Eq.(5)
shows that all particles of arbitrary masses travel with speed c. The vacuum
particle undertakes the following route in signature change along the direction of
look-back time:

102
 ( x) min . = (i )
Supersymmetry
( x)min . = l p
Supersymmetry
( x) min . = 1. (6 )

1
The imaginary-valued energy becomes real: v. Replacing v by Planck scale
2
speed c , this energy is now hiked to fundamental energy constant Ec :

1
Ec = c = mc c 2 . ( 6 )
2

This particle has a mass mc . But, to measure the minimal distance in Planck
scale, an observer or a distance-measuring device ( a ruler or spacemeter) shall
operationally require at least two such particles at the endpoints of distance l p .
The two particles are the endpoints of a string. This arrangement makes the
string ultra-light, with a total mass

2mc = . (6)
c

The energy associated with this mass is

2mc c 2 = mF c 2 = c. (6 )

This leads us to benchmark mF c 2 as the minimal energy of string scale physics.

In classical physics, strings are idealized as massless. Quantum strings thus
become nonclassical, and as such it questions the masslessness of excitation
modes representing gravitons and photons. In our theory containing extra
imaginary dimensions, the one-dimensional strings are stretched along an
imaginary direction while its transverse disturbances (at right angles to the string
length) are along a real axis ( see Fig.(5) below). This arrangement ensures an
imaginary mass (i )[2mc ] of strings.

103
FIG.(5) : L and M are two equiprobable positions of D0-branes each at a
distance i from the real line OP. The points L and M are seated on two
parallel D2-branes separated by a distance 2i . The point P on the real
line is the average real position where the particle (represented by
an open string) is detected in a measurement event. The string vibrates
in a plane perpendicular to the D2-branes. All D2-branes are stacked with
a spacing 2i in this low-energy scenario.

When near Planck scale energy ( stringy scale), supersymmetry activates the
following transition:

( x)min. = ( i)
sup ersymmetry
l p 1033 cm .

The string mass ms = [i (2mc )], (which implies a strictly (real-valued) zero mass
in low energy scale for massless excitations like gravitons and photons,) now
becomes

2m 2m c3 c
ms = [i (2mc )] = c =
Supersymmetry
c = = = mp
(i)
( i )l p l
p c G G
(6a#)

104
This implies that strings now have energy equal to planck energy

E p = m p c 2 = 1.22 1019 GeV .

What we tried to evade ------- the humongous Planck energy -------- bounced
back when supersymmetry signature flipped from (i ) l p 1033 cm.

Let us now explore the question What generates mass?. The elusive Higgs
boson [97] apart, there may be an alternative answer to this question. We
suggest that motion or speed of a quantum particle in general and spinning of
a quantum particle in particular is the plausible cause that gives mass to
standard model particles. Of course, the concept is not new and owes its origin to
Einstein`s relation for momentum in special relativity:

mv , M rel . = m
p = ( m)v, p = ( M rel . )v = (6^#)
v2 v2
1 2 1 2
c c

where m is rest or Lorentz-invariant mass of a particle, and M rel . is the dated and
hated relativistic mass. In fact it now seems, as an alternative to mass-giving
Higgs mechanism ( [254], [178] ) that mass of a particle is generated through its
motion. Classically it might suggest that all particles at perfect rest have zero
rest mass. But if quantum theory is truly an universal theory containing classical
physics, then a particle at classical rest implies its speed v = 0. Or, momentum
p = 0 . But quantum-mechanically, the momentum operator or, observable is
zero:

i ( x, t ) = 0 ( x, t ) = 0.
p = 0,
x

Inserting the ansatz Eq.(3q) of Section [4] into the above equation, and
simplifying the result, we arrive at

1 dP1
(i ) + i = 0, = p = mv = 0, (6^$)
2 P1 ( x) dx

which is expected, but the imaginary parts yield

105
 dP1 ( x )
= 0 P1 ( x ) = , (6^^)
dx

with an arbitrary constant of integration. But this result is disastrous for

quantum mechanics because definition of position probability density at any time
t requires

P ( x, t ) = P1 ( x ) P2 (t ) = P2 (t ) 1,

1
i.e. P2 (t ) , with the added requirements P1 ( x) 1, and P2 (t ) 1. Therefore,

1 1
P2 (t ) 1 and P2 (t ) imply P2 (t ) 1 = , or, = 1. This invites a

contradiction that whereas is an arbitrary number, it is found equal to 1. There
must be some flaw in our calculation. The most likely place is where we equated
the imaginary part in Eq. (6^$) to zero, i.e. imaginary part of momentum to zero.
We conclude that an imaginary momentum persists in a quantum particle even
when its classical momentum is zero. This momentum is intrinsic, and yields the
nonclassical spin of a particle. Absolute rest is perhaps passe in Newtonian as
well as quantum physics. We have shown later that imaginary mass associated
with this imaginary momentum becomes a real-valued mass mc when
supersymmetry signature changes from imaginary to a real value:

( x) min. = ( i )
Supersymmetry
(1). (6*a)

We have proved in Eq.(3G) that the z-component of spin is

S z = k = k = k c = k (mc c),
2 2 2c

or, the fundamental mass

S S k
mc = z = k 1 z = S z . (6a)
kc c c

106
where the conjugate of quaternion basis element and the inverse are
1
related as k k

k 1 = k .

A close look at Eq.(6a) uncovers the source of fundamental mass unit mc :

Spinning motion of the particle described by S z along an intrinsic (unobservable)
loop of imaginary radius generates mass of this fundamental particle. This
concept is an alternative to Higgs mechanism[30A] if the mass-giving Higgs
boson fails to show up in Large Hadron Collider at CERN. As on December,
2011, the ATLAS and CMS group have excluded mass of Higgs boson outside
the range of 115-130 GeV at 95% confidence level.

Unfortunately, the mass mc is the imaginary part. This particle is perhaps the
vacuum particle (we shall provide the relevant proof below). Its mass is imaginary
with two eigenstates with eigenvalues (imc ) . It is a possible dark matter
candidate . It is dark, and will never be visible in low energy scale because this
particle lives in the imaginary-valued extra dimension curled up as a circle of
radius equal to the imaginary unit i . This particle rotates along the circumference

of the circle producing spin equal to .The energy associated with the mass
2
gap is the real part of vacuum particle energy. It is called transverse missing
energy, and may be traced in ongoing work in Large Hadron Collider at CERN.
This energy is transverse because the particle lives in the extra dimension i that
1
is transverse to the real length dimension. This spin- particle is superpartner of
2
a spin-1 boson. This sparticle will show up only when the low energy minimal
distance (which we have shown, equals (i) ) symmetry, a signature of
supersymmetry, makes way in planck scale for another signature transition of
supersymmetry, the supersymmetry-making signature:

Minimal distance. ( i ) l p = 1.616 1033 cm .

This particle (or, perhaps all supersymmetric particles) will remain undetected
until planck scale energy is reached. At low energy scenario of todays universe,
they are all unobservable at position (i) along extra imaginary spatial
dimension.
The universe may thus be a free lunch too. A system of two fundamental particles
of mass + mc and mc ( i.e. a massless system) may work it out as a starter!
Ortin [94] has shown that supersymmetry allows existence of negative mass
providing it cannot be isolated from a bound state having a non-negative total
mass. Surprisingly, such a single system consisting of two D0-branes (each of
mass mc ) or of two fundamental particles of mass ( mc ) may masquerade as a
pair of two equivalent sets:

107
 {+ mc , mc }, or ,{mc , + mc } . (6b)

The order of positive and negative masses are arbitrary. I am just unsure which of
the above sets is the initial condition. Perhaps this question is meaningless.
Which of the figures in Fig (1), or Fig (2) depicts the initial condition may never be
known at all. If there were a device to monitor and record the direction of rotation
at the start (sic) of the universe , we could have precisely determined the initial
condition. But it is absurd to think of a device launched outside the universe! This
removes the question of a precise initial condition.
There is another highly significant interpretation of what lies in store for space-
time. A see-through concept is to consider two specks of D0-branes (of mass
+ mc and mc ) stuck at the two poles of a Riemann sphere of unit radius ( during
transplanckian supersymmetry signature ( x) min. = 1 ). In fact in this supersymmetry
regime, there is nothing like masses + mc and mc . These are just pure
numbers. An additional spin-off of this scenario is that the whole present physical
universe embedded in complex space-time started to unfold from a tiny extra-
physical Riemann sphere (the simplest compact Riemann surface ) [156] onto an
extended complex plane containing the space-time of present epoch. The
Riemann sphere is then the region of zero energy from where the universe
sprang up sans space and time and anything physical. Since this initial singularity
is not a point in space-time --------- (space-time was born later in planck epoch
along with all physical entities like mass-energy) ---------- but a sphere ( without
geometrical concepts containing units such as length of radius, surface area ) in
the regime of transcendental numbers, questions like what happened before the
big bang have no logical meaning. The question How did the universe come to
existence , however has an answer: It was the supersymmetry signature
( x) min. = 1 that led to the birth of our universe from a Riemann sphere, a
mathematical entity sans physical dimensions. Therefore, no bang or whimper
was needed perhaps ! We shall provide more details in later sections on initial
singularity. For the sake of clarity, we shall call quantities (without dimensions or
physical content) in the transplanckian regime as Transphysical
Transphysical quantities.

From Eq (6) transphysical momenta of the pair of particles are , which
2
1
imply the particle momenta are associated wave numbers are = . At
2
transplanckian scale, or at planck scale, i.e. before, or, at planck time, a
probability pulse of a D0-brane of transphysical mass mc may traverse half the
1
length of a full wave (i.e. = + , ) in the clockwise (or, counter-clockwise)
2
direction with speed ( + c ) (making its transphysical momentum positive, or more
loosely positive transphysical mass). Then the probability pulse may travel as the

108
 1
other half-wave ( = ) in the opposite direction. This way it self-cancels its
2
momentum or, in other words, its transphysical mass. The total wave then
corresponds to a transphysical massless and energyless system. The path of
motion of the probability pulse may look like Fig (6), or Fig (7) below:

Fig(6): First a right-mover and then becomes a left-mover to form a full wave
canceling the total transphysical mass.

Fig(7): First a left-mover and then becomes a right-mover to form a full wave
canceling the total transphysical mass.

109
We here assume that the two curves shown in Fig.(6) and Fig.(7) may be
0
continuously deformed into one another (by a rotation of 180 along an axis
parallel to the plane of paper) provided the deformations are homologous (see
p.124 of [156] ). This entails a seemingly dangerous invite to a point singularity
in transplanckian regime, because the curves being simply-connected (see p.
124 of [156] ) a continuous deformation may self-cancel the whole trajectory
shrinking it down to a single point. But there is a leeway to make this shrinkability
harmless if compared with general relativistic gravitational singularity. The
escape route lies in recognizing that in transplanckian scale there is no room for
physical quantities such as Ricci scalar curvature or infinite energy density or
geodesic incompleteness (which involve motion of dimensionful paths of
freely-falling massive/massless objects).
We now give a proof that minimal distance in planck scale energy is indeed

planck length l p . Corresponding to two equiprobable minimal momenta ,
2
we know from Eq (6) that any arbitrary mass of a particle in planck scale, for
instance, planck mass is equal to fundamental mass constant mc . Therefore, in
planck scale, all mass eigenvalues are equal :

mc = me = m pr oton = m = m p (7)

where me , m pr oton , m , m p are masses of electron, proton, meson and planck

mass respectively. Equi-massiveness of all particles revealed in Eq (7) declares
that supersymmetry is unbroken at this scale. This also exposes another co-
existing signature of supersymmetry in transition, proved in Eq.(11) below:

( x)min = (i ) ( x) min = 1.

The equiprobable momenta are = ( mc c) = ( m p c) . The expectation values
2
2
of px and px obtained as

1 1
px = (+ m p c) + (m p c) = 0,
2 2
and
1 1
p x 2 = ( + m p c) 2 + ( m p c) 2 = m p 2 c 2
2 2

finally yield the momentum uncertainty p x = m p c . Inserting this in the minimum

product

110

(xpx )min = (x) min (p) min = (x) min (m p c) =
2

we finally arrive at the minimal distance in planck scale

1
(x) min = = lp . (8)
2cm p 2

Since any measurement of length requires two position measurements,

[ x + (x)min ] and [ x (x)min ] ,

the minimal measurable distance is

(l ) min = 2( x) min = l p . (9)

Probably, before the beginning of planck scale, i.e. in transplanck regime

supersymmetry starts with a beautiful signature evident in Eq (8):

1 mc
( x )min = = = 1. (10)
2c m p m p

Since Eq.(3l) of Section [3] requires

( x) min. = (x) min. (10A)

we obtain another signature of supersymmetry from Eqs (10) and (10A) that
perhaps existed at the dawn of our universe`s journey:

( x) min. = 1, (10B)

which is a dimensionless pure number.

This symmetry may also be obtained from zero energy particles having jittery

equiprobable momenta (see Eq (9), page 7 of [36] ) that convert into
2

111

particle spin , spinning with a tanjential speed c , and therefore with
2
equiprobable particle masses

momentum 2
m= = = = ( mc ) = {+ mc , mc } , (10C)
speed c 2c

which we have predicted as origin of a zero energy universe in Eq. (6b) and
illustrated in Figs (4) and (5) of this section. The expectation values are p x = 0,
2
and px 2
= , and therefore, momentum uncertainty px = . The
4 2
product of minimum uncertainties in Heisenberg uncertainty relation then gives

( x )min (px ) min = (x) min = (x)min = 1.

2 2 2

From Eq (3l), ( x ) min = ( x ) min , and remembering this, we obtain the

supersymmetry signature in transplanck epoch

( x) min . = 1. (10D)

This signature is dimensionless, for spin or intrinsic angular momentum formula

in section [3] says

spin = (intrinsic radius) (momentum) = [( i ) cm] i g cm s 1 = g cm 2s 1
2 2

which is dimensionally correct provided we assume that intrinsic radius ( i ) is

dimensionful. But, in the same section we have seen how the quaternion basis
elements behave, such as i behaves as the matrix (-i 1 ) , and 1 as a 2 2
identity matrix with no dimensionful units tagged. We arrive at the same
conclusion that i is dimensionless in the supersymmetry signature ( x ) min . = ( i )
, because the commutation relation of quantum mechanics [1] containing the
operators x , p x and 1

[ x , p x ] = xp
x p x x = (i)1 (10E)

112
(which is an operator equation) require that (i) , and therefore i be at most a
dimensionless operator, for instance, the matrix ( i 1 ) . Therefore the intrinsic
radius in spin formula above forces us to regard ( i ) = ( x ) min . as dimensionless.
The supersymmetry signatures are basically minimal position operators.

Therefore they ought to be dimensionless operators (like the operator ). In
x
case of transplanckian spin, the intrinsic radius is just 1, or the identity operator 1
. Therefore particle spin in this epoch is strangely imaginary:

i = (1) i .
spin = (intrinsic radius) (momentum) = (1) (10F)

2 2

What is more important is to realize that this transplanckian epoch, carried right
up to the big bang, is an epoch where space and time is dedimensionalized by
switching dimensionful spin to dimensionless spin, or more precisely, replacing
operators (such as 1 in Eq. (10F)) by dimensionless pure numbers (such as 1).
But it is Kurt Hensel who have proved that numbers must be operators [212]. The
space of this epoch then requires to be identified with operator space. I do not
have the slightest idea what it means. Maybe we have entered the territory of
trancendental numbers, because we shall later prove in Eq. (62H*) of section
[11] and Eq. (62N) of section [15] that the transcendental number satisfies the
[11],
relation

2 = 1. (10G)

Perhaps this particular supersymmetry signature ( x ) min. = 1 has an advantage.

All physical quantities as well as mathematical quantities (such as observables
defined as operators, Pauli spin matrices, manifolds, tensors, mathematical
singularities, and specific symmetries etc) are symmetrized into a single concept
by this supersymmetry signature. This may perhaps answer the question why
there exists no bigger symmetry than supersymmetry in any nontrivial theory of
particles [172 ]. It may be that physics as a whole becomes unified with
mathematics in this transplanck zone. Perhaps this was the only way to evade
the initial physical singularity. A mathematical singularity weaned off physical
quantities is certainly a huge relief, perhaps. It reminds us of E.P.Wigners
famous article titled The unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics [305].

We may now collect the three signatures of supersymmetry from Eqs. (3m),(3n)
and (10D):

113
 ( x) min. = (i )
SUSY
(l p ) 1033 cm
SUSY
1. (11)

What have we gained from these irreducible nonzero uncertainties? The

consequence of loss of zero distance from the framework of a quantum theory --
-------- stemming from Heisenberg uncertainty relation ---------- is so profound and
far-reaching that many divergences in the magnitudes of physical quantities
(triggered by measuring them at zero distance vertices in some Quantum Field
Theories) are instantly tamed by not letting the distance r 0 . A minimal
distance (generally considered to be the planck length l p ) is predicted by almost
all existing theories related to quantum gravity ( [31], [32], [33] ). We have proved
in Eq (3m) that this minimal distance l p is (i ) in low energy quantum physics. A
generalized uncertainty principle in string theory developed as ( [34], [35] )

xpx [1 + ( px ) + px ]
2 2
(12)
2

where > 0 is the deformation parameter. must have the dimension of

( px ) . Let us set
2

n
=
( p )2
x

where, n is a pure number. When = 0 n = 0, we retrieve from Eq.(12) the

undeformed Heisenberg relation. When the average momentum is zero, p x = 0 ,
and consequently, ( px ) = px 2 the relation (12) becomes
2

xpx = x px2 [1 + px2 ].
2

For minimal position uncertainty, we choose the equality sign in (12):

1 + p x
2

( x )min = .
2 px2

n
Since ( px ) = n px2 = n, i.e., px2 =
2
, the position uncertainty above

yields
1+ n
( x )min = . (13)
2 n

114
 d
If this value is minimum, then ( x )min = 0. This implies that
dn

12
3

n n = 0.
2
4

This equation is satisfied when n = 1. Inserting n = 1 in (13), we obtain the

minimal position uncertainty ( x )min = . The deformation parameter is
1
then equal to 2 . This result implies
px

( x )min = = .
px2

This gives an uncertainty equation

[( x )min p x2 ] = (14)

Citing the arguments against division by zero, we find that ( x )min cannot be zero
in any circumstances. This shows the impossibility of working with position
eigenstates having real eigenvalues.
If one attempts to work in momentum space with real momentum eigenvalues,
px = 0, and (12) yields

1 + p x 2 0

which returns average momentum of the particle in momentum space as

i 2

2
px .

Take the positive square root to obtain

i
px .

115
The right side of the inequality is an imaginary number which belongs to , and
is never a totally ordered field [35A]. The only possibility is the equality:

i
Pp i i = px =

(15)

where pi are real-valued momenta with probability density Pi 0. The equality

sign in (9) forces us to accept complex eigenvalues of different momentum
eigenstates. But these complex momenta are incompatible in momentum space
containing real-valued momentum elements. The incompatibility may be traced
back to the assumption we have made: px = 0 , i.e., existence of Hermitian
operator corresponding to the momentum observable. Non-Hermitian normal
operator describing momentum observable, and existence of inverse of
momentum operator have been studied respectively in ( [36], [37] ). Also a
modification of uncertainty principle arising out of commutation relation has been
attempted in [38].

[5] Black Hole Physics and Validity of

of Singularity Theorems

Instead of Cartesian coordinate system using position and momentum as x and

px , we may as well show the same nonzero uncertainty in spherical coordinate
system where position and momentum operators are represented by r and pr .
These operators relate to their Cartesian counterparts in the following way [39]:

1
p x i p r ( i ) + . (16)
x r r

The radial operators satisfy the commutation relation

r p r r = i1
rp (17)
because
1 1
r p r r) = r ( i ) + ( i ) + r = i 1 .
(rp
r r r r

Since (17) resembles the general commutation relation

116
 BA
AB = iC

involving Hermitian operators A , B , C , while r, p r are also Hermitian operators,

we may expect that the latter really delivers an uncertainty relation of the same
form as Heisenbergs position-momentum uncertainty relation:

r pr . (18)
2

We now employ the same arguments as before, to conclude that r and pr can
never be zero if we really need a positive plancks constant:

r 0, and pr 0. (18 #)

It is impossible to measure the position r of a particle with arbitrary precision:

The minimal distance from origin must be ( r ) min . ( x) min = (i ) in weak gravity
(which is certainly not in case of a black hole). In case of ultra-strong gravity, the
minimal separation is ( r ) min . ( x) min = l p = 1.6 1033 cm . This result actually
implies that no particle can have a seat at the point r =0. If r = 0 , r = 0, which is
not acceptable. Therefore, when we look for a singularity manifest as an infinite
value in the coordinate-independent higher-order scalar [40]

48G 2 M 2
R R =
r6 (18A)

at r = 0 , formed from Schwarzschild metric [40], the non-zero uncertainties of

quantum theory bails out physics at such spots. In fact, instead of the infinite
48G 2 M 2
value, the scalar in Eq.(18A) turns out to have an upper bound . We
l p6
have discussed in Section (3A) the generically broader aspects of singularity
theorems [41, 42] in the context of Raychaudhuri equation [43, 44], and have
shown that the theorems cannot possibly survive if the theorized Lorentz
symmetry violation [37] is indeed supported by experimental results. But, it turns
out that in case of ultra-strong gravity at Planck scale physics, even such a
discussion of validity of Singularity Theorems is inessential. This is because in
Planck regime, no particle, even light cannot enter the surface of event horizon of
a Schwarzschild black hole ---------- the simplest conceivable black hole. We now
try to prove it.
The infinitesimal space-time interval between two events in Minkowski space is
invariant under Lorentz Transformations [128]

117
 ds2 = ds 2 = c 2 dt 2 dr 2 . (18B)

In Planck scale physics we expect a distance regulator -------- it happens to be a

basic requirement of any theory of quantum gravity, including string theory. The
G
minimal distance in such a theory is planck length l p = 3
1033 cm. Since
c
speed of causal connections ( speed of light) c is the upper bound for speed of
material particles, the time t p (planck time 10 44 s ) to travel this minimal distance
lp
l p is . We have found in Eqs.(5) and (6) of Section [4] above, that all objects
c
of arbitrary mass travel with speed c in Planck scale, and all arbitrary masses of

objects are pared down to the minimal mass mc = 1038 g . We plug l p and t p
2c
into Eq.(18B) in place of infinitesimal distance and time, and find that for any
arbitrary particle of arbitrary mass in Planck regime, the space-time interval is
zero:

ds 2 = c 2t 2p l p2 = 0. (18C)

All proper times of different elementary particles in other energy scales (e.g.,
electroweak, quantum chromodynamics(QCD) or Grand Unified Theory (GUT)
scale) become the same, and equal to zero in this scale:

ds 2
d = = 0. (18D)
c2

All particles behave as null or light-like particles. Special relativity breaks down in
this energy scale. All differentness between particles ( except possibly charge)
disappears and a unique symmetry prevails. An immediate consequence of this
is all time-like and space-like regions evaporate leaving only a null surface
accommodating all null paths.

We now explore the possibility of a particle crossing the surface of event horizon
of a static Schwarzschild black hole ------ We assume it lives in empty space ------
- having the metric [131]

1
2GM 2GM
ds = 1 2 c 2 dt 2 1 2 dr 2 r 2 (d 2 + sin 2 d 2 ).
2
(18E)
cr cr

For the Schwarzschild radius

118
 2GM (18F)
rS = 2
c
of a black hole of arbitrary rest mass M , we find a strange magnitude for this

radius once we recall that any arbitrary mass M becomes a tiny mass mc =
2c
in Planck scale physics (see Eq.(6) of Section [4].)
[4] The Schwarzschild or
gravitational radius of all such black holes of any arbitrary mass M is a constant
in this regime! This result seriously violates the classical rule that gravitational
radius varies with mass of a black hole. This constant Schwarzschild radius is

2GM 2Gmc 2G G 2
rS = = 2 = 2 = 3 = lp. (18F)
c2 c c 2c c

This radius rS , instead of a length, is an area -------- a unit planck area! The bulk
of interior of a black hole ( which is represented by gravitational radius rS ) is now
described by the boundary surface (which is represented by an area unit l p2 on the
boundary) enclosing the bulk. This reminds us of Maldacena conjecture
[159,160,161] facilitating formulation of quantum gravity in space by reducing N
dimensional spatial description of the interior to an ( N 1) dimension on the
boundary. Since radial coordinate r cannot be less than minimal distance l p , i.e.,
r l p , we find
lp
= 1.
r

Note that is a very very small pure number. The ratio

rS l p l p
2

= = lp = lp lp .
r r r
(18G)

r
We set g = 1 S = (1 l p ) 1. If is a Killing vector ( see page 375 of [128])
r
that keeps distance relationships unchanged ( it generates an isometry), then we
may write [129]

r
A A = 1 S
r

119
which does not vanish when r = rS (?). It is certainly weird that r can never be
equal to rS , but its true. While r has the dimension of length, the gravitational
radius rS has the dimension of area, l p2 . These are however not unexpected.
Physicists for long have anticipated some kind of peculiarity when one probes the
Planck scale where gravity becomes strong. Black holes are generically regions
of ultra-high gravity. It is not unusual for a stupendous force of gravity around
1043 newtons (or, extreme spacetime curvature) in this regime to whip a
malleable radius to stretch out into a tiny area element. Moreover,

r
A A = 1 S = ( g ) = (1 l p ) (1). (18H)
r

which is not zero. The metric components of Schwarzschild geometry [130]

r
g 00 = gtt = 1 S = (1 l p ) 1 (18 H *)
r

r
and g rr = 1 S = (1 l p ) (1) (18J)
r

clearly shows that unlike classical general relativity, g rr (r = rS ) does not vanish
because the physical quantity r is not dimensionally compatible with rS = l p2 . In
the context of classical general relativity, the product of covariant g and
contravariant g metric tensors is

g g = (18K)

where the Kronecker delta is like a mixed tensor of rank 2 having the following
property:
= 1, if = ,
and = 0, if .
This implies g g = 1. Further if we require = , then g g = 1.
(18L)
From Eq.(18J) and Eq.(18L) we derive

2GM 1 r 1 1
g rr = 1 2 = 1 S = (1). (18M)
c r r (1 l p )

120
And from Eq.(18 H *) , we find that under the same condition g 00 1. Both g 00
and g rr are thus finite according to quantum gravity at Planck scale. But, general
relativity prescribes an outlandish feature of Schwarzschild metric at
2GM
r = 2 = rSGR (GR in superscript emphasizes that this radius is from general
c
relativity). Strange as it may sound, even general relativity does not show the
presence of a mathematically well-defined singularity at r = rSGR . While g 00 = 0 at
1
this distance, g rr is in fact equal to , which is meaningless mathematically,
0
because zero does not have a multiplicative inverse (0) 1 supported by axioms of
real or complex number field ( see [9], [10] and [11]). The perceived apparent
2GM 1
singularity at r = 2
in the classical metric is misplaced because . In
c 0
spite of bad choice of coordinates, it could not conjure up the apparent
singularity.
Another standard concept in general relativity [131] is that r and t exchange
their roles when, for example, an astronaut or a particle crosses the event
2GM 2GM
horizon at r = rSGR = 2 , because when r < rSGR = 2 , the component ( in
c c
r GR
front of dt 2 in Eq.(18E)), 1 S = g 00 = gtt becomes negative. Since time-like
r
and space-like features depend on signs of dt 2 and dr 2 in the metric, if the signs
change, the features also change. Since g 00 is now negative, coordinate time t
switches with r (because the coefficient in front of dr 2 in Eq.(18E) is negative).
r GR 1
The factor 1 S = g rr , ( in front of dr 2 in Eq.(18E)) on the other hand,
r

becomes positive when the astronauts position coordinate is r < rSGR . This
activates r to transfer its role to t . Since the overall sign of the metric has
changed, coordinate t becomes space-like and coordinate r becomes time-like.
But this role reversal of r and t remains controversial in quantum mechanics
2GM
which is embedded in complex space-time [36, 37]. If r < 2 = rSGR , then
c
GR
both the quantities r and rS must be real numbers belonging to an ordered field.
(we are not considering partial ordering of complex numbers because the
complex variable rc = r + ir is represented by just a single variable rc , and not
by its constituent variables r and r (see the note in Exercise 6.2.12 in p. 365 of
[331]. If r is a real-valued exact position of an astronaut, or a particle, then in the
context of quantum mechanics, its position uncertainty is zero: r = 0. This

121
disagrees with our derivation in Eq.(18 #) above that r 0 according to
Heisenberg uncertainty relation. We have shown in (Eq.(7) in page 7 of [36]) that
cartesian position coordinate x is a complex quantity in quantum mechanics.
This result is also quite reasonably translated for r in three-dimensional quantum
description.
We now proceed to show that rest mass M of the static black hole is a complex
number. We quantize the classical relativistic equation E = Mc 2 (where M is rest
mass and not to be confused with the dated relativistic mass) denoting identity
operator by 1 :

E = Mc 2 1,

which implies a quantized equation

(r , t )
i = Mc 2 (r , t ). (18N)
t

(r , t ) is the wave function of the black hole ( we have shown in Section 7, page
20 of [36] that, classical physics being a special case of quantum mechanics, a
wave function may be assigned to a macroscopic object). Note that we have

applied operator in Eq.(18N), although mass of a system at rest in classical
t
physics couldnt care less about time t . The reason is, any quantum system
undergoes quantum jitters, which persists even in a classically rest frame. These
vibrations require temporal quantification. We assume separability of (r , t ) into
1 (r ) 2 (t ) . Since

(r , t ) = 1 (r ) 2 (t )

is complex, in general both 1 (r ) and 2 (t ) will be complex quantities. We write

1 (r ) = P1 (r )ei ( r ) and, 2 (t ) = P2 (t )ei (t ) ,

1 2

so the wave function is

(r , t ) = P1 (r )ei ( r ) P2 (t )ei (t ) = P1 P2 ei[ ( r ) + (t )] .

1 2 1 2
(18P)

Insert this ansatz into Eq.(18N) to obtain

d 2 d
i 1 = Mc 2 1 2 , i P2 (t )ei2 ( t ) = Mc 2 2 .
dt dt

After a little algebra, we pull out 2 = P2 (t )ei2 ( t ) from both sides, and find

122
 1 dP2 d
i + i 2 = Mc 2 . (18Q)
2 P2 dt dt

d2
Angular frequency is defined as = , and is, per se nonnegatiive. Therefore,
dt

d2
= .
dt

d 2 d2
We choose = , because the other choice = + in Eq.(18Q) would lead
dt dt
us to an unacceptable result

d2
= Mc 2 , = Mc 2 , (18R)
dt

since mass M is considered positive, as is usual. Even if we consider M

complex (as we shall, in a while), the sign of Re( M ) has to be picked up negative
such that of Eq.(18R) comes out nonnegative.
Consequently, a look at Eq.(18R) imposes the choice

d 2
= ( ). (18S)
dt
Eq.(18Q) now becomes

i dP2
+ = Mc .
2
(18T)
2 P2 dt

To check consistency, let us assume that mass cannot be complex (which

transpires as a change for the worse); Let it be real-valued also in quantum
mechanics, conforming to its concept in classical physics. Equating real and
imaginary parts of both sides of Eq.(18T) we get
= Mc 2 , (18U)
and
dP2
= 0.
2 P2 dt
The last equation yields
dP2
= 0, P2 (t ) = ,
dt

where is an arbitrary constant. Normalization requires

123
 P(r , t )dr = 1, P1 (r ) P2 (t )dr = 1, P1 ( r )dr = 1. (18V)
a .a . s . a .a . s . a .a . s .

a.a.s .
P1 (r )dr is a definite integral , where the subscript a.a.s. is short for all

available space. As a result, it yields a definite ( i.e. not arbitrary ) number n .

1
Eq.(18V) then requires n = 1, = = a fixed number. This rules out any
n
arbitrariness in the value of , which is an arbitrary constant of integration. The
contradiction has popped up due to our wrong assumption that mass is real-
valued in quantum mechanics. As a result, rest mass M (and equivalently,
2GM
gravitational radius ) is also a complex quantity like r .
c2
The purpose of all this discussion is to reveal the fact that unlike real numbers,
complex numbers are not fortunate to enjoy total ordering. As a consequence,
they are not comparable, just as any one of a pair of points in a plane -------- each
representing a complex number ---------- cannot be said to be at a higher or lower
position than the other. The upshot is: Complex numbers do not satisfy strict
inequalities, like z1 < z2 . As a result, in the context of a quantum theory of gravity,
and in the absence of validity of strict inequalities between complex numbers
2GM
exploring Schwarzschild black holes in space-time, we cannot assert r < 2 .
c
The visual possibility of an object crossing the event horizon disappears.
2GM
Also, from dimensional perspective alone, r is some length, and 2 = l p2 is
c
some area. Then the inequality length < area is incompatible. If we invoke our
earlier result from Eq. (6 ) of Section [4]

i v
E = + = + i ,
2
v
then = dimensionally. Then the dimensional relation s 1 = cms 1 1cm = 1.
2
This shows that length becomes a pure number stripped of spatiality. This
constraint may help us contrive the dimensionally valid inequality

2GM 2Gm
( r )cm < 2 cm = 2 c cm = (l p2 )cm,
c c

but the quantities on both sides require a (distance) < 10 66 cm , which no minimal
distance theory can make room for. We may perhaps conclude that for any
particle, the coordinate r > l p2 = rSGR . The upshot of this is:

124
Quantum-mechanically, no particle can reach or cross the event horizon of a
Schwarzschild black hole : r > rSGR .
This statement has deep implications for the meaning of entropy, or missing
information about the black hole. We know that Bekenstein-Hawking entropy of a
Schwarzschild black hole is

A
S BH = .
4l p2

A = 4 RS2 is the area of event horizon of the black hole of Schwarzschild radius
2Gm
RS = 2 . For a black hole of mass mc = , the gravitational radius
c 2c

2Gmc 2G G 2
RS = = 2 = 3 = lp.
c2 c 2c c
Therefore,
4 (l p2 ) 2
S BH = 2
= l p2 .
4l p

Entropy of such a black hole is simply area of a disk of radius l p . If entropy

implies disorder or missing information, then it is not possible to gather any
information about this surface area. To get information about a system (here, a
black hole), one must place a device at the site to measure the observables of
the object. Since l p2 is the missing information, no device can be placed on this
strip of the horizon disc. In short, this area blocks the entry of any particle. Similar
result has been obtained by Susskind ([167], [168]) who found that not only an
infalling string cannot reach the horizon surface, but it cannot even sink into the
interior of black hole horizon.
Since this is true also for photons ( which has a nonzero minimal mass
mc 10 5 eV ) in ultra-strong gravity, they stop short of reaching the horizon
surface. Since no light or matter can enter the black hole once it is formed, and
no light or matter (of mimimal mass) cannot be chipped off from the black hole
mass mc (in which case it becomes massless ------- that is forbidden in quantum
theory) to carry signal from the black hole to an external observer or camcorder, it
remains invisible. The situation is similar to an isolated house upon which
photons from a flashlight fail to touch the facing walls, and so it is dark to an
outside device or observer!
We emphasize again: All arbitrary masses of quantum Schwarzschild black holes
are equal in Planck scale physics.This specific mass is equal to fundamental
mass constant mc , which again is the mass of the end-point particle (D-0-brane)
of a string attached to a D-2-brane, or membrane. This shows a one-to- one
correspondence between between black holes and D-0-branes in stringy scale.

125
The last result has been already studied in the context of black hole entropy by
many authors ( [141}, [89], [142], [143] ). We now find the unique entropy of all
quantum black holes. Since gravitational radius of such a black hole is rSGR = l p2 ,
the surface area of horizon is A = 4 ( rSGR ) = 4 ( l p2 ) = 4 l p4 . Since the
2 2

Bekenstein-Hawking entropy for such a non-rotating black hole is ([132], [133],
[134], [135], [136], [137], [138], [139], [140])

1 A
S BH = 2 (18Aa)
4 l p

where A = 4 ( rSGR ) is the horizon surface area. We have set Boltzmann constant
2

kB = 1 . We have found that irrespective of black hole mass, all black holes near
stringy scale have a unique radius rSGR = l p2 . The unique entropy of all black holes
is then
1 A l 4

= 2 A = 2 [4 ( rSGR ) ] = 2p = l p2 .
1 2
S BH (18Bb)

4 lp 4l p lp

The entropy of these quantum black black holes is simply the area of a disc of
radius l p .

[6] A prediction from a Theory of Quantum Gravity

Weak Equivalence Principle (WEP)[45,46] has played a significant role in the

formulation of general relativity. Having said this, we recall that WEP is not a
foundational principle of general relativity. But it implies that gravity is a geometric
property of spacetime. In its simplest form, WEP ensures universality of free-fall,
and therefore equality of inertial mass and gravitational mass of a test body:

mI = mG . (19)

Any attempt to meld general relativity with standard model requires a violation of
WEP. Some variants of string theory also predict its violation. String-inspired
models require violation of universality of free-fall at the level [47]

126
 a
1018 4 ( ) 2
a

where a is acceleration, and , are dimensionless quantities of order unity.

We now try to find a quantitative violation of WEP from our derivation of quantum
rest energy of a particle from Eq.(3f)

2
E0 = mc 2 .
8m (19A)

The last term is Quantum Potential energy of the particle, first described by Bohm

[48]. This term has dimension of energy, once we realize that has dimension
2
of momentum. Since the particle is free, and not subjected to strong, weak or
electromagnetic interactions, the only route to its appearance in the above
equation may be its self-gravitational energy. This energy is amazingly very
small. An electrons energy due to self-gravity is only

2
(1028 )erg .
8me

With more massive particle, the order of magnitude decreases. But this
effectively increases the self-gravitational energy, which is negative. With this
conjecture, we note that classiclal relativistic rest energy of the particle in an
inertial frame is no longer mc2 ,or, in this context mI c 2 , but less than it by a tiny
amount contributed by quantum gravity of the particle. We rewrite quantum rest
energy as

2
E0 = mG c 2 = mI c 2 , (20)
8mI
which yields mI > mG , or, more precisely,
mI mG
2
2 1 mc 2
= = = = . (21)
mI 8mI2 c 2 2mI 2 2c 2mI 2

General relativity sets = 0. But our weak-field quantum gravity theory of a single
particle at rest, described by Eq.(20) predicts a violation of WEP by a nonzero
dimensionless quantity

m2
= c 2 .
2mI

127
Since amount of violation depends on the inertial mass of the particle, highest
possible violation will be in case of the lightest test particle. In case of electron
mass me = 9.11 10 28 g , with fundamental mass constant

mc = = 1.758 1038 g ,
2c

the WEP violation will perhaps be detected at = 1.86196 1022 level. At present
WEP has been tested at 1013 level by University of Washington group ([49], [50]).
STEP mission [51] will test at 1018 level. A non-null result is likely to occur at
1022 level. But, a nonzero possibly suggests that gravity is less equivalent to
acceleration, at least in quantum theory.

[7] A Theory of Quantum Gravity in Weak-

Weak-field Regime

We now explore the possibility of finding a theory of quantum gravity for a particle
immersed in its own gravitational field. We assume a non-relativistic speed for the
particle. We quote the quantum energy of the particle from Eq.(4) of page (6) of
[36]:

2 2 2 d 2 P1 1 dP1
2

E = = , (21A)
2m 4mP1 dx 2 2 P1 dx

where the last term with the brackets, the Quantum Potential, is here not the self-
gravitational energy of the particle. The reason is the following: This quantum
potential energy depends on P1 ( x ), i.e. on the position of the measurement point
in the device. Self-gravity cannot refer to an external point. We refer to Fig.(1) of
page (17) of [36], and find that the separating distance between the particle and
the measurement point is x vt = s .If we consider the moving particle as
constituting a moving frame of reference, then x s , and quantum potential of
the particle becomes

2 d 2 P1 1 dP1
2

VQP = . (21B)
4mP1 ( s ) ds 2 2 ds

128
This potential energy is now conjectured as the quantum gravitational energy
generated by the mutual gravitational interaction (between the moving particle
and the device particle) at a distance s from each other. In the last Section, we
have found a small violation of weak equivalence principle. This may suggest that
gravity may not be entirely a geometric property of spacetime ------which is the
underpinning of general relativity. General relativity gives precise results, but in
very weak field and for ultra-light objects, we may utilize Newtonian gravity.
If the mass of the device particle is m , and s = s is separation operator, the
gravitational potential is

Gmm
VG =
s (21C)

To simplify calculation, we set A( s ) = P1 ( s ) , and find

2 d 2 A
VQP = .
2mA ds 2

According to our conjecture VQP = VG . Therefore,

2 d 2 A Gmm d 2 A 2Gm 2 m A
= = .
2mA ds 2 s ds 2 2 s

We rewrite this equation as

A A = 0 , (21D)
s
2Gm 2 m
where = . This differential equation has a solution in terms of Bessel

2

function Z ( s ) [52,53]:
A( s) = sZ1 (2i s )
where
Z1 ( ) = c1 J1 ( ) + c2Y1 ( ).

J1 ( ) and Y1 ( ) are Bessel functions of the first kind and second kind
respectively, and c1 , c2 are constants of integration. The probability density for
finding the particle (interacting quantum gravitationally with the device particle) at
a distance s from the measurement point is

P( s) = [ A( s)]2 = s[ Z1 (2i s )]2 . (22)

129
while the wave function of the particle in weak quantum gravity regime is

( s ) = sZ1 (2i s )e[i ( s )] . (23)

Since s = [ x v (t ) dt ] , we assume ( s ) = ( x v (t ) dt ) = 1 ( x ) + 2 (t ) . Making use

of these quantities in Eq.(18) ,one may hopefully find the eigenvalues and
average values of observables. Since contains and G ,( and not c ), the
outcomes of measurement belong only to non-relativistic quantum gravity.
We now proceed to a theory of quantum self-gravity in ultra-high speed , albeit in
weak-field regime. We find from Eq.(58) in page (27) of [37] that the last term in
the quantum analog of classical mass-energy relation

E = Mc 2 = mc 2
is
2 v2
E = Mc 2 1 2 (24)
8M c

where the last term is quantum potential emerging out of self-gravitational

interaction:

2 v2
VQP = VQG = 1 2 (25)
8M c
v c2
= 2 , and =
v
Recalling that = mv = Mv M = , we obtain
v c
from the well-known relation

c2
= v phase =
v . (25A)
Plugging these into Eq.(25) quantum potential term becomes

c 2 2 v2
VQP = , with = 1 2 . (26)
8 c

We have discussed immediately below Eq.(3A) that the particles under

consideration never travel along the real line. They are constrained to do so
because of the irreducible position uncertainty

x 0.

130
The particle of mass m briskly commutes (due to quantum jitters) between two
equiprobable positions (+i) and (i) . The particle mass, alternately reaching
these seats at the end-points of a 1-brane (string) on the imaginary axis,
becomes alternately (+im) and (im) during this brisk vibration. Self-interaction
due to gravity, or self-gravity is generated during this process: graviton (excited
out of this vibration of the 1-brane) exchange may trigger this self-interaction
simulating gravitational force acting along the separating distance
d = (+i) (i) = 2i. The self-gravity potential is then

Gmm G (+im)(im) Gm
2
VQG = = =
2i (27)
d 2i

Equating this with quantum potential VQP in Eq.(26) we find, after replacing by
2 n ( n is frequency, an integer)
i 2 c 2 2 c 1 + i c
m2 = m= i = .
8 nG 2 2 nG 2 2 2 nG

v2
We write : = 1 2
= 1 2 .
c

1 c v2
Then m= 1 [1 + i ] m p (27A)
4 n c2

In this mass term we have introduced the integer n in place of frequency in order
c
to explicitly show mass quantization in units of planck mass m p = . Any
G
particle mass in quantum gravity in weak field is a complex quantity:
m = mr + imi , whose real and imaginary parts are equal:

m p c v2
mr = mi = 1 2 . (28)
4 n c

This is the first sign in our theory of quantum gravity that a boson of mass mr may
have a superpartner of the same mass mi . This symmetry is called
Supersymmetry if it is a symmetry of space-time in which a boson swaps a
1
fermion of same mass but whose spin differs by . Supersymmetry in this
2
theory of quantum gravity is still unbroken because mr is real, while ( imi ) is

131
imaginary. This leaves the ground state energy of the supersymmetric harmonic
oscillator not exactly zero. If mr = 0, then the ground state energy is

im p c 2 v2
E0 = imi c =
2
1 2 ( c ) (28A)
4 n c

which is imaginary. But the energy eigenvalues of a supersymmetric oscillator are

either zero, or positive ( [176], [177] ):
:
, k = (n + k ),
EnSusy where n, k = 0,1, 2,3,.... (28B)

In supersymmetry, there is no zero-point energy mode:

Susy
E0,0 = (0 + 0) = 0. (28C)

Since our zero-point energy is imaginary, E0 = imi c 2 ,

Re( E0 ) = Re(imi c 2 ) = 0 = E0,0

Susy
. (28D)

This equation proves that supersymmetry is still unbroken.

Eq.(28) reads mass as a function of speed: mr = mi = f ( v ) , just as in special
relativity

Mc 2 = mc 2 M = m = mf (v ) = ( Nmc ) f (v ) (29)

m
where = N is usually a large number. For electron mass, N 1010 . We have
mc
already found in Eq. (6a) that fundamental mass constant mc is created solely by
the process of spinning. Once mc is generated, Eq.(29) shows that M grows
from mc via a function of speed v . All these seem to suggest that mass is
generated by motion, first from spinning and then by other kinds of motion. There
seems to exist a hint, albeit indirect, of this conjecture in universality of slope in
Regge trajectories ( [54], [55] ). It has been experimentally tested from Regge
trajectories that spin grows linearly with squared mass ( [56], [57], [58] ).
Let us find the final form of quantum self-gravity from Eqs.(27) and (27A):

Gm2 Gm Gm 1 c v2
VQG = =
( m ) = 2i 4 n 1 (1 + i )m p (30)
2i 2i c2

132
 c G
Since, mpl p = = = 2mc ,
G c3 c
Eq.(30) reads

1 G{m}{(1 i )mc
VQG = (31)
2 n 2l p
c v
2
with factor = 1 2 . We find something remarkable in Eq.(31): The
c
quantity within the bracket exactly resembles the gravitational potential energy of
a system of two particles of masses m and (1 i )mc respectively, separated by a
G
distance 2l p ,where l p = is planck length. Eq.(31) shows that in case of
c3
measuring self-gravity potential, the test body (with the requisite property of non-
invasive presence in the gravitational field of m ) is a complex-valued mass
(1 i )mc , which is a set of ordered pair (mc , mc ) . Since mc 10 38 g , its
infinitesimally small mass is hardly capable of disturbing the self-gravity field due
to a larger mass m . Since the number n in Eq.(26) is an integer, quantum self-
gravity potential VQG is indeed quantized in planck scale.
Finally we ask a question: Are free particles really free? To try an answer to this
question, we pick up Eq.(21A) for energy of a nonrelativistic free particle:

2 2 2 d 2 P1 1 dP1
2

E = = , (21A)
2m 4mP1 dx 2 2 P1 dx

where we enter s = ( x vt ) instead of x , referring to arguments that led to

Eq.(21B) above. To simplify algebra, we set A( s) = P( s ) where P( s) is the
position probability density for detecting the particle at a distance s from the
measuring device placed at a distance x from the origin. The last term of
Eq.(21A) is immediately simplified to just

2 d 2 A
2 (31A)
2mA( s ) ds

This term is quantum potential energy due to the particle of mass m ---------- it
was first conceptualized by Bohm [48]. Combining Eqs.(21A) and (32), and
rearranging the terms, we find

d 2 A 2mE
+ 2 2 A( s) = 0 (31B)

2
ds

133
 2mE
This equation for free particle is quite weird in that the coefficient 2 2

cannot be zero. If it is zero, then

d2A
2 = 0, A( s ) = P( s ) = ( C1s + C2 ) , P( s ) = ( C1s + C2 ) .
2

ds

This implies that as the particle moves away from the measuring device to an
infinitely large distance, the position probability density increases without bound.
This is physically unacceptable in any quantum theory. This requires that the
coefficient
2mE 2
2 > 0, (31C)

2mE 2
or, 2 < 0. (31D)

These conditions disagree with the standard energy eigenvalue of a free particle
[104]:

2 2
E= , (31E)
2m

2mE
because the above term forces the coefficient 2 2 to vanish, and thus

flouts the constraints of Eqs. (31C) and (31D). In the relativistic case of a particle
at rest, we have seen that the last term in Eq.(21A) is negative. A smooth
interface between nonrelativistic and relativistic quantum regimes requires that
quantum potential in Eq.(31A) should also be negative. If the coefficient

2mE 2
2 = a (31F)

happens to be a constant , the particle requires a constant angular wave number

( s = x vt )
= = constant. (31F*)
x

The conditions (31C) and (31D) now become a > 0, or, a < 0. Eq.(31B) now
reads

134
 d2A
+ aA( s ) = 0 . (31G)
ds 2

It has two solutions [105]:

( )
P( s) = A( s) = C1 sinh s a + C2 cosh s a , ( ) when a < 0 , (31H)
and
( )
P( s ) = A( s ) = C1 sin s a + C2 cos s a ( ) when a > 0. (31J)

where C1 , C2 are arbitrary constants.

The nonrelativistic wave function ( s ) = P( s)ei ( s ) may be constructed from
these solutions with ( s) = ( s + ) , (this is obtained from Eq.(31F*)).
But the case is not ruled out when a varies with s . Once we invoke conservation
of energy, fate of particle momentum depends solely on whether quantum
potential energy in Eq.(32) depends on the position of the particle. Usually all
such potential energies due to electric, magnetic or gravitational charges depend
on the position s of the corresponding charges. This plausible assumption turns
constant momentum of a free particle into a space-varying momentum ( s ) .
Eq.(31G) with a a ( s ) is intractable unless we use a trick. The equation [106 ]

d2A dA
s 2
+ [ (bs + 1) f ( s ) + (bs 1)] + b 2 sf ( s ) A( s ) = 0 (31K)
ds ds

1 bs
reduces to a familiar form if we set the arbitrary function f ( s ) = . Eq.(31K)
1 + bs
now becomes

d2A 2
s + b sf ( s ) A( s ) = 0.
ds 2

Since s 0, (because that would make position uncertainty s 0, ensuring

compatibility with Heisenberg uncertainty relation), the differential equation now
becomes
d2A 2
+ b f ( s ) A( s ) = 0,
ds 2
which reduces to Eq.(31G) with a varying a ( s )

d2A
+ a ( s ) A( s ) = 0 (31L)
ds 2

135
 a( s) 2mE
if we set b 2 ( s ) = with a( s ) = 2 2 ( s ) . Particular solution of Eq.(31L)
f ( s )
is

P( s) = A0 ( s ) = (bs + 1)e bs , (31M)

where we must have

a(s) a ( s ) [1 + sa ( s) ]
b( s ) = + =+ (31N)
f ( s) [1 sa(s)]
to generate a probability density P( s ) in Eq.(31M) such that P( s ) decreases as s
> 0 increases. General solution of Eq.(31L) is

( )
P( s ) = A( s ) = e2bs / (1 + bs ) 2 C1 + C2 e F ( s ) {e2bs / (1 + bs ) 2 ds , (31P)

where the function

1 1 bs
F ( s ) = bs ln s + b + ds
s 1 + bs

and C1 , C2 are arbitrary constants. From Eq.(31P), the position probability

density P( s ) and the wave function ( s) = P( s)ei ( s ) may be extracted with
( s ) = ( s ) ds .
We summarize the above discussion: It may be possible that a non-constant
quantum potential affects the uniform momentum of a free particle, and its
momentum p ( s ) has a possibility to vary with particle position s according to the
following formula
p 2 ( s ) = 2 2 ( s ) = 2mE 2 a( s ).

If this happens to be true, then a spatially varying momentum is produced by a

2
spatially varying quantum potential that contains a factor . For elementary
2m
particles this factor has a very small magnitude. If we assume that there is no
other fundamental interaction except the well-known four interactions of nature,
then in low energy scale this factor (of quantum potential ) may be a guise of self-
gravity of the particle. For proton, this factor is around 10 30 .This is certainly very
small, as expected in non-relativistic quantum gravity phenomena.

136
 [8] Derivation of Supersymmetry from Minimal distance

We observe one strange thing in Eq.(28) of section [7] : Any particle mass mr has
an imaginary-valued partner imr , having a same real part. The difference
between mr = (1)mr and its partner imr = (i )mr lies in their coefficients 1 and i .
Again, the coefficients of the orderd pair (mc , mc ) of the complex-valued test
particle are 1 and (i) . Collecting these, we have only two possible coefficient
signatures, namely, 1 and (i ) . We have already come across these numbers.
These are minimal distances: (i) ( x)min = 1, in real-valued energy-free
phenomena, (but this result may be tweaked in quantum vacuum too, which has
imaginary energy), and (ii) ( x) min = (i ) in low-energy interactions. We shall now
prove that supersymmetry (58A, 58B, 58C, 58D) emerges from just these
minimal distance signatures. In fact supersymmetry is the core reason for
ubiquitous presence of complex mass in quantum theory. The two masses in the
real and imaginary parts of any arbitrary complex-valued massive particle are just
a pair of particle and its superpartner having equal mass in unbroken
supersymmetry. The imaginary-valued massive particle is the superpartner. The
superpartner cannot be detected as its mass is on the imaginary axis. We now
relate this result to Supersymmetric Quantum Mechanics ([59], [60]) of an
arbitrary quantum system of mass m . We write

E E 1 H 1 H
m = mr imr = 2 i 2 = 2 1 s i 2 1 s
c c c s c s

which is rewritten as H s = E s = mc 2 s = ( H1 iH1 ) s = ( H1 H 2 ) s . The

Hamitonian H 2 is the partner Hamiltonian of H 1 , and it becomes equal to H 1
when supersymmetry transition occurs from one signature to the other: (i) 1 .
When supersymmetry signature ( x) min = (i ) breaks down at planck energy to tear
apart ( with the smashing planck force of 1044 newton ) the neighborhood of
imaginary axis origin to open up a tiny real-valued window of 1.616 1033 cm ,
supersymmetry phase transition occurs from

( x)min = (i ) ( x) min = l p = 1.616 1033 cm. (32)

137
at planck energy 1.22 1019 GeV . We explore the core property of exchange of
commutativity and noncommutativity (which are authentic features of boson and
fermion respectively) between a standard model particle (with minimal distance =
(i ) ) and its superpartner (in the regime of minimal distance = 1) from the
deceptively simple signature breaking:

( x) min = (i ) ( x) min = 1 . . (33)

We shall prove this with the help of Grassmann algebra ( [61, [62] ) which is
noncommutative in nature. For any pair of vectors u , v V ,where V is vector
space, we prepare an exterior or wedge product u v which may be regarded
as a directed area segment called bivector , just as u is a directed line segment
called axial vector. The space of all bivectors A = u v is the vector space 2 (V )
. Geometric products ( [63], [64] ) (uv ) involve bivectors and scalar products in the
following way:

(uv) = u .v + u v , (34)

where it may seem a little quirky that apples are being added to oranges (!), i.e., a
0-dimensional scalar (i.e. u .v ) is added to a 2-dimensional bivector! But this
confusion caused by the controversial belief that only like things can be added to
like things has been dispelled by Hestenes (see p. 30 of [63]). A Hodge dual
operator * (see p.225 of [2]) reduces a 2-vector or bivector to an axial vector, for
instance,

*(u v ) = u v .

*(2 D vector) (1D vector)

Grassmann algebra of multivectors, of which bivectors are special cases, satisfy

anticommutation law

u v = v u . (35)

From Eq.(34) we form another geometrical product

(vu ) = u .v + v u (36)

It is tempting to form the following relations from Eqs.(34) and (36):

1
[uv + vu ] = u.v
2

138
 1
[uv vu ] = u v
2

If the vectors are collinear, then u and v are proportional to each other, and
then the geometric products are commutative:

[uv vu ] = 0 .
If the vectors are orthogonal then the products are noncommutative:

[uv + vu ] = 0 .
Grassmann algebra is a generalization of quaternion algebra [65,10], as can be
readily seen by comparing the relation

ij = ji

with Eq.(35). Any quaternion Q = a0 + a1i + a2 j + a3 k = (a0 + a1i ) + (a2 + a3i ) j may be
viewed as just an ordered pair ((a0 + a1i ), (a2 + a3i )) , like a complex number. It may
also be viewed as the pair Q = (a0 , a ), where a = a1i + a2 j + a3k is a pure
quaternion [66].

1 We now explore the possibility of existence of supersymmetry from the

signatures obtained from minimal distances imposed in two different regimes,
namely:

( x) min. = i,

which represents a generic feature of low energy particles dominating complex

space-time when quantum particles have complex eigenvalues of position,
momenta, energy [36] . These are properties of standard model particles when
they are not detected in a device, or when their observables are not being
measured. There is some element of truth in this proposition because particles
are not always subjected to continual, or, constant quantum measurements
[36]. This minimal distance also describes unbroken supersymmetry where the
superpartners have the same mass as their standard model partners. A glimpse
of this evidence may be gathered from the equality of real and imaginary parts of
mass in Eq. (28) above. The superpartners are unlikely to be observed as they
live in imaginary time. They may possibly be detected when the signature
( x) min. = (i ) switches into the real-valued tiny window at planck scale:

( x) min. = l p 1033 cm.

139
at around 1016 TeV energy scale. To a limited extent, this concept of
supersymmetric particles living in imaginary time is supported by recent findings
in LHC: A simple version of supersymmetry theory called CMSSM (Constrained
Minimal Supersymmetric extension of Standard Model) has been put on a tight
spot [74]. Zero events for squark masses below 1.1TeV at 95% confidence level
(certainty) and no detection of gluino masses in the same range at 95%
confidence level ( for universal scalar mass m0 < 500 GeV) suggests that
sparticles probably reside in imaginary time, a safe hiding place even at TeV
scale. Quantum vacuum is filled with zillions of particles ------- stripped of real-
valued mass and momenta ------- living in imaginary time (which we shall prove
below) with a bare minimum of imaginary-valued momenta that show up as their
spin. These vacuum particles have no motion (including a literal spinning) in real
space-time. They are invisible, and that earns them the moniker dark matter.
We shall expose below that their imaginary-valued energy is what is called dark
energy which is responsible for the accelerated cosmic expansion first reported
in 1998 ( [67], [68] ).

2 Minimal distance ( x)min. = 1 , when standard model particles morph into

corresponding supersymmetric particles. We create the operators

R SM = ( x) min.1 = (i)1 ,
and

R SUSY = ( x) min 1 = (1)1 = 1 ,

(where the subscripts SM and SUSY refer to Standard Model regime and
Supersymmetric particle regime) and find that

R SM R SM = (i)(i)1 = (1)1 = R SUSY .

This shows that R SM is a non-Hermitian normal operator, which is generic to all

operators of non-unitary quantum mechanics ( [36], [37] ). Although in one-
dimensional case we access the imaginary unit i , in 3D scenario we use the
vectors of the full pure quaternion basis {i, j , k} . We then find a remarkable
presence of both fermions and bosons in the supersymmetric signature transition

( x) min = (i ) ( x) min = 1 . (37)

[1] Fermions

140
We first consider the signature ( x) min = (i ) , and invoke the multivector concept of
Grassmann algebra. As special examples of multivectors, the r -vector A and s -
vector B are defined as the following exterior or wedge products of vectors

A = u1 u2 u3 ....... ur

B = v1 v2 v3 ....... vs

The r and s vectors satisfy a relation that subsumes both commutation and
anticommutation:

A B = (1)rs B A. (38)

When both r and s are odd numbers (1) rs = (1) , and consequently Eq.(38)
shows anticommutation:

A B + B A = 0.

When either r or s is even, (1)rs = 1, and we arrive at commutation:

A B B A = 0.

To generate fermions we take r = 3 and s = 3 , and {u1 , u2 , u3} = {i, j , k} , with

( x)min = (i ) = A.

In another extra dimension, we set ( y ) min. = j = B , since B is a different

operator. Let A be a simple r vector with r = 3. And B be a simple s vector with
s = 3. Then, A = (i ) = u1 u2 u3 = ijk = 1. This implies i = 1 , matching the
signature Eq.(37) of supersymmetry. It is highly important to note that i is not the
square root of (-1). It is usual, instead, to use another symbol to denote it,
namely, h = 1. h should not be confused with Plancks constant. While h is a
scalar, i, j , k are vectors. Since B is a different operator, we cannot write it like A
in the same sequence as u1 u2 u3 . We have to write it as different
combinations of u1 , u2 , u3 , namely, B may be one of the following:

u2 u3 u1

u3 u2 u1

u1 u3 u2

141
 u3 u1 u2

u2 u1 u3 .

Using the ordered triplet {u2 , u1 , u3 } = {i, j , k} , the above simple 3-vectors reduce
to a set of products in which , j = B {1, +1, +1, 1, +1}. If B takes up any
arbitrary element of the set of values, we find that the supersymmetry signature
Eq.(37) is satisfied:

( j ) = 1 ,

where j = ( y )min. plays the role of i in Eq. (37). With r = 3, s = 3 , Eq.(38) reads

A B = ij = (1)33 B A = B A = ji.

This implies anticommutation of operators:

A B + B A = 0, (38A)

which implies
i j + j i = 0.

And this is an indicator of a branded particle called fermions.

[2] Bosons

For fermions we considered ( x) min. = (i) . Now we explore the other alternative for
bosons:

( x) min. = (+i).

We call this operator A a simple r-vector with r = 3. We define it as

A = +i = v1 v2 v3 .

Here, the ordered triplet {v1 , v2 , v3} = {i, j, k}. Then, A = +i = ijk = 1. This agrees
with the supersymmetry signature i ( 1) , or in more familiar form ( i ) 1 of
Eq. (37). Since B is a different operator, we set B = jk , where B is a simple s-
vector with s = 2 :

B = jk = v2 v3 .

142
Then following exterior product rule Eq.(38), we find

A B = (1) rs B A = (1)32 B A = B A. (39)

This indicates commutation, the hallmark for bosons. Also, Eq. (39) means

i ( jk ) = ( jk ) i.
Since B = jk = i , the above relation reduces to

i i = i i,

And this implies

i i i i = 0. (40)

A question may be raised, why the operator B = jk , which is simply +i , has been
taken the same as operator A = +i. Note that the signature ( x) min. = (+i ) is just a
position operator. Therefore, all operators considered here are position
operators. Unlike fermions, bosons may share the same position eigenket at the
same time [75]; therefore, A and B may be the same position operator acting on
the same position eigenket. Note that the operators A and B , the position
operators in case of fermions, are different , because each fermion occupies a
distinct quantum state that no other fermion is permitted to share, respecting
Paulis exclusion principle: A = i, B = j.
Also,

A B = (v1 v2 v3 ) (v2 v3 ) = v1 v2 v3 v2 v3 = ijkjk = ( 1) jk = jk = i.

And

B A = (v2 v3 ) (v1 v2 v3 ) = v2 v3 v1 v2 v3 = jkijk = (i )( k ) k = ikk = i .

From these compositions, we again obtain commutation law for bosons:

A B = B A.

A B B A = 0. (40A)

We have thus derived characteristic features of fermions and bosons in Eq.(38A)

and Eq.(40A) respectively from the deceptively simple supersymmetry
signatures.
Now we show that sparticle (which is supersymmetric partner of a particle) spin is
1
less than particle spin of standard model:
2

143
From Eq.(15), p.(8) of [36], we normalize the wave function of a particle
approaching the measuring device placed at x, where, vt x. If the limits x1 and
x2 of the integral below, are exact positions , namely,respectively vt and ,
these position observables would be eigenpositions with zero uncertainties. This
would have violated Heisenberg uncertainty relation, as discussed in Section [2]
above. To avert this problem, we are forced to consider complex space as
domain of eigenpositions of particles in quantum mechanics. We, therefore add
the minimal distance ( i ) to the limits to convert into complex positions (vt i )
and ( i ) respectively. This ensures that for equiprobable values of lower limits,
x1 = (vt i ) , the averages are
1 1
x1 = (vt i ) + (vt + i ) = vt
2 2

and
1 1
x12 = (vt i ) 2 + (vt + i ) 2 = v 2t 2 + i 2 ,
2 2

(x1 )2 = x12 x1 = i 2 , x1 = i 0 .
2
so,

Similarly, for the other limit, the uncertainty is nonzero. We tolerate a non-real x1
because there are compelling reasons to believe in complex space-time as the
backdrop of quantum dynamics [36]. More evidences in this regard will follow
below.
Normalization of wave function , Eq. (15), p. (8) of [36] requires

+ i + i Rx + i Rx + i Rx
Rt v Rx
1= P ( x, t )dx = e
dx = e e dx = e e d .
R v Rt v Rt v

vt + i vt + i vt + i vt + i R v

+ i
v v Rt v Rt
Rx iR iR iR

i.e. 1 = e Rt e v = e Rt (0)e v e v = e Rt 0 e v
,
R vt + i R R

iR iR iR
v v R v iR R 2
which implies 1 = e Rt Rt e v = e v , i.e. = e = 1 ........
R R v v 2v 2

Comparing the real parts of both sides, and ignoring terms containing higher
R
powers of , one finally reaches the coveted result
v
R = v. (40a)

The wave function in Eq.(15),p. (8) of [36], becomes

144
 R x 1 1
t + i x it ( vt x ) + i x it ( x vt ) + i x it
( x, t ) = e
R 2 v
= e2 =e 2
. when x vt . (41)

The other wave function Eq.(16), p.(8) of [36] for a particle outgoing from the
measurement point is then

R x 1
t + i x i t ( vt x ) + i x it
( x, t ) = e
L 2 v
=e 2
, when x vt . (42)

From Eq. (41), the momentum of a free particle is

p R i R i 1
pQ = = = + = + i . (43a)
R x
R
2 2

From Eq. (42), the momentum of the outgoing free particle is

1
pQ = i . (43b)
2

Combining the momenta of Eqs. (43a) and (43b), the eigenmomenta of a free
particle are
1
pQ = i . (43c)
2

Referring to Eq. (3 g 2 ) above (in the discussion of spin in section [3] ) we know
that
1
min. = . (44)
2

This implies that the minimal wave number min. , which is measured in radians
per unit distance
2
= ,

is a half-wave. (We have discussed this half-wave in Eqs.(88) and (88A) in p.39
and Figs. (3) and (4) in p. 41 of [37].). Wave number and frequency are defined
[30C] as non-negative quantities:

d ( x )
= = 1 , (44a)
x dx
and

145
 d2 (t )
= = . (44A)
t dt
1
We show that non-negative wave number cannot be smaller than , i.e.
2
smaller than a half-wave. Eq.(8), page (7) of [36] shows that energy of a free
particle is

2 2 2 R 2
= . (45)
2m 8mv 2

Writing v instead of R from Eq.(40a) in Eq.(45), the energy of a free particle is

2 2 2
= .
2 m 8m
(46)

1 2 2 2
If < , then < . Eq.(46) and Eq.(44A) together yield
2 2 m 8m

= < 0,
t

which is utterly risible. This sets the infimum of the wave number spectrum at

1
= .
2

We expect that any arbitrary real wave number would be a non-negative integer,
1
n times minimal , (i.e. min. = .). Therefore, real part of any arbitrary
2
momentum will be

n
p = = (n min. ) = , where, n = 0,1, 2,3, 4,.... (47)
2

With each momentum p = of a standard model particle is coupled an

1
additional momentum of a vacuum particle equal to i , as observed in the
2
eigenmomenta pQ in Eq.(43c). We now refer to Eq.(3G) of Section [2] describing
spin of a standard model particle. We notice in that equation that a unit
quaternion times linear momentum is required to generate spin. Therefore,
n
momentum required to produce real-valued spin is
2

146
 n jn jn
p = ( j ) pQ = ( j ) i = + ji = k , (48)
2 2 2 2 2 2

where {i, j , k} is the pure quaternion basis. Intrinsic angular momentum or spin of
a standard model particle is

[ S z ]SM =| r p |= rp sin( r , p) = rp sin = rp . (48A)
2

Recalling Eq.(48), and identifying the subscript SM as indicating standard

model, we observe that

jn n n
[ S z ]SM = rp = r p = (i ) k = (ij ) (ik ) = (k ) ( j ) ,
2 2 2 2 2 2
Eq.(49)

where we make use of the following relations of quaternion algebra

( ij ) = k and (ik ) = j.

Comparing Eq.(49) with Eq.(3G) of Section [2] we find that standard model
n
particle has spin along spin-up or spin-down z direction, plus an
2
additional half-unit spin due to a quantum vacuum particle tacked to it. Since the
latter cannot be accessed with a device placed in real spacetime , only the z-
direction spin can be measured. Spin of a standard model particle is then written
as

n
[ S z ]SM ( S z ) SM = , where n = 0,1, 2,3, 4,.... . (50)
2

( S z ) SM includes fermions as well as bosons. When supersymmetric signature

( i ) 1,

or, equivalently, ( j ) 1 comes into force, the transition affects only the
vacuum particle contribution to spin, which is unobservable. Now,

( j ) 1, ( 1)( j ) ( 1)1, ( j ) (1).

We may safely exchange ( j ) in Eq.(49) with ( 1) when supersymmetric

particles are considered:

147
 n SUPERSYMMETRY n n
[ S z ]SM = k + ( j ) k + (1) = k ,
2 2 2 2 2 2 SSM
which implies
n
( S z ) SSM = k = ( S z ) SM . (51)
2 2 2

We have made use of Eq.(50) in the derivation of spin of the superpartner above.
The subscript SSM in Eq.(51) above refers to the sparticle in Minimal
Supersymmetric Standard Model (MSSM) [334]. If n = 0 in Eq.(51), ( S z ) SM = 0.
This forces a negative spin on the supersymmetric particle:

( S z ) SSM = ,
2

which is unacceptable in a quantum theory. If accepted, then this result, following

Eq.(48A) will tell us to accept

( S z ) SSM = r p = ,
2

which is absurd. We are thus compelled to discard spin-zero elementary particles

from a consistent quantum theory in standard model regime, albeit spin-zero
composite particles may be compatible with it. Inserting n = 1, 2,3, 4 in Eq.(51) ,
the standard model particles are supersymmetrized: Fermions are bosonized,
while bosons are fermionized.
One problem that supersymmetry immediately solves is the divergences that
surface in quantum field theories, in which Renormalization [76] has been
invented to cure this upsetting feature. A quantum harmonic oscillator [77], which
is usually associated with all field points in space and time in a quantum field
theory, has eigenenergy

1
En = n + , (52)
2

from which we derive the zero point energy corresponding to n = 0 :

1
E0 = . (53)
2

In the energy regime of standard model, if we accept that what 1 is to transplanck

supersymmetric regime, ( i ) is to standard model (non-Planckian)
supersymmetric territory, then we may rewrite Eq.(52) as

148
 1 1 1
En = n + (1) n + ( i ) = n i .
2 2 2

[ Transplanck supersymmetry ] [Standard Model supersymmetry]

Quantum vacuum [78] energy, which is the zero point energy of all fields, then
becomes a harmless quantity, namely, an imaginary quantity in standard model:

1
E0 = i . (54)
2

Vacuum energy is exactly zero in the real part, thus assuring a zero vacuum
energy density in four-dimensional gravity. Since cosmological constant is
directly proportional to vacuum energy density, Eq.(54) ensures a zero
cosmological constant for empty space or, vacuum in classical gravity. Most
cosmologists would have preferred this number for ([98], [99], [100], [101] ).
This value for however contradicts the conventional concept of quantum
vacuum, rich in dynamics of virtual particles that are tolerated by uncertainty
principle of quantum mechanics. But we shall find below that the imaginary part --
------ this part is inconsequential to real spacetime geometry of general relativity --
------ becomes seminal in calculating the theoretical value of a tiny cosmological
constant. And, this tiny positive value of agrees with current astronomical
observations.
Before closing this Section, I feel tempted to show that in the tiny positive
scenario, supersymmetry is indeed unbroken now. Here by unbroken
supersymmetry, we mean that the extra dimensions are still compactified as
inaccessible imaginary dimensions. In fact supersymmetry signature of Planck
scale has actually broken from a real signature

( x)min. = l p
to compactified imaginary-valued signature

( x) min . = ( i )

at standard model scale. We say it is unbroken symmetry because any standard

model particles real mass and the imaginary part of mass of its superpartner are
equal. We may prove it by simply referring to Eq.(28) of section [7], where

mass of (particle+ sparticle) = m = mr + imi = mr + imr ,

and unbrokenness of supersymmetry is implied by the following symmetry of

mass between a particle and its superpartner :

149
 Re( m) = mr = Im( m) (54a)

Mass of particle = Mass of sparticle (54A)

Witten has remarked that [175]

I wonder if we can somehow make use of the vacua with unbroken

supersymmetry to describe nature. And in the same article he expresses that In
seeking to resolve the [cosmological constant] problem, one naturally wonders if
the real world can somehow be interpreted in terms of a vacuum state with
unbroken supersymmetry.
From Eq. (54A) above, we discern that this expectation may be practically
realized if we agree to accept the condition described by Eq. (54a) and the
resultant Eq.(54A) as definingunbroken supersymmetry.
We have shown in Section [10] that quantum vacuum energy is constant and
imaginary:

c
Evac = imc c 2 = i . (54@)
2

As discussed earlier in Eq.(28C) of Section [7],

[7], for a supersymmetric oscillator,
the energy spectrum is ([176], [177]) stripped of zero-point energy:

Susy
E0,0 = 0. (54#)

From Eq.(54@) we find

c
Re( Evac ) = Re i = 0 = E0Susy . (54*)
2

This shows that supersymmetry is still unbroken in the sense we have defined.
Another proof of unbroken supersymmetry depends on the value of Witten index
W [177]

W = Trace( 1) F ,

where F is the fermion number. If W = 0 , then supersymmetry is broken and the

ground state wave function 0 ( x, t ) is not normalizable. But if there exists a

150
normalizable ground state, then supersymmetry is unbroken : W = 1. We note
from Eq.(54@) that there are two ground state energies
+ c
Evac = +i
2
and
c
Evac = i
2

which are equiprobable. We shall prove in Section [10] below that the vacuum
states corresponding to the above energy eigenvalues are respectively

1
( x ct )
0+ ( x, t ) = e 2
, when x ct , (54&)

1
+ ( x ct )
and 0 ( x, t ) = e 2 , when x ct , (54$)

having the following position probability densities

P0+ ( x, t ) = e ( x ct ) , for x ct ,
and
P0 ( x, t ) = e + ( x ct ) , for x ct .
1
Since these doublet vacuum states have probability each, normalizability of
2
these states requires

ct
1 1
P0 ( x, t )dx + P0+ ( x, t )dx = 1. (54!)
2 2 ct

ct ct ct
ct
e e dx = e e
+ ( x ct ) ct ct
We find that P ( x, t )dx =
0 dx = e x x
= e ct ect 0 = 1.

+ ( x ct ) + ct x x ct
P0 ( x, t )dx = e dx = e e dx = e e = e 0 e = 1.
ct ct
Similarly,
ct
ct ct ct

Plugging these into Eq.(54!), we find that the doublet is normalizable:

1 1
(1) + (1) = 1.
2 2

151
Consequently, Witten index W = 1 , implies that supersymmetry is unbroken at
standard model energy scale. This result however does not imply that
superpartners of bosons or fermions will ever be detected before Planck scale
energy, because the mass of a superpartner is imaginary, and thus undetectable
until supersymmetry signature in planck scale decompactifies the signature from
imaginary

( x) min. = ( i )
to the real signature

( x)min . = l p 1033 cm .
We proceed to prove that vacuum particles (in doublets) of masses ( +imc ) and
c c
(imc ) generating the vacuum energy eigenvalues i and i actually
2 2
live in imaginary time. We know that angular frequency is defined as

( x, t )
= = = i = i.
t (t ) ( t ) ( t )
This implies that

c
i = i = i = Evac (54+)
( t ) 2
where we retrieve

c
= = . (54%)
t 2

Eq. (54+) suggests that i = i = = ,
( t ) t (it )

where the time in quantum vacuum is imaginary time:

= ( it ). (54//)

Vacuum particles generating the doublet ground states thus live in imaginary
time. This makes any device inaccessible to vacuum particles, or superpartners.
Superpartners (which reside in imaginary time) are thus blocked from view or
detection. Since Higgs doublets [178 ] may be massless in low energy regime, it
is likely that the vacuum particles of masses ( imc ) are Higgs doublets in super-
small energy scale, because Re(imc ) = 0. When supersymmetry signature ( i )
morphs into 1, the Higgs may have nonzero masses ( mc ) ( 105 eV ) (negative

152
mass or momentum has been discussed in Eq.(6b) of Section [4]). [4] Since

( mc ) = , the Higgs doublet momenta are the minimum possible momenta,
2c
1
namely, . But we have already recognized these as two states of a spin-
2 2
1
particle. Two particles of the Higgs doublet are correlated as the spin - pair
2
() , or the pair () . The doublet is perhaps permanently confined,
separated by a minimal distance, and may represent a pair of separated
magnetic monopoles [223] with magnetic charges of opposite sign. These
monopoles might have been copiously produced in the earliest phase of the
universe, but they are now completely inaccessible in subplanck scale. More
precisely, these monopoles (produced shortly after big bang) are now at the outer
fringes of the actual universe, and therefore far beyond the observable universe !
This might contain the reason of non-detection. But this is simply a speculation
sans theoretical proof. I would like to report about this proof later. But the
combined mass of a Higgs doublet is much less than the proposed mass of Higgs
boson. Perhaps mc 9.8 10 6 eV is the actual mass ( i.e. all types of interaction-
free mass) of each component of a Higgs doublet. A previously unknown particle
of mass (125.3 0.6) GeV / c 2 has recently been discovered [ 259]
independently by CMS and ATLAS groups of Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at
CERN and announced on 04/July/2012. But scientists are yet to brand it as the
Standard Model Higgs boson [208] pending further investigation.
Apart from the result that, quantum vacuum lives in imaginary time, there is
another explanation for zero-event detection of supersymmetric particles. Note
that the vacuum wave functions in Eqs.(54&) and (54$) are real. According to
standard quantum mechanics (see p.88 of [179] ) if the wave function of a particle
is real, then probability current density

i
j ( x, t ) = Re * = 0,
m x
because = *, and so

*
x

is real. As probability current vanishes, there is no chance of ever detecting

supersymmetric particles in real spacetime. Most likely, the fundamental particle
of mass mc = 9.866 10 6 eV 10 5 eV is the stable Lightest Supersymmetric
Particle (LSP) that is currently being thought as constituting dark matter.
We now try to understand what is meant by the supersymmetry signature

( x) min . = ( i ) .

153
Since
Re[( x ) min . ] = Re[( i )] = 0.

If we consider complex space-time of quantum mechanics, as proposed in ( [36],

[37] ), then complex space coordinate

xc = x + ix, since x = 0, and x = (1)

Re[( xc ) min. ] = Re[( i )] = 0,

( xReal ) min . = 0. (54z)

It turns out that ( xReal ) min . = 0 implies that in real space-time as background of
standard quantum mechanics or Quantum Field Theories (QFT), the minimal
distance between two particles is zero. Or, does Eq.(54z) emerge as another
signature of supersymmetry that subsumes classical physics by stating that in
real space-time, the minimal distance between two particles is zero? This seems
closer to reality.
We now proceed to discern the meaning of Supercharge operator Q r ( [385],
[390] ) which transforms a boson to a fermion of equal mass and vice versa :

Q r b = f , (54z1)

Q r f = b , (54z2)

where b and f are boson and fermion states with integer and half-integer
spins. Supercharge thus acts as the generator of supersymmetry transformations
described by Eqs(54z1) and (54z2). Usually, the supercharge is taken to be a
Majorana spinor [390].It is a column matrix expressed in terms of a single two-
dimensional mathematical object. Majorana spinor has a unique job in quantum
theory: To convert an uncharged particle into its antiparticle, which is none other
than the particle itself. Generally particles and antiparticles are completely
different particles with opposite electric charges. But, for uncharged particles
such as photon, only Majorana spinor converts a photon to its antiparticle, which
is the same as the particle photon.

Q1 or Q2 in association of the Hamiltonian operator H , defined as

{Q1 , Q1} = {Q 2 , Q 2 } = 2 H ,

154
 {Q1 , Q 2 } = 0, Q1Q 2 + Q 2 Q1 = 0.

[Q1 , H ] = 0, Q1 H HQ
= 0.
1

[Q 2 , H ] = 0.
(54z3)

From the first of the above relations, we find

Q1Q1 + Q1Q1 = 2 H , Q1Q1 = H , Q12 = H , (54z4)

and similarly, we find from the second relation

Q 22 = H , (54z5)

we feel tempted to ask whether supercharge operators

Q i , i = 1,2.

may be identified with square root of Hamiltonian operator ! Since the space in
which these operators act is not Hilbert space, but Banach space [212], I rather
remain non-committal, not being aware of the existence of square root of an
operator domained in Banach space.
It is better to use a concrete result to show that the meaning of charge in the
operator Supercharge is indeed related to some kind of electric charge, known
as Quantum Electric Charge , for instance, planck charge qP containing the
quantum sign :

qP = 4 0 c = c ,

where the term 4 0 = 1 in Planck units. It is not far from straightforward to show
that the wave function of quantum vacuum may be obtained from the classical
equation that classical vacuum has no real-valued energy: E = 0 . Quantizing it
we find
VAC
i = 0. (54z6)
t

Inserting the ansatz for wave function of vacuum particle VAC

VAC = P1 ( x) P2 (t )ei ( x )+i (t )

1 2

155
in Eq.(54z6) and carrying out a little calculation, we arrive at last at the relation

E = = 0,

which at once reminds us that this relation is meaningless, unless the period T
needs some other physical meaning, because

2
= 0, 2 = = 0.
T

One possible way to make it sensible is to admit that in subplanck scale

2 = 0 2 i = 0 (54z7)

implies that rotation of a particle along the perimeter of a loop of imaginary radius
i (that generates particle spin in quantum theory) i.e. a spinning particle will never
be physically observable in energy scales lower than planck energy.
The imaginary part of Eq.(54z6) yields

i dP2 dP2
2 P2 dt = 0, dt = 0, P2 (t ) = Real constant = . (54Z)

Here is an arbitrary constant of integration. The position probability density is

then
P ( x, t ) 1, P1 ( x ) P2 (t ) = P1 ( x) 1. (54z8)

Since P1 ( x ) P2 (t ) 1,

both P1 ( x ) and P2 (t ) have to suppress their values so they can satisfy

P1 ( x ) 1, and P2 (t ) 1. (54z9)

Multiply the first inequality by and obtain

P1 ( x) . (54z10)

Recalling Eq.(54Z) we rewrite Eq.(54z10) as

P1 ( x) P2 (t ) = P1 ( x) 1. (54z11)

156
We shall not certainly defy the provision of bound of probability in Eq.(54z11) to
do simultaneous violence to quantum theory and the well-founded Theory of
Probability [391]. Since is completely arbitrary, Eq.(54z11) prescribes

1
P1 ( x) .

1
But being any arbitrary number, need not be 1, or greater than 1, as

Eq.(54z9) needs. This impasse may be resolved by requiring that the constant of
integration emerging in the solution of indefinite integrals cannot be arbitrary ------
---- which sounds more than sacrilege ! We are therefore forced to reject our
nave assumption in Eq.(54Z) that P2 (t ) = , a real constant. We replace the
imaginary part in Eq.(54Z) by

i dP2
2 P2 dt = i ,

where is a real constant. Solving for P2 (t ) , and then taking the positive square
root, we arrive at the wave function for vacuum particle

2 t t
+i2 ( t )
i2 ( t )
P2 (t ) = Ae
, 2 (t ) = P2 (t )e = Ae
.

Let us wait a second, and see what is thrown out as energy eigenvalue for this
particular wave function:

Energy eigenvalue of vacuum EVAC

d
H ( x, t )
i [ 1 ( x) 2 (t )] 1 ( x).i 2 i d t +i2 (t )
= t = dt =
= Ae
( x, t ) ( x, t ) 1 ( x) 2 (t ) 2 (t ) dt

i d 2 d 2
+ i (t ) = i +
2 (t ) 2 .
=
dt dt

We have tried, but could not do without . But by adding a phase 2 (t ) ----------
which is real -------- in the vacuum wave function, we have spoiled the vacuum

157
energy term. In addition to an imaginary energy term i , it now contains a real-
valued energy

d2
dt

that cannot correspond to any realistic model of vacuum. As a damage control

measure, we have no other option but to set

2 (t ) = Constant, or zero.

The quantum vacuum energy is then

EVAC = = i = iVAC . (54za)

We have calculated this vacuum energy in Eq.(62MD) of section [10] ; it is

i c
EVAC = . (54z12)
2

The minimal momenta in quantum mechanics is

i
pmin . = min . = ,
2

which specifies the minimum wave number in quantum mechanics (that we have
already found in [37] )

i
min . = .
2

The eigenvalue of Hamiltonian operator acting on vacuum wave function is

i
H t i c
EVAC = = = ,
2

H ic i
EVAC = = = c = ( min . )c = q p min .
2

2 2

158
where q p = c planck charge. Since wave number is a number that belongs
to either complex or real number field, we find

H i c 2 i
EVAC = = = q p = q p nc (54z13)
2 2

where nc is a complex number. The upshot of this is:

Quantum
Quantum electric charge is proportional to square root of quantum vacuum
energy.

i 1
Since the complex number nc = = i,
2 2
1 1 1 i
or, nc = i = i 2i = i i= i.
2 2 2 2

1
Since i = (1 + i) , we insert this in the number nc , and find that
2

1 1 1
nc = (1 + i ) = (1 + i ) ,
2 2 2

or,
i i 1 i 1
nc = i= (1 + i ) = (1 + i ) = (1 + i )
2 2 2 2 2

From Eq.(54z13) the term

1
EVAC = q p nc = (1 + i ) (q p ) ,
2

or,
1
EVAC = q p nc = (1 + i) (q p ) .
2

If supercharge operators Q1 and Q2 , defined according to Eqs.(54z4) and

(54z5), are now discussed for interpreting their energy eigenvalues by splitting

159
into a combination of a real planck electric charge and a color charge (which we
conjecture as imaginary-valued planck charge) then the square root of energy
eigenvalue (which we call supercharge) may be written in two alternative ways:

1 1 1 1
1 q p nc = q p + (iq p ) = q p + i q p ,
2 2 2 2

and
1 1 1 1
2 q p nc = q p + (iq p ) = q p + ( iq p )* .
2 2 2 2

We now agree to set the quantum electric charge

1
q p = QP , and
2

1 1
( ) ( ) 1
*
i q p = iq p = i q p = ( i )Q p ,
2 2 2

where the quantum electric charge

1
Qp = q p .
2

The charges in 1 and 2 may now be rewritten as

1 q p nc = (QP ) + (iQ p )

and 2 q p nc = ( QP ) + ( iQ p ) .

Both these charges are respectively equal to

1 Q = ( ) [1 + i ] QP ,

and 2 Q = [1 + i ]QP .

The charges Q and Q are both complex-valued quantum electric charges.

These charges accommodate ordinary electric charge, as well as color charge
(which is imaginary electric charge (iQP ) ). Perhaps this may have earned the

160
 1
overall charges Q and Q the nameSupercharge. Spin charged quarks
2
might possess these type of supercharges.

[9] Compatibility
Compatibility of Lorentz Invariance and Gauge Invariance
with Quantum Theory,
Theory, and Finding Mass Gap for
Quantum Yang-
Yang-Mills Theory

Before discussing the present status of compatibility of special relativity ( [107],

[108], [109], [110], [111], [112] ) with quantum mechanics, I would like to zero in
on something very basic in special relativity, and it needs more attention,
perhaps. The direct Lorentz transformations from the primed to the unprimed
inertial frame in one-dimensional motion are

x = ( x vt ), (54A)

y = y, (54B)

z = z, (54C)
vx
t = t 2 . (54D)
c

We rewrite the last transformation:

x x
t = t 2 = t = ( v ph t x ) = ( x v pht ) , (54E)
(c / v ) v ph v ph v ph

c2
where v is particle velocity, and v ph is some kind of speed obtained from :
v
c2
v ph = . (54F)
v

161
Note that v ph should not be confused with phase velocity v p of de Broglie wave
[113]. de Broglie wave associated with a material particle belongs to quantum
mechanics; the phase velocity v p and particle speed v in a de Broglie wave are
related as
c2
vp = , (54G)
v

but its proof requires inputs from quantum mechanics, namely, the Einstein and
de Broglie relations: E = and p = . In context of a classical theory like
special relativity, we cannot employ these quantum relations in deriving
Eq.(54G). Nevertheless, a relativistic massive particle of speed v implies

c c2
v < c, > 1, v ph = > c. (54H)
v v

Note that Eq.(54E) visibly identifies time t as a wave pulse travelling in the
direction of particle motion with a faster-than-light speed v ph . Somewhat similar
is the status of particle position x . The nifty Eq.(54A) designates x as a wave
pulse co-moving with the particle in the same direction with a speed equal to
particle speed v < c. This wave nature of space and time has been pulled out
simply from a classical theory like special relativity with no inputs from quantum
mechanics (which has an inclination to associate waves with almost everything
but waves ! ). This novel wave nature of space and time coordinates in the
unprimed inertial frame S , as observed from the primed inertial frame S --------
albeit generically classical --------- is perhaps of profound significance not only to
classical physics, but to quantum theory as well. This wave nature is not at all
restricted to any specific preferred inertial frame, as expected in special relativity.
Lorentz invariance of spacetime interval ensures that inverse Lorentz
transformations reveal the same wave aspect of space and time coordinates in
reference frame S , when observed from the frame S ( although the space and
time wave pulses now travel along the direction opposite to the earlier case.
Surely, this is expected.).
But what is the entity ( x vt ) in Eq. (54A) ? It is the separating distance, or,
space between the two inertial frames. Let us call it

D = ( x vt ) .
Then Eq.(54A) becomes

x = D.

But if x = 0, then the relativistic massive particle is at the origin of its inertial
frame S (i.e. the rest frame), and the above formula becomes

162
 D = 0, x = vt. (54A1)

Speed v of inertial frames is a parameter. For photons in special relativity

x = ct , (54A2)

where t is time of flight for photon. If we recall that E = mc 2 ( where c is just a

conversion factor, set equal to a pure number 1), it merely states that

Mass is equivalent to energy, and energy is equivalent to mass,

though dimensions of mass and energy are different. So Eq.(54A2) may be

phrased as

Space is equivalent to time, and time is equivalent to space.

We could not have asked more from a classical theory. If this equivalence is true
in an infinitesimal local geometry (Minkowski flat space) in general relativity,
which is Locally Lorentz Invariant (LLI) [425], then the concept of a distinct
space- or, distinct time-related central singularity or initial singularity in
general relativity breaks down at least for null (photon) geodesics, i.e. become
meaningless once space and time become equivalent entities. Or, if we choose
the natural constant c =1, a dimensionless number (as is wont in special relativity,
then

Space is equal to time, and time is equal to space.

The equation (54A2) however may be quantized according to standard rules of

relativistic quantum mechanics. Consequently, one must admit that time
coordinate t must be an operator, or observable in quantum mechanics once x
is regarded as a position operator and c is a constant in (quantum) special
relativity. (We shall formally prove in the next Section [9A] below that time is an
operator in quantum mechanics by rendering Paulis deterrent theorem
irrelevant). This yields the operator equation

x = ct . (54A3)

If we also consider any massive particle (placed at the purported origin of a

moving inertial frame) of speed v < c , then quantization, regarding t as an
operator, yields from Eq. (54A1) a general operator equation

163
 x = vt , (54A3*)

where v is speed (which is just a dimensionful parameter) of the relativistic

quantum partiicle seated at the fuzzy origin of its rest frame S as seen from
another inertial frame S . We may rewrite Eq.(54A3*) as

v
x = vt = ct = ct (54A33*)
c

to explicitly show its resemblance with Eq.(54A3) differing by a dimensionless

number having no physical relevance.

Time coordinate t is now an observable (i. e. the time of arrival t , (TOA)) [384]
and it can be measured as an eigenvalue of observable t by a device {which we
may call time-meter or clock} placed at the measurement point x ) in quantum
mechanics. Proper time is defined through the relation

ds 2
d 2 = 2 , (54A3#)
c

in subplanckian energy scale (where ultra-strong gravity enabling strong focusing

for geodesic incompleteness to reach a singularity is absent) and we may write

ds 2 (dx 2 c 2 dt 2 ) 2 dx 2
d 2 = 2 = 2 = dt 2 (54A3&)
c c c

Making use of Eq.(54A3*) we find

v2 v2 2 dt t
d 2 = dt 2 2 dt 2 = 1 2 dt , d = , = ,
c c

where
1
=
v2
1
c2

164
 is the Lorentz factor. We have ignored the constant of integration in above
calculation for simplicity. Since we have proved that time coordinate t is an
operator, therefore we conclude from the above formula that proper time of any
particle is also an operator in quantum mechanics:

t
= (54A3++)

For an alternative proof of time as an operator in quantum mechanics we
2
consider one-dimensional motion, and recall that ds is the difference between
squared distances, and therefore

ds 2 = dx 2 (cdt )2

dx 2 = ds 2 + (cdt )2 ,

and this last equation unequivocally refers to Pythagoras theorem, where in an

infinitesimal right-angled triangle, dx is the length of hypotenuse and ds , cdt
are the other sides. Since ds is the position of a vertex of the triangle, this
position is certainly an operator ds in quantum mechanics. And its squared form
2
is also an operator : ds . Eq.(54A3#) then guarantees that proper time squared
d 2 is also an operator, and it yields the quantized spacetime interval

ds 2 = (c 2 d 2 ) = dx 2 c 2 dt 2 ,

where we now assume that dt 2 (containing time coordinate t ) is not an operator.

Rearranging it we find

c 2 dt 2 = dx 2 ds 2 (54A3@)

and this certainly puts time cordinate t (considered a parameter in classical

special relativity) in the upgraded category of operators if

dx 2 ds 2 0.

(We may nevertheless insist that t is not an operator, but c 2t 21 is ! But this route
seems contrived).

If dx 2 = ds 2 , then t loses its operator status. This can only happen inescapably in
classical physics, and in that realm we may write the non-operator equation

165
 dx 2 = ds 2 ,

dx = ds .
We now quantize this result to send it to quantum mechanics. But in that case
integration yields dx = x = s + C , where C is an arbitrary constant operator.
The observable x then has two equiprobable values ( + s + C ) and ( s + C ) . Since
x has only two probable values, we assume it lives in the two value states for
equal periods of time. Then its expection value is

x =
1
2
( 1
) (
s + C + s + C = C .
2
)
1
( ) 1
( )
2 2
and x 2 = s + C + s + C = s 2 + C 2 .
2 2

The uncertainty in position x of the particle is obtained from the variance

(x ) 2 = x 2 x = s 2 , x = + s 2 = + s 0.
2

We have taken the positive square root of the operator s 2 (see p.476 of [392]).
This result is compatible with irreducible uncertainty ingrained in quantum
mechanics, provided

x = + s 0.

To prove x = + s 0 , we simply recall that

x = ( s + C ), s = x C , s = ( x C ), x = + s = ( x C ).

If we now set x = + s = 0 , then the above relation states that

x = C = Constant operator.
But a constant position of a particle is denied by position-momentum uncertainty
relation. This result compels us to admit that in no circumstances, quantum
theory can accommodate

x = s = 0. (54A3@@)

This then tells us that our initial assumption (that we have made in the paragraph
2
above Eq.(54A3@)) that the term dt is not an operator, is wrong. The squared
2
operator dt now tells that quantum mechanics turns time coordinate t into an
operator, provided

166
 dx 2 ds 2 0.
From the meaning intended in Eq. (54A3@@)

s 0, (54A3)

and therefore Heisenbergs uncertainty relation requires that the space-time

interval (which is now an operator squared) in quantum mechanics must respect
the equation

ds 2 0. (54AA)

This result is a leitmotif of the irreducible position/momentum-uncertainty

ingrained in the uncertainty relation. But ds = 0 is the authenticator of
2

indubitable existence of null proper length of a light wave. If ds 2 0 in a certain

inertial frame (if any such frame exists in quantum theory), then the physical law

ds 2 0 (54A3)

must retain the same (?) form in all inertial frames in quantum theory. Then
Einsteins postulate in special relativity that speed of light in vacuum is constant
in all inertial frames is perhaps not true in quantum theory. We have reached the
same conclusion in Section [3A] in Eqs. (3G27b) and (3G27d).

A constant speed c of light in vacuum in all inertial frames is the bedrock of

special relativity in its axiomatic form. If we leave aside for the moment that c is
some other limiting speed (for instance, speed of causal connections) then it
becomes almost undeniable that speed of light varies from one inertial frame to
another. This certainly removes one postulate of special relativity from its
underlying structure. And this is accompanied by violation of Lorentz scalar
invariance [37] or Lorentz Symmetry Violation (LSV) ([365], [366], [367]). In other
words, laws of physics may vary from one inertial frame to another. This, if tested
true in quantum domain, may remove the remaining postulate of special relativity
from its underpinning.

Varying speed of light (VSL) and therefore a varying fine structure constant -------
----- the latter detected by astronomical observations in the recent past (see [37],
and references in [37] for details) ----------- may become a reality.

The lack of existence of inertial frames, with possible failure to protect constancy
of speed of light is a series of serious jolt to the very foundation of special
relativity, including violation of Lorentz invariance of scalar quantities. If strong
evidence of violation of Lorentz invariance emerges from any possible hiding
place, then Maxwells electromagnetic theory ------- (which respects Lorentz
invariance, and which was one of the principal concerns for Einstein to found the

167
framework of special relativity and discard Galilean relativity) -------- may not be
able to defend its status as a paradigm of time-tested quantum field theory (see
p. 339 of [383] ). Now we examine the other postulate of special relativity that
physical laws remain the same in all inertial frames. We would like to draw
attention to the question whether if it is possible to produce a proton beam of
exact energy 7TeV. If a beam of free particles (for instance protons) moving with
a constant momentum (and therefore, constant energy) is generated to strike a
target, then each particle may be considered an inertial frame (which seats its
particle at its fuzzy origin). Since all these inertial frames (or, free particles) are
moving at a constant momentum p , the dispersion-free ( p = 0 ) momentum of
the beam tries to knock down the very identity of quantum mechanics by
requesting a crazy result 0 , when Heisenberg position-momentum
uncertainty relation is recalled [37] :

x p , if p = 0, then x.(0) , 0.
2 2

(We here agree to the fact that division by zero is not allowed). This questions
whether we can at all prepare a beam of free particles of uniform speed. And
therefore questions the existence of inertial frames (of uniform speed) in
quantum theory.

There still exists another trouble for validity of special relativity. This involves the
absence of null interval in Eq.(54A3): ds 0 , and it may signal a varying speed
2

of light working in nature. Then the speed of light c ( x, t ) will depend on space
and/or time coordinates probably according to the following formula [37]:

2 2
c0 1 + xl p
3
c ( x, t ) = (54A36)
1 tc l 2 2

0 p
3

where c0 and l p are speed of light in vacuum at the measurement event, and
planck length respectively. The speed of light will then vary from one inertial
frame to another depending on their space-time coordinates in the background of
a preferred frame, for example, cosmic microwave background. If energy of a
moving particle of rest mass m and momentum p is measured in two inertial
frames then the physical law for special relativistic energy of a particle

168
 E 2 = p 2c 2 + m2c 4 (54A37)

will not yield the same result in the two inertial frames, because speed of light c
in the two frames are not equal. This directly contradicts the special relativistic
assertion that physical laws will yield the same result for a Lorentz scalar such as
rest mass m .

In quantum field theory, The Lagrangian density LD ------- (where the

Lagrangian L in point particle dynamics is of the form

L = K V,

with K = Kinetic energy of the particle, and V = potential energy) --------- is

defined as the Lagrangian L per unit space-time volume, and it is a Lorentz
scalar (see p.38, [189]). If Lorentz scalar invariance is violated, then the
equations of motion derived from Lagrangian density LD in quantum field theory
might not have been properly determined at all. Since quantum mechanics itself
is embedded in Banach space, it is most likely that a Quantum field theory
derived from a quantum-mechanical framework must also utilize complex space-
time as a background. If this is acknowledged and experimentally tested true in
the standard model, then quantum field theories will be littered with complex
space and time coordinates ( [36], [37] ):

x ( x + ix),

y ( y + iy ), (54A33)

z ( z + iz ),

t (t + it ),

and most importantly, we have proved in [37] that complex time in quantum theory
is a non-Hermitian normal operator. The complex spatial operators are already
recognized as non-Hermitian normal operators. What is most baffling is that these
space-time operators retain their complex entity even at the time of a measurement
event, which we shall show later in this paper. The irreducible complex nature of
these operators in standard model energy scale is therefore a necessary evil to let
the strings (of string theory) play their dynamics in extra imaginary dimensions.

169
In such a scenario, it is perhaps doubtful how one can form a real scalar field
( x) on a complex manifold so as to preserve gauge invariance [379] by a
gauge transformation

( x) ei ( x ) (54A31)

where the complex number ei ( x ) has unit modulus. In case of gauge invariance
of the first kind, where a real-valued is independent of space and time
coordinates, and it is infinitesimally small in magnitude, then Quantum
Electrodynamics (QED) may preserve gauge invariance, which automatically
implies charge conservation, thanks to Noethers theorem ( see p.87 of [144] ).
But this type of gauge invariance needs that the gauge field be massless. Since
strong and weak interactions are of short range and their force-carrier gauge
bosons are then required to be heavy, then this may prompt us to anticipate that
the type of gauge transformations we used in QED will be of no help to describe
other short range interactions. A Higgs field was therefore introduced to slow
down the massless speeds of gauge bosons (by allowing these bosons to wade
through the field) in the classical Yang-Mills theory [144]. (We show, however,
that if particle spin inaugurates the mass-giving event to a quantum particle,
then this process may lead to a satisfactory mathematical structure of Quantum
Yang-Mills theory).

But an uncomfortable question is often making the rounds that Higgs

mechanism does not at all answer this question: How do gauge bosons acquire
masses without spoiling gauge invariance (see [393], [385] )?

In Eq.(54A31) the gauge transformation invites Global gauge invariance if is

a constant, independent of space and time [386]. But the same transformation
triggers Local gauge invariance if depends on space and time, i.e. x, t. It is
quite reasonable to anticipate trouble when complex space and time coordinates
written explicitly in Eq.(54A33) (as elements of background space-time) replace
the four-dimensional real space-time manifold of Quantum Field Theories
(QFTs). This new space-time feature may disable the key component of gauge
invariance in non-abelian gauge theories [379] through a gauge transformation

( xc , yc zc , tc ) ei ( x , y , z ,t ) ( xc , yc , zc , tc ) .
c c c c
(54A32)

As an instance, we show that the exponential function in its simplest form

ei ( xc )
cannot retain its unit modulus to keep gauge invariant. If we assume a simple
form of

( xc ) = xc = ( x + ix)

170
With a real the modulus of the exponential function is not the desired number
1, but a function of imaginary part of xc :

ei ( xc ) = ei ( xc ) ei = ei ( x +ix) e i ( x ix) = ei ( x+ix x +ix) = ei (2ix) = e2 x = e x

( xc )

This toy model exposes the vulnerability of gauge invariance in context of a true
quantum-mechanical field theory. The loss of Lorentz invariance and a probable
violation of gauge invariance in quantum field theory may be two of the possible
reasons why this theory failed so miserably to determine the actual vacuum
energy density. Absence of complex number in energy eigenvalues perhaps
yielded only the real part of energy (which is zero in case of vacuum) suppressing
the imaginary part (which could have yielded the actual vacuum density). This
123
might have played a vital role to conjure up the worst discrepancy of (10 ) : (1)
in the ratio

(THEORY): (EXPERIMENT)

in determination of dimensionless cosmological constant l p .

2

Quantum Yang-Mills theory successfully interprets the results of strong

interactions involving elementary particles provided there exists a mass gap
> 0 , (where is a constant) such that each excitation of vacuum has energy
at least ( [387], [388] ). We have already determined the value of mass gap in

[3B] which is equal to either mc =
Eqs.(3n1), (3n2) and (3n4) of section [3B], ,
2c
i.e.

= mc = 1.7588 1038 g = 9.8663 106 eV / c 2 ,

(54A34)

38 6
or, = mR = = 1.2436 10 g = 6.9765 10 eV / c .
2

2 2c
(54A35)

If Lorentz invariance is violated, and tested in different unexplored sites of

quantum theory, then quantized version of Maxwells electromagnetic theory may
not be a viable starting point (see p. 339 of [383]) for formulation of other

171
quantum field theories of weak and strong forces. This starting point may further
undergo a paradigm shift if gauge invariance is experimentally found at stake in
non-abelian gauge theories [379]. We now take a second look at the founding
principles of Quantum Field Theories (QFT) in real space-time, and examine if
Lorentz invariance, or special relativity is incompatible with quantum field
theories. During this quick peek, we shall also reinforce the results (of irreducible
uncertainty of particle position and momentum) we obtained in Section [2] from
Heisenberg uncertainty relation.

[9A] A Quick Peek

Peek into Quantum Field Theory to Find
Evidence of Loss of Lorentz Invariance and Gleaning
Support in Favor of Non-
on-zero Uncertainties in Measured
Observables

In classical mechanics we define action S as [397]

t2
S = Ldt , (S1)
t1

where the Lagrangian L [394] is expressed in terms of Lagrange density LD

[395] :

L = K V = LD (d D x) dt
(S1a)

where D indicates number of space dimensions, and dV = (d D x)dt refers to the

Lorentz invariant space-time volume. Of the many possible paths between the
two points q1 , and q2 , at t = t1 and t = t2 , only one path is actual for real motion of
a classical particle for which action S is extremum, or inflexion point, or a saddle
point. For Hamilton-Jacobi equation (see p.108, and pp.111-112 of [396] )

S S
+ H q, , t = 0, (S2)
t q

172
where action

S := S ( q, , t ) = S0 ( q, ) 1t , (S3)

with S 0 now called abbreviated action. The Hamilton-Jacobi equation (S2)

becomes

S
= ( 1 ) = ( H ) = ( E ),
t

where H = E is the total energy of the particle. The equation for action (S3) now
becomes

S = S0 (q, ) Et (S4)

where S 0 = pdq (see p.112 of [396] ). If the particle momentum p is a constant

not dependent on q := x, then

S0 (q, ) = px. (S5)

Classical action from Eq.(S4) is

S = px Et , (S6)

where momentum and energy of a classical particle are constant, referring to a

free particle. When action S is a minimum,

dS = 0 , (S6a)

implying that

S = constant .

When the constant is a real number, or zero, then the corresponding wave
function assigned to this classical particle may be formed a la David Bohm (see
p.29 of [7A] )

( x, t ) = e(iS / ) . (S7)

For a detailed discussion of Bohms alternative account of quantum mechanics, I

refer [398] and in particular [48]. When S = 0, the wave function

( x, t ) = e0 = 1, P( x, t ) = 1,

173
and if S = , a real constant, then

P( x, t ) = ( x, t ) *( x, t ) = ei / e i / = 1,

i.e. in either case, the particle has been detected at a measurement event. We
consider the simplest case when S = 0. Then from Eq.(S6), we find

px = Et (S8)

at a measurement session. To quantize the above equation we first symmetrize

both sides of the operator equation to arrive at

1 1
+ xp
( px ) = ( Et + tE ). (S9)
2 2

We have elevated time t as an operator in quantum mechanics. We prove this in

the next Section [9A] below. Substitute the following explicit operator forms

p := i ,
x

and E := i
t

in Eq.(S9), we find

1 1
( px ) ( x, t ) = i ( x ) + x i
+ xp
2 2 x x

1
= i i x ix
2 x x

1
= (i ) + x . (S10)
2 x

1
Also,
2
(
1
)
Et + tE ( x, t ) = i ( t ) + t i
2 t t

1
= i + 2it
2 t

1
= (i ) + t . (S11)
2 t

174
Combining Eqs. (S10) and (S11) we find from Eq.(S9)

1 1
(i) + x = (i ) 2 + t t .
2 x

i.e. (i) 1 + x + t ( x, t ) = 0,
x t

or, when S = , a real constant, then the following most general equation
satisfies the extremum condition dS = 0 :

i 1 + x + t ( x, t ) = ( x, t ) . (S12)
x t

We insert the ansatz for wave function

( x, t ) = P1 ( x) P2 (t )ei ( x ) +i ( t ) = P1 ( x)ei ( x ) P2 (t )ei (t ) = 1 ( x) 2 (t )

1 2 1 2
(S13)

in Eq.(S12) to obtain

d 1 d 2
i 1 2 ix 2 it 1 = 1 2 .
dx dt

Dividing throughout by 1 2 , the resulting equation reads

x d t d
i i 1 i 2 = .
1 dx 2 dt

Separating terms containing the same variables

x d t d
i 1 = + i + i 2 = a complex constant = a + ib, (S14)
1 dx 2 dt

where a , b are reals. From the first equation

1 d 1
ix = a + ib ,
1 dx

setting 1 ( x) = P1 ( x)ei1 ( x ) , we obtain after a little arrangement

1 1 dP1 d1
(ix) 1 +i = a + ib. (S15)
1 2 P1 dx dx

175
Recalling that angular wave number is, in general, dependent on x ,

d1
= ( x ),
dx

the real parts of Eq.(S15) read

a
x ( x ) = a, ( x ) = , p ( x) = ( x) . (S16)
x

Since S = , a constant, the observables such as momentum are outcomes at a

measurement event. Eq.(S16) then registers a varying momentum

a
p ( x ) = ( x ) = . (S17)
x

This space-varying momentum forever prohibits a particle being detected at

constant momentum. In other words, uncertainty in momentum measurement is
always irreducible and nonzero:

p 0. (S18)

This directly clashes with the assertion made in special relativity that inertial
frames are available moving at constant speed. For a particular inertial frame S
with a specific Lorentz factor
1

v2 2
= 1 2 ,
c

a particle at rest in it has a momentum p as observed from the frame S :

p = mv .

Since mv is constant, there is hardly any scope for an uncertainty in momentum

measurement in the framework of special relativity, and therefore

p = 0 (S19)

in special relativity. The result p 0 in Eq.(S18) obtained from quantizing action

is incompatible with Eq.(S19) which has been obtained from special relativity.
From Eq.(S17) it is evident that a particle cannot be ever detected at a position
x = 0 . The spatial origin is thus lost in an inertial frame if we trust quantum theory.
Special relativity thus loses the use of its indispensible inertial frames which,

176
according to quantum theory, do not move at uniform speed and do not contain
spatial origin. In short, special relativity is incompatible with quantum mechanics.

Since p 0 from Eq. (S18), if a particle position is ever measured with arbitrary
precision with zero uncertainty, i.e. x = 0 , then in this case, according to
Heisenberg uncertainty relation

xp (0).p 0 0, (S20)
2 2 2

since division by zero is not allowed by axioms of a real field. But the result 0
is not acceptable in any quantum theory. This implies that our assumption that
x = 0 is incorrect. We thus validate our previously established results (see
Section [2] ):

x 0, and independently, p 0. (S21)

Position of a particle cannot be measured with arbitrary precision. The particle

cannot have exact momentum either ! Since special relativity breaks down in
quantum-mechanical context, the Lagrange density LD defined in Eq.(S1a) above
also loses its privileged status as a Lorentz invariant quantity in Quantum Field
Theory (QFT) [399].

Eq.(S17) gives the impression that there is just no place for a free particle in
quantum field theory. No particle can be interaction-free ! This goes well with
gravity, because gravity spares no physical entity. This might signal that perhaps
in very weak gravitational field, quantum theory itself takes care of gravity. I have
made a similar remark in [37] that

Gravity is contained in quantum mechanics.

in the context of quantum gravity of photons, where I mistakenly labeled

quantum vacuum particles of mass ( imc ) as tachyons.

In Eq. (S17) momentum of a particle increases as it approaches the device

particle in the deleted origin:

a
p ( x ) = ( x ) = . (S17)
x

This itself is an indicator of attractive force (gravity?) at play between the

particles! Obviously x 0, otherwise the momentum blows up. But we know from

177
[36] that space and time in quantum mechanics are generically complex. Instead
of x = 0, we may consider a complex number z in complex space

x = 0 z = 0,

such that we can bypass the hole z = 0 in the domain, and get around with just
setting

x = 0, z = i , = real number .

Therefore, the momentum from Eq.(S17) in such situation is

a a a ia
p= = = , (S22)
x z (i )

Re(p ) = 0

Particle momenta p are now evidently minimum, because it is constant in

Eq.(S22). But we know from earlier result that minimal momenta are

i
( p )min. = . (S23)
2

Comparing Eq.(S23) with Eq.(S22), and recalling that is an arbitrary number,

we set

= 2,

and easily find the crucial constant

a = . (S24)

Eq.(S17) then reads

p( x) = , (S25)
x

and spatially varying wave number

1
( x) = . (S26)
x

From Eq.(S15), we gather that

ix dP1
= ib, (S27)
2 P1 dx

178
where b is real. Integration of this equation leads to

2b
ln x .P1 ( x) = real constant,

which yields position probability density

2b

P1 ( x) = B x , B = real constant. (S28)

It is essential that b must be a nonnegative real number to avert blowing up of

probability density. We write 1 ( x) ( x) now to find

d 1 dx
= ( x ) = , d (x ) = , ( x) = ln x + real constant
dx x x

which implies

i ln x + i ln ln x + ln ln x
i i i
ei ( x ) = e =e =e = x
i
(S29)

where is a real arbitrary constant. The spatial part of wave function is

b b b
+i
1 ( x) = P1 ( x)ei ( x ) = B x . x = B x x . ={ B } x
i i i i
. (S30)

To find the temporal part of wave function, we consider Eq.(S14) and Eq.(S24):

t d 2
+ i + i = a + ib = + ib, b R.
2 (t ) dt

We insert the ansatz

2 (t ) = P2 (t )ei (t ) 2

in the above equation to obtain, after a little rearrangement

1 1 dP2 d2
(it ) 2 (t ) +i = ( ) + i(b ),
2 (t ) 2 P2 dt dt

d2
and as usual, we insert = ( ) , and obtain
dt

1 dP2
(it ) + i ( ) = ( ) + i (b ),
2 P2 dt

179
 it dP2
t + = ( ) + i (b ) . (S31)
2 P2 dt

Real parts of both sides yield

t = ( )

which spews out a preposterous result:

E = = . (S32)
t

Energy is not conserved ! This forbids detection of a particle with constant

energy. Energy eigenstates -------- so ingrained in quantum theory --------- are lost
from quantum domain. Eq.(S32) is undefined for t = 0 . This weans away temporal
origin from the space-time fabric of quantum theory. Inertial frames have no
viable means of accommodating space-time origin ( x = 0, t = 0) .

In the next Section [9A],

[9A] I shall attempt to elevate time as an operator or
observable in quantum mechanics. Keeping this in mind, we may reasonably
state that since t 0, we shall never be able to measure observable time t with
zero uncertainty, i.e. t 0. Similarly, in the time-energy uncertainty relation (see
Eq. (.B17) in Section [9A] below)

E t , (S33)
2

if we assume that particle energy can be measured with absolute precision, i.e.
E = 0 , then since t 0 , the relation Eq.(S33) becomes

(0).t , 0,
2

which cannot be tolerated by a quantum theory. The upshot is: Our initial
assumption E = 0 is not valid in quantum mechanics. The underlying lesson is,
particle energy cannot ever be measured with zero uncertainty. Neither are we
allowed by nature to measure time (of arrival) of a particle with absolute
precision.

Since time is complex in quantum mechanics (see [36] for details), there is a hole
(deleted time origin) at t = 0 in Eq. (S32). This may be of relevance to initial
singularity of our universe. This singularity embedded in complex time tc = 0 may
be averted by embracing imaginary time. This was first conjectured by Hawking,
and popularized in his phenomenally successful book A Brief History of Time.

180
 i
Like minimal momenta pmin. = , we look for minimal energy in quantum
2
theory. And we know this energy is vacuum particle energy

i c
( E ) min. = . (S34)
2

In Eq.(S32), we simplify the problem by setting action S = = 0. :

E= . (S34a)
t

Therefore, to minimize energy we set time tc (it ), so that Re(tc ) = 0. Then

( E )min. = = . (S35)
(it ) (t ) min.

Compare Eqs.(S34) and (S35) to obtain

2 2i 2i
(t )min. = = 2 = ,
ic i c c

and therefore,

Minimal separation (s) min. = c(t ) min. = 2(i) , (S36)

which must equal twice the minimal position. This results in

2( x)min. = 2( i), ( x) min. = (i),

which is the supersymmetry signature at low energy regime. When the following
supersymmetry signature is activated in Planck scale physics,

( x) min. = ( i ) ( x) min. = l p

Eq.(S36) reads

2l
c(t ) min. = 2l p , (t ) min. = p = 2t p , (S37)
c

where t p is planck time. This is consistent with Planck scale physics because
each forward or backward swing of string vibration needs at least a Planck unit of
time for a full vibration of minimal period

181
 Tmin. = (t ) min. = 2t p . (S38)

We go back to Eq.(S31) and compare imaginary parts of both sides:

t dP2
= (b ).
2 P2 dt (S38a)

This leads us to integrate

dP2 2(b dt
= ,
P2 t

and we are left with

2( b )
P2 (t ) = D. t . (S39)

Here D is a real constant. From Eq.(S34a),

d
E= = = ( ) = 2 ,
t dt

d 1 1
2 = , 2 (t ) = ln t + C. (S40)
dt t

C is a real constant. The temporal part of wave function of the particle is

obtained from Eqs. (S39) and (S40):

(b ) 1 (b )
+ C i
2 (t ) = P2 (t )ei (t ) = D t
2 .ei ln t = A0 t t . (S41)

A0 is real constant. The complete wave function of the particle is found by

recalling Eqs.(S30) and Eq.(S41):

b (b )
+ i i
( x, t ) = K 0 x t (S42)

where K 0 is a complex constant. From Eq. (S38a) we know that b 0,

because then P2 (t ) would be constant. But we know from earlier calculations that

P2 (t ) cannot be constant. So b 0. Eq.(S42) shows that a particle cannot be

placed at x = 0, and t = 0, thus again showing loss of spatial and temporal origin in
an inertial frame in quantum theory.

182
.Eq.(S34a) declaring non-conservation of energy is a serious blow to known
physics. But this may point toward a profound finding once we tend to realize that
perhaps gravity is the plausible trouble-maker. I have already lent some support
to the conjecture that quantum mechanics might already lap up weak gravity into
its fold. And in general relativity, energy-momentum evolve according to precisely
stipulated rule as a response to changing space-time. If space-time does not
evolve in time, then total energy is conserved. But according to Sean Carroll
[400], energy in General Relativity is not conserved because when space-time
changes, energy too changes. In fact there is no conservation of local energy in
general relativity. Perhaps a prerequisite to resolve this issue [400] is to find a
satisfactory solution to the infamous Problem of Time in quantum gravity [402].

And according to John Baez [401], energy is conserved in some special cases in
general relativity, but in-not-so-obvious way in other cases. General Relativists
invented several energy pseudo-tensors. But the problem is that these are not at
all tensors. Tensors are a must to show coordinate independence of this theory.
Unfortunately, energy pseudo-tensors do not always give correct results in some
cases [401]. But the seemingly backlash of energy non-conservation here may be
made a virtue by observing that it may well serve as an indirect pointer to loss of
gravitational
energy by an object radiating gravitatio nal waves in quantum gravity, just as
quadrupole formula from Einsteins equation (meaning motion of center of
energy density of the object) generates gravitational waves in general relativity (
[189], [403], [404], [405] ).

[9B] Proof of Lorentz Symmetry Violation

We now proceed to show a few instances of Lorentz symmetry violation in

relativistic quantum theory --------- which may easily be carried over in quantum
field theory (QFT). We shall find dispersion relation for photon energy, as well as
frequency-dependent speed of light, and these type of signals for Lorentz
symmetry violation (LSV) has already been highlighted by numerous authors, and
there exists a vast extant literature on this crucial topic ( [406],--- [420] ). What we
do here is that we derive the same type of relations for LSV, but we explicitly find
the coefficients such as , etc. In those relations, particularly those in ( [406],
[408] ).To this end, we first derive photon wave function.

[9C]
[9C] Photon Wave Function

183
Let us consider the case of a massless photon with its energy derived from
specilal relativity with m = 0 inserted in

E 2 = p 2c 2 + m 2c 4

yielding E 2 = p 2c 2 . (T1)

Quantizing this equation for one-dimensional motion according to standard

formalism,

2 2
2
i = c i ,
t x

we realize that one cannot take square root of this operator equation because

2 2
2
i ( x, t ) = c i ( x, t ) (T2)
t x

and the simpler equation

i ( x, t ) = c i ( x, t ) (T3)
t x

would create completely different quantum dynamics and wave functions for
photon. Some confusion regarding the existence of a wave function for photon in
literature has been discussed in detail in [37], and I have tried to remove it there.
Eq. (T2) yields the wave function for a photon in one-dimensional motion:

2 1 2
2 2 2 = 0, (T4)
x c t

which is the paradigmatic wave equation. Inserting the ansatz in Eq.(S13) for
wave function in the above equation, and recalling that for particle motion along
+ x direction we set

d1
= = real constant,
dx

d 2
and = ( ) = real constant,
dt

and not bothering about energy non-conservation here (that we found above from
action in a heuristic form of quantum field theory (QFT)) we finally find

184
 1 dP2 1 d 2 P2 i dP2
2 2 + 2 =
2

4 P2 dt 2 P2 dt P2 dt

c 2 dP1 2 c 2 d 2 P1 i c 2 dP1
2 + 2 + 2 2
c
4 P1 dx 2 P1 dx P1 dx

= complex constant =a + ib,

where a , b are real. Separating real and imaginary parts from both sides and
setting them equal to a , b respectively, the following set of equations emerge:

1 dP2 1 d 2 P2
2 2 + 2 = a ,
2
(T5)
4 P2 dt 2 P2 dt

c 2 dP1 2 c 2 d 2 P1
2 + 2 c = a ,
2 2
(T6)
4 P1 dx 2 P1 dx

dP2
2 = b , (T7)
P2 dt

c 2 dP1
= b . (T8)
P1 dx

From the last two equations the position probability density is derived:

x t b
b 2 ( x vt )
c
P ( x, t ) = e = e c
2
(T9)

c2 c2 c2
since = = = v,
( / ) v ph

where v ph and v are respectively phase velocity of the wave, and particle speed.
It is quite straightforward to verify that the classical relationship

vv ph = c 2 (T10)

185
remains intact in quantum theory even if we tease out a quantized form from it.
Splitting Eq.(T9) into
x
b 2
P1 ( x) = e c

vt
b 2
and P2 (t ) = e c

plugging into Eqs. (T5) and (T6) we respectively arrive at

1 b2v2
2 4 = a,
2
(T10#)
4 c

1 b2 2 2
and c = a . (T10a)
4 2c2

Equate the left sides of these equations so that

1 b 2v 2 1 b2
2
= c ,
2 2

4 2c 4 4 2c2

b2v 2 b 2c 2
2 4 2 4
= 2 2c2 ,
4 c 4 c

b2 2
2
( v 2
c 2
) = c2
4 c
2 4

2

c4 c2
= 2 ( v 2ph c 2 ) = 2 2 c 2 = 2c 2 2 1
v v

2c2 2c2 2 2
=
v2
( c 2
v 2
) v 2 (v c ) .
=

If v c for photons, then from the above equation

b2 2c 2 2 2
( v 2
c 2
) = v 2 (v c )
4 2c 4

b2 2c2 4 4 c 6 2i 2 c3
we may obtain = , b2 = 2 , b = .
4 2c 4 v 2 v v

186
When we formed the ansatz of P( x, t ) in Eq. (S13), it was considered a real
number. But if we plug this imaginary b into Eq.(T9), contrary to our expectation,
probability density turns out a complex number. Although there is perhaps
nothing wrong in a complex probability -------- as I have tried to formulate in [36], -
--------- here we ought to save a real number for probability. This choice keeps

v2 c2 = 0

valid for photon, and position probability density for photon is therefore
b b
( x ct ) ( ct x )
P ( x, t ) = e c2
=e c2
, for ct > x . (T11)

Since vv ph = c 2 , and v = c , we get back v ph = c. It implies = c, i.e.

= c.

We normalize Eq. (T11):

vt = ct ct b ct bt bx
2 ( x ct )
1=

P( x, t )dx = e

c
dx = e

c .e c2 dx

ct
ct

bt bx
bx c 2 c 2 btc bxc2
= e c .e c2 d 2 =
c b b
e e . (T11a)

c 2 c c 2 c2
bt bct

This implies that 1 = e e 0 = ,

b b

i.e. b = c2 (T12)

Therefore, we at last obtain from Eq.(T11):

P( x, t ) = e ( ct x ) , ct > x . (T13)

The wave function of photon is then

1
( ct x ) + i x it
( x, t ) = e 2
, for ct > x . (T14)

1
( x ct ) +i x it
and ( x, t ) = e 2
, for x > ct. (T14a)

What is interesting about the integral in Eq. (T11a) is that it is independent of

time, and therefore preserves conservation of probability. But it is mischievously

187
silent about the sign of the constant b . So far there is no problem with the
probability density whenever b > 0, and ct > x. To get a handle on this, we recall
Eq. (T10a), and with

= c

The equation becomes 4 4 + 4a 2 b 2 = 0 , (T15)

which solves for 2 :

2 =
E2 1
2 (
= a a 2 + b2 .
2
)
Since 2 is real, we discard the negative sign, and settle for

2E2 1
2
(
= 2 = a + a 2 + b2 > 0, ) (T15a)

and for a nonnegative energy this needs

a 2 + b 2 > a, (a 2
+ b 2 ) > a 2 , b 2 > 0,

and finally b > 0.

Since P ( x, t ) for photon is a function of ( x ct ) ,

P ( x, t ) = e( x ct ) , for ct > x (T16)

it implies motion of a probability density pulse P( x, t ) along + x axis -----------

which is just a mathematical pulse of probability density traveling in 2D space-
time. It may sound implausible, but it is true that this mathematical entity
condenses into a physical particle at a measurement event (see [36] for details
of this collapse). This might involve a yet-unknown connection between
mathematics per se and physics.

I must say that I have cheated a bit while finding P ( x, t ) for a photon at position ct
. Since ct is an exact photon position, the position uncertainty is zero. This flouts
our earlier result that this uncertainty cannot be zero ever [37]. I shall report later
about circumventing this uncomfortable issue.

[9D] Dispersion Relation for Energy of Photon Showing

188
 Lorentz Symmetry Violation

We insert b = c 2 and = c in Eq.(T10a) to find

2c 4 c2 2
2
= a , = a. (T17)
4 c
2 2
4

Make use of this value of a , and b = c 2 in Eq.(T15a) . It becomes

E2 1 2
2 = = a + b a
2 2

2
1 c2 2 c2 2
= + c
2 4

2 4 4

1 2 c 2 c 4 2c 2
= + 4 + + 2c 2
2 4 16 2

1 2 c 2 c4 c2
= + 2 1 + +
2 4 16 4 2 2

E2 1 2 c 2 1 1
Or, 2 = 2
= + 1 + 2 +
2
. (T18)
2 4 2 16 4

p
Since = is usually a large number, we may ignore higher powers of the

1 1
term 4 compared to the term 1 + 2 . In that case, we write
2

1
s = 1 + 2 .
2

1 1 1 1
And then 1+ + = s+ , where 4
s.
2 2
16 4
16 4
16

189
 1
1 1 2 1 1 1 1
So, s+ = s + 4
s+ . 4
= 1 + 2 + (T19)
16 4
16 2 16 2 32 4

Eq.(T18) is now rewritten as

E 2 1 2 c2 1 1
2 = + 2 1 + 2 +
2 32 4
2
2 4

2 2 c2 2 2
E 2 = 2 2 + 2
+ +
2 4 2 2 32 4

1 2 2 2c 2 2 2 2 2
= 2 + + ,
2 4 2 2 32 4

2c 2 2 2 2 2
E 2 = 2 2 2 2 + + . (T20)
8 4 2 64 4

If 2 of E 2 = 2 2 in the left side of Eq.(T20) is the same physical entity as 2 of

its right side, then canceling 2 2 from both sides yields (loosely)

c2 2 2 1 c2 2 2
+ + = 0, + + = 0,
8 4 64 4 4 2 2 16 4
2

2c2 2 1 2c2
+ 2
+ = 0, 2 1 + = ,
2 16 2 16 2 2

1 2
2 1 + 2
= .
16 2

Since energy of the particle 0, the last equation yields

1 1 i
1 + 2
= , 8 2 = 1 = i 2 , = ,
16 2 2 2

which says imaginary momenta

i
p = = .
2 2

190
 i
But minimum momenta, we know, is pmin. = .
2

This gives an unacceptable result:

Im( p ) < Im( pmin. ).

This questions our initial assumption that 2 2 of left side of Eq.(T20) is identical
with 2 2 of its right side. We are forced to discriminate between the two terms.
We designate the left side term as containing the actual quantum energy

EQ = Q .

Eq.(T20) then changes to

2 c 2 2 2 2 2
EQ2 = 2Q2 2 2 + + . (T21)
8 4 2 64 4

2 c 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Note that + = = .
8 4 2 4 2 8 2 8 2

Eq. (T21) is now

2 2 1 2 2 1 2 2
E + 2 + 4 .
2
(T22)
8 64
Q

c G
Since m pl p = 3
= = 2 = 2mc , (T23)
G c c 2c

and 2mc c 2 = ( m p l p )c 2 = ( m p c 2 ) l p = E p l p (T24)

where E p is planck energy. Also, since Eq.(T24) gives

2m c 2 c
Ep = c = ,
l
p lp

E l p
the ratio = = lp = lp. (T25)
Ep c c

191
 E3 E 2 1 E3
= E = l p E . Therefore, E =
2 2
And . (T26)
Ep Ep lp E
p

2 2 E 2 1 1 E 3
So, 2 = = . (T27)
2 l p
2
E p

From above relations, we find

E 4 E3 E
2 = = ( l p E )( l p ) = ( l p ) E ,
2 2 2 2
(T28)
Ep Ep Ep

1 E4
This implies ( ) = E
2 2 2
= ,
2l p2 E p2

2 2 1 E4 1 1 E4
and so 4 = 2 2 2 4 = 6 2 2 . (T29)
lp Ep lp Ep

2 2 2 2
Replacing 2 and 4 of Eq. (T22) by the terms obtained in Eqs.(T27)

and (T29), we finally obtain

1 1 E 1 1 E
3 4
EQ2 2 2 + 3 + 2
,
8 l p E p 64 l p E p
6 2

1 1 E 3 1 1 E 4
EQ2 2 2 c 2 + 3 + 6 2 2 ,
8 l p E p 64 l p E p

1 E 3 1 E 4
EQ2 p 2c 2 + 3 + 2 . (T30)
8 l p E p 64 l p
6 2
E p

The first term on the right side is from classical special relativity for a massless
particle (such as photon) :

( E )2 = ( pc)2 .

1 E 3 1 E 4
Therefore, EQ2 E 2 + 3 + 2 (T31)
8 l p E p 64 l p
6 2
E p

192
The other terms on the right side of Eq.(T31) show dispersion of photon energy.
Eq.(T31) exactly resembles the following predicted relation by Lamon et al [406]:

E
3
E
4
EQ2 E 2 + + 2 , (T32)
E p E p

where E 2 = p 2c 2 . In Eq. (T32), and are dimensionless parameters. Since

length loses its dimensional character in quantum mechanics [37], and l p are
dimensionless, and therefore the following terms

1
= ,
8 3l
p

1
=
64 6l 2
and
p

are dimensionless, as required. Since Eq.(T31) differs from the following

celebrated energy-momentum relation for a massless particle such as photon

E 2 = p 2c2 ,

the dispersion relation Eq.(T31), if tested correct, may lead to Lorentz Symmetry
Violation (LSV) at energies comparable to E E p .

[9E
[9E] Energy-
Energy-Dependent Speed of Light

Another indicator for Lorentz symmetry breaking is to find if speed of light

depends on the energy or frequency of photon. We know special relativity does
not tolerate a speed of light that varies with the color (frequency) of photons. In
fact, it postulates a constant speed of light independent of energy of source.

We can find an energy-dependent speed of light if the relation for group-velocity

is allowed to use

193
 EQ ( E )
v( E ) = . (u1)
p

We rewrite it as

EQ ( E )

EQ ( E ) EQ ( E ) E E
v( E ) = =
= . (u2)
p E p p

E

Since E = pc for photons, if E varies with p , then

E p 1
= c, = .
p E c

From Eq.(u2), the speed

E E
v( E ) = Q = c Q , (u3)
p E

EQ
where we extract from Eq.(T31):
E

EQ 1 3 E 2 4 E 3
= 2 E + 3 + 2
6 2
.
E 2 EQ 8 l p

E p 64 l p E p

From this and Eq. (u3), we get

EQ c 3 E 2 1 E 3
v( E ) = c = 2 E + 3 +
2
6 2
.
E 2 EQ 8 l p

E p 16 l p E p

3
2
E E 1 E
v( E ) = c
E 1 +
+ 6 2
. (u4)
16 l p 32 l p E p
3
Q Ep

E
Construct a dimensionless number a = , and rewrite Eq.(T31) in terms of a :
E
Q

194
 1 E 2 1 E
2

1 a2 + a2 3 + a 6 2 .
8 l

p Ep 64 l p E p

E
We know = l p , (u5)
Ep

and plug it into above equation:

1 1
1 a 2 1 + 2 + 4
.
8 64

In general, 2 , 4 >> 1. Therefore,

1
1 1 1 1
a 1 + 2 +
2
4
= 1 2 ,
8 64 8 64 4

This yields

1 1
1 1 2 1 1 2
a 1 2 = 1 +
8 2 64 4
8 64 4

E 1 1 1 1 1
a=
E = 1 2 + 4
= 1 . (u6)
2 8 64 16 128 4
2
Q

From (u6) and (u4), the speed

1
2
1 3 E 1 E
,
v( E ) = c 1 4
1+ + 6 2
16 128 16 l p E p
32 l p E p
2 3

which, after a little algebra, becomes the energy-dependent speed of light:

1 1 3 E 1 1
2

5 1 1 E
v( E ) = 1 + 3 + 2
l p 8 256 5 2048 7 E p l p 32
6
512 8 4096 10 E p

(u7)

which closely resembles the conjectured speed [406] with dimensionless

parameters (that depend on specific models) and :

195
 E E
2

v( E ) = c 1 + + . (u8)
E
p Ep

Since in quantum theory, space is dimensionless, so are and l p . Therefore

coefficients in our model in Eq.(u7) are also dimensionless. To compare our
prediction in Eq.(u7) with observed results, we rewrite Eq.(u7) as

1 3 7 1
v ( E ) = V ( ) = c 1 + 2 + (u9)
8 256 4
2048 6
4096 8

recalling that

E
= l p . (u10)
Ep

It is clear from Eq. (u9) that when photon energy E or momentum (or,
equivalently, wave number ) increases, photon speed decreases, while for a
low energy (or, small ) photon, speed increases. Therefore, one should expect
high energetic photons lagging behind low energy photons, i.e. blue photons
arrive later than red photons. Exactly the same result was obtained in 2005 when
in a flare of active Galaxy PKS 2155-304, MAGIC collaboration group found
higher energy photons trailing behind lower energy photons ( [421], [422], [423],
[409] ).

String theory also requires Lorentz symmetry violation. In non-critical string

theory [92] one finds a modified dispersion relation for massless particles
travelling through a quantum gravity medium ( quantum vacuum?) [408] :

p 2c 2
E ~ pc + (u11)
m
p

where represents quantum structure of space-time. Eq. (u11) contains

dispersion due to overall conformal invariance of the dressed - model
deformation in non-crtical strings [408]. In our model of quantum gravity breathing
out the following dispersion relation Eq.(T31):

1 E 3
EQ2 E 2 + 3 ,
8 l p E p

196
where we have neglected the last small term, we recover
1 1
1 E 2 2 2
3
1 p c 2
3 3
EQ E 2 + 3 = p c + 3
8 l p

8 l p

2
E p m p c

1 pc 1 p 2c 2
i.e. EQ pc 1 + 2 = pc + (u12)
16 l p
16 c l p
3 3 2
m p c m p

which agrees exactly with the proposed dispersion in Eq.(u11) with

1
=
16 c l
3 2
.
p
(u13)Since is representative of quantum gravity structure of space-time, it is
straightforward to conclude from the denominator containing planck length l p that
Planck scale space-time comprising Planck units of space, time, mass certainly
constitutes quantum gravity space-time.

In Loop Quantum Gravity (LQG) also, Gambini and Pullin [424] finds Lorentz
Symmetry Violation and proposes modification in dispersion relation for light from
quantum space-time.

[9F] Lorentz Violation in Scalar Mass

A Lorentz scalar invariant in special relativity is rest mass of a particle m , whose

square is

m2 =
1
c4
( E 2 p 2c 2 ) . (u14)

But in quantized special relativity (or, relativistic quantum mechanics), this

equation is modified for quantum energy EQ (see Eq.(19) of p.5 in [37] ) to include
reduced Planck constant :

197
 2c2 v2
EQ2 = p 2c 2 + m 2 c 4 1 , (u15)
4 c2

Rearranging the terms, Eq.(u14) is modified as

2c2 v2
m2 =
1
c4
( EQ
2
p 2 2
c ) + 1 ,
4 c2

2 v2
m2 =
1 2
c4
( Q
E p 2 2
c ) c c2 ,
+ m 1 (u16)

which certainly violates the Lorentz invariant scalar form for squared rest mass in
the famous equation Eq.(u14). This establishes a (technologically feasible)
testable hiding place for Lorentz Symmetry Violation (LSV) [375].

[9G] Time as an Operator

Operator or Observable in Quantum
Mechanics

(Due) Find eigenfunction of time operator..

Usually time is treated as a parameter, not as an observable (represented by an

operator) in quantum mechanics. Although there are serious attempts to elevate
time on the same footing as position operator in the set of observables of a
particle in quantum mechanics (see [335], [336], [337], [338], [339], [340], [341],
[342], [343], [344], [345], [346], [347], [348], [349], [350], [351], [352], [353], [354],
[357] ), time has long been designated as an external parameter not linked
intrinsically with the particle whose dynamics is studied in quantum mechanics.

One of the reasons is Paulis famous theorem [355] that states that

There self--adjoint bounded time operator in Quantum Mechanics.

There is no self

Paulis theorem still remains unquestioned despite several attempts cited above.
The existence of a self-adjoint time operator canonically conjugate to a
Hamiltonian of a quantum system in a single Hilbert space would mean that these
operators or observables have completely continuous spectra spanning the entire

198
real line from (, ) . But we must agree with Pauli that any physically
meaningful energy eigenvalue of the systems Hamiltonian operator must be
bounded from below. This argument had stalled any progress in resolving this
problem. We now proceed to attempt a proof of the following statement that might
hopefully bring in fresh and brisk research activity in this area.

THEOREM 1 Time in Quantum Mechanics is a self-adjoint bounded operator.

Proof : We follow Paulis derivation closely. Following Pauli, we assume that

there exists a self-adjoint time operator T canonically conjugate to the
semibounded or discrete Hamiltonian operator H of the quantum system, which
implies the commutation relation

[T , H ] = i1 . (B1)

Since T is self-adjoint, then for all real , the operator U = e

i T
is unitary,

because if T0 is the eigenvalue of T for the normalized eigenket , then let

e i T = e i T0 , with T0 .

Therefore, (
e i T ) = (e )
i T0 *
= ( ei T ) . 0

Combining the two eigenvalue equations, we find

(
e i T ) ( e ) = ( e ) (e
i T i T0 i T0
) = 1 ,

and this implies ( e i T

) ( e ) = 1.
i T

Similarly, it may be shown that ( e i T

)( e i T

) = 1 .

i T
This proves unitarity [1] of the operator U = e . We expand this exponential
to obtain

(i ) n
n

U = e i T
= T , (B2)
n =0 n !

so the commutator

199
 ( i ) n
n

[U , H ] = [T , H ]
n =0 n !

(i ) n
n

i.e. [U , H ] = [T H HT n ]
n =0 n!

From [356] we obtain a formula that states that if there are three self-adjoint
, B and C such that
operators A

BA
AB =C , (B3)

then A n B BA ( )
n = n A n1 C . . (B4)

Comparing Eq. (B1) with Eq.(B3), we find that if

A = T , and B = H , then C = i1.

(B5)

then

(i ) n (i ) n n
n n

[U , H ] = [T , H ] = [T H HT ]
n =0 n! n=0 n!

( i )
n

i.e., according to Eq.(B4), [U , H ] = [ nT n1C ] ,

n =0 n!

) + (i ) (T 2C ) + .....
3
[U , H ] = 0 + (i )C + (i )2 (TC
2!

( i ) 2 2
[U , H ] = [( i )C ] 1 + ( i )T +
T + .....
2!

[U , H ] = ( i C )[e i T ] = ( i )(i1)
= 1.

[U , H ] = (i C )[e i T ] = (i )(i1)
U = U .

(B6)

Let be an eigenstate of H with real eigenvalue ER = R . Then from Eq.(B6)

200
 ) = U ,
(U H HU

( )
= U H U = U ( H ) ( )(U ) ,
HU

= U ( E ) ( )(U ) = E U ( )(U ) ,
HU R R

= ( )(U ) ( )(U ) = ( )(U ) = ( )(U ),

HU R R R

H = {(R )} , (B7)

H = EQ (B8)

where we have set

= (U ) . (B9)

Eq.(B7) clearly establishes that = (U ) is an eigenstate of the semibounded

or discrete Hamiltonian H of a quantum system of energy eigenvalue

EQ = ( R ) . (B10)

Pauli argues that since , and it is an arbitrary number, can take any real
number, positive, negative, or zero. Since the Hamiltonian is semibounded or
discrete,

ER = R 0, R 0,

and therefore, if the arbitrary number is an infinitely large positive number,

such that

R ,

then an arbitrary can easily make ( R ) an infinitely large negative

frequency, leading to loss of lower bound to the spectrum of energy eigenvalues
of the Hamiltonian. To summarize,this shows that the Hamitonian of the
eigenstate loses semiboundedness and becomes unbounded. An
unbounded Hamiltonian has a spectrum of energy eigenvalues covering the
entire real line (, ) . This does not represent any physical state of a quantum

201
system, reminding us of Diracs notorious boundless negative energy states (see
[240], [88] ). Pauli thus seals the fate of a time operator by concluding that no
self-adjoint time operator exists that is canonically conjugate to the generally
semibounded Hamiltonian of quantum mechanics.

At this stage we recall Einsteins energy-frequency relation of quantum

mechanics :

EQ = . (B10A)

But angular frequency is defined [30C] in terms of phase ( x, t ) of the wave

function of the quantum system, described in Eq.(B9) :

=
t

which is defined as a non-negative real number. Therefore recalling Eq. (B10A),

frequency is

EQ ( R )
= = = = ( R ) . (B11)
t

The left side of this equation is always non-negative, and it ensures that its right
side ( R ) must also be so. Therefore from Eqs. (B11) and (B10),

( R ) 0, EQ = ( R ) 0. (B11A)

or energy eigenvalue in Eq.(B10) EQ = (R ) is always non-negative. This

result imposes a condition that cannot be an arbitrary real number.This
constraint excludes all negative energy eigenvalues from the eigenspace of the
Hamiltonian H . The eigenenergies of H cannot span the entire real line
(, ) . The Hamiltonian in quantum mechanics is therefore a self-adjoint
operator bounded from below. The Hamiltonian always remains semibounded.
This is contrary to the conclusion Pauli reached. This emits a ray of hope that
there may exist a self-adjoint time operator that is bounded and canonically
conjugate to the invariably semibounded Hamiltonian of a system in quantum
mechanics. This proves the theorem.

Following standard procedure [1] the much-yearned time-energy uncertainty

relation may finally dawn in the standard framework of quantum mechanics from
the commutation relation Eq.(B1) :

202

T H . (B12)
2
The explicit form of time operator has been obtained in Eq. (54A 3) of Section
[9B] :

1 t
t = x = 0 i p 1 + p 1i . (B12A)
c 2c t t

Schroedingers equation

i = H (B13)
t
may be written compactly as

E = H , (B14)

where E := i is the energy operator, and H is the Hamiltonian of the
t
quantum system. To find if the two operators are equal, we need to be sure if
: x y may be found
their domains are equal. The domain of an operator A
from the relation [226]

D = D( A ), {y Y ; y = Ax
, x D( A )} , (B15)

where D is called the domain of the linear operator A , and x X , with y Y

imply that X , Y are Hilbert spaces. Following the equation

y = Ax
, x D ( A ) (B15#)

in Eq.(B15), we compare the domains of the two operators:

E = , , (B15a)

and H = , , (B15b)

where is real energy eigenvalue. If we set y = , and x = , then the

above two equations may be zipped together into a single equation

203
 y = Ax

where (according to Eq.(B15#)) both E and H have equal right to the job of
what the operator A does. Moreover they live in the same domain

x = D ( E ) = D ( H ) .

According to definition of equality of two linear operators (see p. 21 of [226]), we

observe that

D ( E ) = D ( H ) , and E = H , for all D ( E ) = D ( H ) .

These conditions being satisfied by both E and H , we say that these two
operators are equal:

H = E . (B16)

This result enables us to write the time-energy uncertainty relation (B12) in

another form

T E . (B17)
2
Since the form of this relation is similar to position-momentum uncertainty relation

xp x (B18),
2

we are now bold enough to state that T and E cannot be zero ever.
Therefore,

energy or time (intrinsic to any quantum system) cannot be measured with

absolute precision.

As an aside, I mention an important theorem known as Stone-von Neumann

Uniqueness Theorem ( [358], [359] ) that had a major impact in the history of
quantum mechanics in proving that Heisenbergs Matrix Mechanics and
Schroedingers Wave Mechanics are physically equivalent forms of an
underlying theory now known as Quantum Mechanics in general. This theorem
implies that any physically meaningful observable may be factually represented
in terms of the canonically conjugate self-adjoint operators, such as position x
and momentum p satisfying the canonical commutation relation (CCR) :

204
 px
xp = i1.
(B19)

For a general pair ( P , Q ) of canonically conjugate operators, the counterpart of

Eq.(B19) is

QP
PQ = ( i1)
. (B19a)

This operator equation does not hold if P or Q is bounded ( [359], [358] ). Eqs.
(B19) and (B19a) have been obtained primarily because x , p , P , Q are all
unbounded operators ( [358], [361] ). These operators are defined to stay only in
a domain that is a dense subset of Hilbert space H^.
H^ Since these operators are
unbounded, a problem emerged with their domain: Unbounded operators are not
defined on the entire Hilbert space H (see p.325 of [361]). This hinted that
indispensable observables such as x , p are to be removed from the set of
observables of a quantum system. This means that if quam mechanics is to work
in Hilbert space, then we are forever deprived of knowing the position or
momentum of a particle, -------- which physicists can hardly afford. There was
always a lingering hope that Eq.(B19) and the general Eq.(B19a) might be
obtained also for bounded operators. The procedure for morphing the unbounded
operators into bounded operators starts with carefully constructing their domains
and domains of their adjoints. The program ends with equipping them with the
properties of self-adjoint operators ( see pp.(332-333) of [361] ). An operator A is
self-adjoint if its domain DA is dense [2] in Hilbert space H, and if

[1] DA = DA

and [2] A = A ,

where A is adjoint of A . But what was the benefit of clothing unbounded
operators into self-adjoint operators which are also unbounded, and therefore
none of them is domained in the entire Hilbert space H ? The advantage lies in
the fact that there exists a one-to-one correspondence between a self-adjoint
operator and a one-parameter family of unitary operators, thanks to Stones
theorem (see [362] for proof, [1] ) :

There exists a unique self-adjoint operator A such that

U r = eirA , for r ,

205
where { U r I r } is a set of stongly continuous one-parameter family of unitary
operators defined on the entire Hilbert space H. The leverage of unitary operators
over self-adjoint operators is that unitary operators are bounded. This is exactly
what we have always wanted ! Because the bounded unitary operators are now
defined over the entire Hilbert space H. Now we need to retrieve canonical
commutation relations (B19a) (CCR) in terms of bounded operators that are
defined on the entire Hilbert space. This had been performed by Weyl who
introduced the celebrated Weyl unitary forms [363] :

Let U a = e
iaP
, and Vb = eibQ for a, b ,

then U aVb = eiabVbU a (B19b)

The Heisenberg form of CCR is then obtained by differentiating the Weyl forms
[358] with

2
.
ab

Finally, the equivalence of matrix mechanics and wave mechanics is established

by Stones theorem through an isomorphism

W : H L2 ()

such that W 1 = U
WU a a

and W 1 = V , for a ,
WV a a

where U a and Va are Weyl unitaries in the Schroedinger representation [359].

This permits every irreducible Weyl representation of the Heisenberg CCR for
one degree of freedom to be considered unitarily equivalent to the Weyl form of
the Schroedinger representation. In 1930 Stone and von Neumann proved this
uniqueness theorem ( [359], [360] ) that immediately put matrix mechanics and
wave mechanics on an equal footing.

But mathematical physicists sensed some trouble much later [359] , and
instances in physically realizable situations were not few where it was shown that
matrix mechanics in Weyl form of CCR is not unitarily equivalent to
Schroedingers representation ( [359], [358] ). The theorem is also not valid for a
quantum system containing countably infinite particles.

206
Just before closing the discussion of sending unbounded self-adjoint operators
into the fold of bounded unitary operators, Geroch [361] asks two unpleasant
questions :

[1] Why is self-adjointness so crucial in quantum mechanics?

[2] Why one transforms these self-adjoint operators into unitary operators

which have almost no physical significance?

One of the possible answers may be that nobody wants to exclude position and
momentum observables of a quantum system from the set of observables
recognized in quantum mechanics. To retain these operators, one must cure their
unboundedness and tame these to bounded operators to enable them to be
defined in the entire Hilbert space H. The self-adjoint operators are crucial
because they generate real eigenvalues, which are believed to be the measured
outcomes of measurement events.

The second question perhaps point to the dire need of bounding the purported
unbounded operators P and Q of the canonical commutation relations. The sole
aim seems to protect the equivalence of matrix mechanics and wave mechanics.

But like the Hamiltonian in the time-energy uncertainty relation (which we have
just demonstrated), the momentum operator too may be shown as semibounded.
Since the canonical commutation relation

px
xp = i1 (B19c)

remains unchanged by exchanging x with p , which are canonically conjugate to

each other, and replacing the quaternion basis element i by its conjugate (i ) ,
we seem to realize that if the momentum operator is proven to become bounded
or semibounded, so will be the position operator. And this may lead to a fairly
see-through formulation of position-momentum uncertainty relation like its time-
energy cousin. Like Eq.(B10A), we turn to de Broglie relation

p = , (B19d)

where the wave number is defined [30C] in terms of phase of wave function :

= . (B19e)
x

We may now follow along the proof of semiboundedness of Hamiltonian from

Eq.(B11) above and show that any momentum obeying de Broglies relation must
be nonnegative, because,

207
 pQ
= = =
x

Since the left side is nonnegative, the right side or pQ must also be nonnegative.
Therefore pQ 0. Since

p Q = p Q p Q = = , (B19f)

for all where 0 is some constant . Eq.(B19f) is the definition of a

semibounded linear operator that is satisfied by the momentum operator p Q
provided we discard all negative eigenvalues of momentum operator, because
0 always. Since x and p are canonically conjugate to each other in Eq.
(B19c), a semibounded momentum operator p must be conjugate to a
semibounded position operator x satisfying Eq. (B19c). Now we may conclude
that the CCR

px
xp = i1 (B19g)

has a solution when any of the self-adjoint operators x and p are semibounded.
This implies an uncertainty relation

x p (B19h)
2
where x and p are semibounded operators. In this discussion, we did not need
to exponentiate these self-adjoint and purported unbounded operators into
unitary operators to turn these into bounded operators or Weyl forms, and then
appeal to Stone-von Neumann theorem to prove equivalence of matrix
mechanics and Schroedingers wave mechanics. Without the standard
mathematical device to bound these operators, we can probably protect the
equivalence of the Heisenberg representation in terms of CCR and
Schroedingers representation in the form of wave mechanics into a single theory
called quantum mechanics. This may be one of the probable answers to
Gerochs second question [361].

From our earlier results, we know that these irreducible nonzero uncertainties are
imaginary-valued. Therefore eigenvalues of time (intrinsic to a quantum system)
and energy of a quantum system are always complex-valued. We have already

208
found evidence of complex energy and complex time in quantum mechanics and
proved that these are non-Hermitian normal operators (see [36] and [37] for
details). These operators are actually defined in complex Banach space [212].

[9H
[9H] A Prediction for Violation of Lorentz Invariance

If position operator of a photon is controversial in standard Relativistic Quantum

Mechanics (RQM), then Eq.(27) of [37] is an attempt to prove that there exists
such a position operator

t
x = 0 i p 1 + p 1i (54A3)
2 t t

which may be consistently used in relativistic domain of quantum theory. We

have shown proof of invertibility of momentum operator p in [37]. Therefore,
quantization of the equation

x = ct

into x = ct (54A4)

shows a direct relashionship or equivalence between position and time in

relativistic quantum mechanics.

(We have demonstrated in Section [9A] that despite several no-go theorems, it
may be shown that time is an operator or observable t in quantum mechanics. In
fact, we have already finished a part of this program in pp. 28-29 of [36] by
proving that complex time tc is a non-Hermitian normal operator, and it satisfies a
commutation relation with complex energy H of the following form
c

tc H c H ctc = i1 .) (54A )

In fact the explicit form of time operator may be obtained from Eqs.(54A3) and
(54A4):

209
 1 t
t = x = 0 i p 1 + p 1i . (54A 3)
c 2c t t

We have already established imaginary time as the form that time that emerges
in case of quantum vacuum. Then Local Lorentz Symmetry approved by
general relativity in the immediate neighborhood of a space-time event in
quantum vacuum allows a local geometry of the following form for a space-time
interval:

ds 2 = dx 2 + dy 2 + dz 2 c 2 dt 2 . (54A5)

If we consider one-dimensional motion of a relativistic particle then we may

simplify the space-time interval as

ds 2 = dx 2 c 2 dt 2 . (54A6)

Proper time is defined as

c 2 d 2 = ds 2 , (54A7)

and combining the last two equations, we find

c 2 d 2 = ds 2 = c 2 dt 2 dx 2 . (54A8)

We have already established in [37] that length and so space has no dimension
in quantum mechanics because of the uncanny relation :

v = , [cm.s 1 ] = [s 1 ], [cm.] = 1. (54A*8)

Therefore, 1cm = 1 dx 2 = 2 cm 2 = 2 = ,

where 2 > 0, and > 0 are very small dimensionless numbers. Since Eq. (54A8)
now reads

ds 2 = 2 c 2 dt 2 = 2 ( cdt ) cm2 = 2 (cdt ) 2 (1) 2 = 2 2 = ( + ) ( ),

2

(54A9)

where cdt = is dimensionless ---------- (because cdt is some length, which is

dedimensionalized in quantum mechanics) ------------ then this quantum space-
time interval ds 2 is a dimensionless number. Being dimensionless in quantum
space--time invariant quantity (like fine
theory, it should remain a globally space
structure constant ). A more conservative approach would require it as a

210
locally Lorentz Invariant (LLI) [425] quantity in an infinitesimally small region.
But if the constant c --------- that ensures in part Lorentz invariance of space-time
interval ds 2 -------- is observationally found to vary with space and/or time ( as
has been proposed in [37] to resolve the problem associated with observed
varying fine structure constant reported by John Webb and others {see [277] ,
[278], [279] } ) then local Lorentz invariance (ensuring validity of special relativity
in a very small region in the surround of a measurement event point ) may break
down, however tiny the effect may be. However varying speed of light is still
controversial. One cannot go too far with this. In short, local Lorentz symmetry
violation would ultimately lead to breakdown of general relativity, since general
relativity accepts validity of local Lorentz invariance.

In quantum vacuum, there is no particle with momentum and mass. Therefore,

p = mv = 0, v = 0, if m 0. (a 54)

In addition, if there is no real mass-energy in quantum vacuum, then

m = 0. (b 54)

Plugging these values in Eq.(u16), we find

2c2
E =E
2
Q
2
vac = ,
4

and a quantum vacuum particle possesses imaginary-valued energy

i c
Evac = vac = , (c 54)
2

which yields imaginary mass of a vacuum particle (which does not certainly
blesses it with superluminal speed of tachyons!)

Evac i
mvac = = = ( imc ) , (d 54)
c2 2c

where mc = = 1.7588 1038 g = 9.8663 106 eV / c 2 (e 54)
2c

is certainly a universal mass constant, containing only fundamental constants

and c . Since cm. = 1 in quantum mechanics, the apparently confusing dimension

of mc comes out right because

211
 2
erg.s g.s .s
dimension of mc = 1
= 1 = g .
cm.s s

The angular frequency associated with vacuum energy is

ic
vac = .
2

By definition,

d2 d2
vac = , = vac .
dt dt

d
Although we usually select = 2 to demand positivity of particle energy, in
dt
case of imaginary number, positivity and negativity (generally attributed to real
numbers) makes no sense. Consequently, we retain both signs, and arrive at

d ic d ic
vac = 2 = , 2 = . (54A10)
dt 2 dt 2

Then, whether phase 2 is real or complex, it is related to angular frequency

through

d2 ic ic ic c
vac = = = = . (54A11)
dt 2 2 2 2

Then, the rate of change of phase 2 of the quantum wave with time
corresponding to a vacuum particle may be obtained from the last equation of
(54A10)

d2 d2 c
= = . (54A12)
d (it ) d Q 2

We now fix the relashionship between classical time t and quantum vacuum time
Q
:

Q = ( it ) (54A13)

212
 c
in which vacuum particles live. From Eq. (54A11) we have found vac = .
2
Remembering this, Eq.(54A12) now becomes

d2 d2 c
vac = = = . (54A14)
d (it ) d Q 2

Regardless of what one can do by the process of analytic continuation [247] of

holomorphic (nonsingular) functions to extend its domain, we find here Wick
rotation [248] not as a mathematical trick to do physics (Euclidean Quantum Field
Theory) effortlessly in imaginary time, and then switch the results to the more
difficult case of the physics (Quantum Field Theory in Minkowski space) in real
physical time by reverting to

Q = ( it ) .

In special relativistic dynamics energy and momentum of a particle satisfy the

relations

E = mc 2 , and p = mv (54J)

which responds with the following ratio

E mc 2 c 2
= = = v ph > c (54K)
p mv v

where one requires m 0, and this constraint restricts Eq.(54K) to only massive
particles. Photon mass being zero in quantum and non-quantum physics, this
E
cannot be used to derive the relation = c, or, its famous form for photon E = pc
p
by simply setting v = c. In case we want to evade the unavoidable, we restate
Eq.(54K) as

Ev = pc 2 (54L)

and put v = c to obtain E = pc for photons. But we cannot hide the explicit form of
the above equation for any particle of mass m :

( mc 2 )v = ( mv)c 2 .

Set v = c for photons, and you are left with an identity: mc3 = mc3 , which
becomes useless for determining energy-momentum relation for massless

213
photons. These are some of the difficulties that may be easily dodged by setting
m = 0 for photons in the general equation

E 2 = p 2 c 2 + m2c 4 , (54M)

to obtain E = pc. I have found a plausible rest mass of photon

m photon = mc = = 1.7588 1038 g (54M*)
2c

in [37] that matched with observations from Gamma Ray Bursts (GRBs).
We now address the issue of identifying space and time coordinates in special
relativity as waves! Any classical wave of speed v has angular frequency and

angular wave number related as v = for the wave speed of the space

coordinate x in Eq.(54A). Plugging this wave features in that equation, it reads

x = x t x = ( x t ) (54N)

As
c2 c2 c 2
v ph = = = , (54P)
v ( / )
Eq.(54E) yields

c 2 t x c 2 t

t = 2 x = 2 = 2 x( v) c t .
2
(54Q)
(c / ) c c

ph c 2
We know v ph = = , where ph and ph correspond to the time wave pulse
ph v

t in Eq. (54E). But v = , and so

ph c 2 c2 c2
v ph = = = = .
ph v ( / )

The last relations obtain a relationship between space and time waves:

ph = ph c 2 (54R)

where the sets ( , ) and ( ph , ph ) refer to the waves associated with space x
and time t respectively. Eq.(54E) may be rewritten as

214
 ph ph x ph t
t = x t =
= ( ph x ph t ) (54S)
v ph ph ( ph / ph ) ph ph

Eqs.((54N) and (54S) explicitly reveal wave nature of space and time
coordinates, x( x, t ) and t ( x, t ) of a classical particle in frame S . The wave
classical
nature of particle coordinates is surely uncanny in special relativity. The
derivations above had no inputs from quantum mechanics, a theory that has a
flair to associate wave nature to almost everything but waves. We shall report
later about possibility of preferred reference frames in the context of quantum
mechanics. The preferred frames, which are privileged reference frames ---------
- (the visibly dark Cosmic Microwave Background surface may be such a
privileged rest frame) --------- are ruled out in special relativity. The laws of
physics are different in these preferred reference frames, and the difference with
other inertial frames may be detected with suitable device.

Although General Relativity has a tough time melding with Quantum Mechanics,
it had been a rather easy job in formulating a quantized theory of special
relativity: Relativistic Quantum Mechanics ( [86], [87], [88] ). Despite perceived
difficulties in theorizing a single particle wave function, eliminating negative
energy solutions, and an embarrassing probability density that is negative, in the
famous (or, notorious(?)) Klein-Gordon equation, I have tried to cure the
unacceptable features of this equation in [37]. In that attempt, I obtained a rather
startling result containing a quantum correction to the famous mass-energy
equation E = Mc 2 = mc 2 , where m is rest mass of a quantum particle and is
the Lorentz factor defined as

1
= (55)
v2
1 2
c

and v is particle speed. The quantum counterpart of mass-energy equation

emerged as (see Eq. (58) in page (27) of [37])

2 v2
E = = Mc 2 1 2 . (56)
8M c

Inserting m in place of M ( relativistic mass) --------- a term which has fallen in

disuse --------- in the above equation, we find

2 v2
E = = mc 2 1 . (57)
8 m c 2

215
This relation has been derived by quantizing the most general mass-energy
relation of special relativity:

E 2 = p 2 c 2 + m2 c 4 . (58)

Lorentz invariance of scalar quantities (like rest mass of a particle) is required to

remain valid if we want special relativity to survive in quantum theory. Eq.(57),
however, explicitly violates Lorentz invariance of rest mass m of a particle. The
quantity M = m satisfies a quadratic equation

v2
8M 2 c 2 8ME 2 1 2 = 0.
c
This equation solves for two values of M :

E 2c 2 v 2
m = M = 2 1 1 + 2 1 2 (59)
2c 2E c

c
Note that quantum vacuum energy Evac = i creeps into the above equation
2
in the guise of fundamental energy constant

c
Ec = mc c 2 = c 2 = :
2c 2

2 c 2 i 2 2 c 2 2 c 2 Evac
2 2

2
= 2 = 2 i = 2
.
2E 2 E E 2 E

While Lorentz invariance of special relativity maintains an invariant mass

E
m = 2 , Eq.(59) predicts a very small correction term to be added to this:
c
E
m + , (60)
c2
( here we must discard the minus sign in Eq.(59) to avoid accepting a negative
mass for m .) where
Ec2
= . (60A)
2 E 3c 2

The quantity is a measure of violation of Lorentz-invariance of scalar mass in

special relativity. Since general relativity assumes local Lorentz-invariance, if
Eq.(60A) experimentally survives, this might require a re-examination of the

216
accepted existence of local Minkowski space in space-time fabric of general
relativity.
The approximation in Eq.(60) is realized through the fact that

2c2
2 2 << 1 .
2E

The other rest mass solution of Eq.(59) is negative:

Ec2
m 3 2
,
2 E c

and is not acceptable in standard model energy scale.

From Eq.(57), for a proton rest mass mPr ,

2 v2 2
E = ( EClassical EQuantum ) = 1 = . (60B)
8 mPr c 2 8mPr 3

2
m c2 1 v2 v2 m c2
Since E = mPr c Pr = = 1 2 1 2 = Pr ,
2

E c c E

v mPr c
2 2 2
= 1 . (60C)
c E

When E = 7 TeV energy of proton beam in Large Hadron Collider (LHC), we

v
calculate from Eq.(60C) that = 0.999999991.
c
1
Lorentz factor then becomes = = 7453.564294 .
1 (0.999999991)2
Particle Data Group [209] gives proton mass

mPr = 938.272013 10 6 eV / c 2 ,

and CODATA results of 2006 sets

= 1.054571628 1027 gcms 1

(considered as momentum dimensionally). Plugging these in Eq.(60B), we find

that quantum-mechanical energy of a 7 TeV proton is less than its classical
relativistic energy by an amount

217
 E = 1.2527433 10 31 eV . (60D)

If we convert it to Joule, then 1 eV = 1.602176 1019 J = 1.602176 1012 erg , and

then

E = 2.0071159 1043 erg .

In the latest direct test of Einsteins E = Mc 2 by Rainville et al [210], energy E

differs from Mc 2 by at most 4 10 7 . In Eq. (60D), E differs from Mc 2 by 10 31 eV
or 1043 erg . A technologically advanced test in future may reveal this quantum
correction and a probable measure for break-down of Lorentz invariance.
Neutrino oscillation [153] indicates that one type of neutrino may change into
another type of neutrino (for instance, from electron neutrino e to tau neutrino
) during its flight by changing flavor [234]. This registers a compelling
evidence that neutrinos are not massless. A satisfactory interpretation of
massivity of neutrinos requires new physics. In the meanwhile, Kostelecky et al
[376] have suggested that neutrino oscillation may originate from Lorentz
violation.

[10] Finding Quantum Vacuum Energy and Temperature of

Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR)

Perhaps the innermost core ingredient that determines the value of the
c
cosmological constant is the magnitude of vacuum energy i . This energy
2
could not have been obtained without Lorentz Symmetry Violation (LSV), and this
is explicit in the following equation (see Eq.(56), page 26 in [37])

2c 2 v 2
E 2 = p 2c 2 + m2c 4 1 . (62MC)
4 c2

218
In case of quantum vacuum containg no real-valued mass-energy ,
2c2
p = 0, m = 0, v = 0. Plugging these into above equation, we find Evac
2
= ,
4
which sets the benchmark of quantum vacuum energy:

i c
Evac = . (62MD)
2

Since Lorentz invariance violation is a subset of Lorentz Symmetry Violation

(LSV) [219, 220], a theory of quantum gravity might need Lorentz Symmetry
Violation as an essential feature. This is supported by the fact that string theory,
loop quantum gravity, non-commutative field theories ----------- all predict Lorentz
violation. As an additional indicator to difference between general relativity and
quantum gravity, Lorentz violation in quantum gravity may lead to breakdown of
essential requirements of causality and positivity of energy in general relativity
[439]. A glaring example of flouting positivity of energy is explicit in Eq.(62MD) in
the imaginary energy of quantum vacuum.

We recall the dispersion relation Eq. (55a) (in p. 26 of [37]) connecting energy
and momentum of a quantum particle:

2 2 4 2 2c 2 p 2c 4
EQ2 = p 2 c 2 + m 2 c 4 + c c = p 2 2
c + m 2 4
c + (62Mm)
4 2 4 4 2

Rearranging the terms we obtain a modification of dispersion relation signaling a

possible breaking of Lorentz invariance [269]

c2
EQ2 = p 2c 2 1 2 + (m 2 mc2 )c 4 (62M+)

if we compare it with the celebrated special relativistic equation

E 2 = p 2c2 + m2c 4 .

Here, in Eq. (62M+) mc = is the imaginary part of vacuum particle mass
2c
E i c i
mvac = vac2
= 2 =
c 2c 2c ,

mvac = imc .

219
These vacuum particles fill the universe uniformly to form a background of
dynamics of quantum gravity. This all-pervading background now acts as a
preferred inertial frame relative to which (the disconcerting feature of)
measurement of absolute velocities of other inertial frames may be measured.
The Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) [153] is certainly
tempting to be conjectured as the surface of last scattering [153] composed
entirely of vacuum particles in the doublet mode. The doublet consists of two
vacuum particles each in one of the upper or lower hemispheres of a Riemann
sphere. We can give a sketchy formal proof of this conjecture.
At that early epoch of the universe, the energy scale was transplanckian. The
supersymmetry signature was then temporally the first (and now living as the
spatially last or farthest mappable) signature ( x )min. = (1) instead of the signature
prevalent now, ( x )min. = (i ) :

( x) min. = (i ) PRESENT UNIVERSE

Supersymmetry
(l p ) Planck Universe
Supersymmetry
(1) TRANSPLANCK UNIVERSE

The doublet of vacuum particles (perhaps a pair of magnetic monopoles

separated by inaccessible distance ( x ) min . = (1) ) has energy in transplanckian
era

ic
ET = 2 = (i )c
Supersymmetry
(1)c = c. (62M+*)
2

All the extra dimensions (now imaginary) were then real. As the universe came
into existence, the first supersymmetry signature was ( x ) min . = (1) . However
preposterous it may seem, I have found this earliest phase of the universe sans
all physical properties, such as space, time and matter or energy. This may turn
out to be quite risible, if not annoying ! I do not know if this space-time-matterless
universe is a ruse to avoid any question of initial singularity in the big bang
cosmology. But this stage of supersymmetry According to M-theory ----------- the
theory subsuming all types of string theories, and consisting of branes (not
strings) ---------- the total number of dimensions is 11, though there are
differences of opinion [253]. But in our version of quantum gravity in low energy
scale, there are 3 complex space dimensions [37], 1 complex time dimension
{see [37], I imaginary dimension for spin, and 1 complex space dimension for
(orbital) angular momentum.
The last complex dimension just cited may be easily captured by considering the
standard equation for angular momentum eigenfunction m ( ) for z-direction
angular momentum operator L : z

Lz m ( ) = m m ( ) (62M~)

220
where eigenvalues of L z are m . In general, the eigenfunction m ( ) should be
complex as we have already established complex space-time for quantum
mechanics [36]. Note that the particle orbits along changing , but at constant .
Set the complex m ( ) in the polar form

m ( ) = P( )ei ( ) (62M++)

where P ( ) is the probability density for finding the particle at a particular angle
= during angular motion around the z-axis. Inserting the above form of
m ( ) in Eq. (62M~), and remembering that

Lz := i ,

we find, after a little rearrangement and cancellation

d i dP
= m . (62M::)
d 2 P d

We have encountered such equations before in this paper and we had to finally
accept that m is a complex number: m ( m + im ) . Comparing the real and
imaginary sides of Eq.(62M::) we get

d
= m
d

i dP
and = im .
2 P d

Integration yields two solutions:

( ) = m + 0 ,

where 0 is a real constant, and

P ( ) = e 2 m +0 ; 0 = a real constant.

The angular momentum eigenfunction is

221
 m 1 m
1
m + 0 + im + i0 m i + 0 + i0 m i
m ( ) = P( )e = e
i 2
=e m 2
= m (0)e m
(62M<)

where the polar angle is complex :

m
c = i = + i , (62M>)
m

m
with = . This proves that we require one complex dimension for
m
angular momentum.
Then what are the total number of dimensions required for a particle`s
specification? We need the following space and time dimensions:

Space: xc = x + ix,
yc = y + iy,
zc = z + iz ,
c = + i ,
(r ) spin = i ,

Time: tc = t + it .

In all, 11 real dimensions are required to describe a particle wave function. This
coincidence with the number of dimensions required in M-theory should not be
pushed too far. But one special feature of two-dimensional time

tc = t + it

deserves attention which is connected to recent developments in understanding

M-theory. M-theory needs only one time dimension. It has no space for a hidden
extra time dimension. It is thus called a 1T theory. A 2T theory contains an extra
time dimension, and it is frightening because the emergent theory invites
causality violation to raise its ugly head. Violation of causality destroys the order
of events [437] ----------- which is a widely respected tenet of physics. In short,
violation of causal structure of space-time may occur if any pair of connected
events {( Ei , E j ), i < j} are space-like separated. In this order, Ei may cause
event E j to occur. But the reverse order of events are also permitted. The effect
event E j may also trigger the occurrence of cause event Ei .
M-theory has in store a hint or two for possibility of an extra time dimension.
When extended supersymmetry of M-theory was discovered [440] this led to

222
further exploration of two time dimensions, and 2T theories followed such as F-
theory, S-theory and U-theory [438].
But retaining the same imaginary unit in all the space and time dimensions is
perhaps an oversimplification. I therefore prefer use of an 8-dimensional normed
division algebra, octonions as the wave function description of choice.
Octonions [272] contain the unit octonion basis of 8 elements

{1, e1 , e2 , e3 , e4 , e5 , e6 , e7 } ,

where 1 is the multiplicative identity and for all other unit octonions, ei = 1. , for
i=1,2,3,4,5,6,7. When i j , octonions anticommute:

ei e j + e j ei = 0 .

Also, ei e j = ek e2 i e2 j = e2 k , and ei e j = ek ei +1e j +1 = ek +1 . Another important

formula is
e1e2 = e4 .

Octonions are not commutative. They are not associative either. A common
octanion is expressed as

= 1x0 + e1 x1 + e2 x2 + e3 x3 + e4 x4 + e5 x5 + e6 x6 + e7 x7 , (62Mz)

where x j for j = 0,1, 2,....., 6, 7 are real numbers and each of the octonion units ei
plays the role of one distinct and quality-specific imaginary dimension. The
particle wave function resides in the tensor product of quality-specific spaces:

= S T L s (62M=)

where S , T , L and s denote respectively spatial, time, angular momentum and

spin spaces of the particle. These spaces are all quality-specific in the sense that
the elements in these spaces are described by quantities that are physically
differentiable by their properties. We may represent the most general wave
function by

[e6 ]
= S T L s = A(e( ax 1 +bx2 + cx30 ) + ( a1e1 x1 + a2 e2 x2 + a3e3 x3 )
).(e[ d1t1 + d2e4t1 ] (e[ b1L1 +b2e5 L2 ] )
0 0 0

[e7 ]

(62M``)

223
The numbers a, b, c, a1 , a2 , a3 , d1 , d 2 , b1 , b2 along with x`s, t `s and L`s are all real. The
1
last 2 1 column matrix representing 2 dimensions along e6 and e7 is the spin-
2
eigenvector. John Baez has told us in an article [272] that . there is still no
proof that octonions are useful for understanding the real world. We can only
hope that eventually this question will be settled one way or the other. If the
general wave function ( xc , yc , zc , tc , Lc , s ) described in Eq. (62M``) is found
consistent in other applications of quantum mechanics, then this may indicate a
sliver of the octonions finding room in quantum theory, apart from its use in string
theory. In string theory, there are many different ways of compactification of
extra dimensions [294]. These different number of ways may be reduced to just a
single compactification if we accept the above wave function ( in Eq. (62M``)
containing octonions. This particular compactification by octonions may be able
to describe the world we see today around us.
The Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) was produced in
transplanckian epoch. The supersymmetry signature at that energy scale then
requires replacing all the imaginary units of octonions by its multiplicative identity
unit 1:

( x) min. = {1, e1 , e2 , e3 ,....., e7 }

Supersymmetry
At Transplanckian energy
1.

The wave function now becomes a real function, with the complex-valued spatial
coordinate becoming a real number

xc = [ax10 + (e1 )a1 x1 ]

Supersymmetry
e1 =1.
(ax10 + a1 x1 ) = X R .

Similarly, yc = YR , zc = Z R , tc = TR , Lc = LR , s = sR . Instead of 11 real dimensions, now

we have only 6 real dimensions because of supersymmetry flip around
Transplanckian energy. But in our present-day cooled universe, the energy scale
at which temperature of CMBR is measured, is very low. Therefore all the extra
imaginary dimensions are present today. Therefore, at low energy scale, all the
11 real dimensions are present ----- each with one vacuum doublet of energy. If
we consider spin space

e
s= 6
e7

as 2-dimensional, then total number of real dimensions become 12. If each real
dimension captures one and only one vacuum particle doublet, then total energy
of vacuum particles is

224
 E = 12( imc c 2 ) = ( 6ic)

We have implicitly assumed that all the distinct (imaginary) octonion units now
behave like a single imaginary unit i at very low energy scale. It seems that a
proof of the last statement will be very difficult. So we just assume it. The thermal
energy corresponding to E = ( 6ic ) must also be imaginary. The relations E =
1
k BT and E = ( 6ic ) may be reconciled only if we agree to assign an imaginary
2
number to temperature Ti = (iTCMBR ) to vacuum energy. So vacuum particles
have 0 K temperature in its real part. This result at once categorizes vacuum
particles or dark matter as cold dark matter. Our non-unitary theory is compatible
with CDM (Cold Dark Matter ) model. Overall, including the role of repulsive force
played by cosmological constant , our theory is consistent with CDM model
[ 30 A5 ]. Boltzmann constant is k B = 8.619 105 eVK 1 . The vacuum particles have
imaginary temperature (iTCMBR ) K. But cosmic microwave background
radiation (CMBR) has temperature is TCMBR K. Why? This may lead us to think
about the succession of supersymmetry signatures or regimes of phase
transitions in our universe that started right from the big bang to the present day.
If by cosmological inflation [303] we mean accelerated expansion of not only
early universe, but a cosmological acceleration triggered by a particular form of
dark energy (which I call cosmological constant) since big bang, and that dark
energy is still sustaining that cosmic acceleration (as first observed and then
declared by scientists in 1998), then It may be calculated from

1 1
(6ic) = E = k BTi = k B (iTCMBR ) .
2 2

1 12c
6 c = k BTCMBR , TCMBR = (62M!%)
2 kB

12 2 0.9866349 105 eV 23.679237 105 eV

TCMBR = = 5 1 = 2.747 K . (62M&*)
kB 8.619 10 eVK

While our theoretical prediction of CMBR temperature is 2.747K, the observed

value is ( 2.725 0.001) K from FIRAS (Far Infrared Absolute Spectrometer)
experiment mounted on COBE (Cosmic Background Explorer) satellite [30 A5 ].
Disagreement starts from the second decimal place. The agreement of theory
with observation is quite good and prospective.
The anisotropies (small variations of temperature) detected in different locations
on the surface of last scattering by COBE satellite has been explained by Sachs-
Wolfe effect, or Integrated Sachs-Wolfe (ISW) effect [153]. Indeed it may have
been caused by very small spatial variations of gravitational potential on the last

225
scattering surface. But the term responsible for this variation is the potential
energy of vacuum particles, namely,

i c
Evac = .
2

The temperature of CMBR is

12c
TCMBR = . (62M!%)
kB

Any fluctuation in temperature ought to be reflected in one or more of the three

constants involved: , c and k B . Some authors ([273], [274], [275], [276], [37],)
have expressed doubt in the constancy of speed of light in the wake of a series of
experiments ([277], [278], [279], [280], [281]) to detect a varying fine structure
constant over cosmological time. In my opinion, if any consistent variation (with
space and/or time) in the speed of light c in vacuum is detected, then we expect
variations in TCMBR and the consequent anisotropies in CMBR according to the
following formula:

12c( x, t )
TCMBR = . (62M<>)
kB

The vacuum field created by vacuum particles is the source of Lorentz violation.
We may predict Lorentz violation scale by recalling that vacuum energy

ic i c c c
2
Evac = =
= = .
2 2 ( i ) 2 ( i ) 2( i )

Since signature of supersymmetry may flip from

( x)min. = (i) ( x) min. = l p 1033 cm

the energy scale of of Lorentz violation is

c c 9.8 106
Evac = 2l 2(1.61 1033 ) eV = 3.04 10 GeV ,
= 18

2( i ) p

which is near planck energy scale. This scale is beyond the energy currently
available in Large Hadron Collider (LHC). Another possible energy scale of

226
Lorentz violation is obtained by identifying the equivalent supersymmetry
signature flip from
( x) min. = (i) = (i ) ( x)min. = l p 1033 cm .

Then Lorentz violation scale is pared down to a tiny

c c (9.8 106 ) (1.61 1033 )

Evac = i (l p ) = eV = 1.58 1047 GeV .
2 2 2

[11] Derivation of Theoretical value of Cosmological constant

and a Plausible Confirmation of String Theory

Cosmological constant [30 A5 ] is one of the three ideas floated to describe dark
energy [79]. The other two are scalar fields like quintessence [80, 81] and moduli
[82]. The interpretation of dark energy as cosmological constant hinges on the
crucial constant value of quantum vacuum energy density ------- a concept
borrowed from particle physics. This vacuum energy is responsible for a repulsive
force that is accelerating expansion of our universe. The existence of a nonzero
positive cosmological constant has been detected and confirmed by two
independent groups working almost in complete isolation from each other, High-z
Supernova Search Team and Supernova Cosmology Project reporting their
results in 1998 and 1999 respectively ( [83], [84], [85] ). If it is assumed that our
universe contains only baryons and photons suffused with a cosmological
constant, then the experiments report a nonzero positive cosmological constant
with 99.9% confidence level [321]. Further refined observations carried out later
confirm a tiny positive cosmological constant , and reaffirm its dimensionless
order of magnitude as

G
l p 2 = 3 10123 , (62*)
c

and, an excellent review paper [114] discusses the entire spectrum of

contemporary approaches to the cosmological constant problem [116]. A
Galaxy Project named WiggleZ Dark Energy Survey launched a five year study of
200,000 galaxies, and reconfirmed in 2011 the existence of dark energy as well
as accelerated expansion of the universe [117].

227
The cosmological constant problem surfaced with the program of recognizing the
role of quantum vacuum energy density as a source of contribution to . In fact,
Quantum Field Theory (QFT) describes vacuum energy and cosmological
constant as one and the same thing. A superb history of development of the
cosmological constant problem may be accessed in [118]. While quantum field
theory quantified a dimensionless quantity l p2 having an enormous discrepancy
with observation by a factor of about 1: 10 123 , i.e. by a frightening 10123 order of
magnitude, string theory is still clueless on how to resolve this problem [119].
We now proceed to calculate theoretically the magnitude of cosmological
constant . We regard as an interpretation of dark energy that still defies a
consistent explanation in contemporary physics (see, for example ( [120], [121],
[122], [123], [124], [125], [126], [127] ). We have already calculated the energy
of a quantum vacuum particle in Section 10, 10 above. The universe is filled with
such vacuum particles, and these are completely invisible to devices because
these particles have imaginary mass

( imc ) = i .
2c

One way to intuitively visualize them is to place zillions of fundamental particles

(each of mass equal to fundamental mass constant mc
= 1.758 1038 g = 9.86 106 eV ) on the imaginary extra dimension, which may be
considered as a compactified dimension. This extra dimension, being imaginary,
is inaccessible to measuring devices. Energy of a single vacuum particle is

c
Evac = (i ) Ec = (i )mc c 2 = i c 2 = i . (62A)
2c 2

It is reasonable to expect at least one vacuum particle in a volume V = c3 , where

c =
(imc )c (62aA)

is the Compton wavelength of a vacuum particle of mass ( imc ) . Volume per

particle is then equal to

2 (2 )3 3 (2 )3 3 23 (2 )3
3

V = =
3
= 3
= 3
= . (62B)
(imc )c (i ) ( mc c ) (i )( / 2) (i )
c

Quantum vacuum energy density is then

228
 ic

Evac 2 ic ( i ) c c
vac = = = 3
= 3
= 4 3
. (62C)
V 2 (2 )(2 ) (2) (2 ) (2) (2 )
3 4
V

Cosmological constant ( [149], [150], [151], [152] ) acquires its formula from
general relativity [130] :

8 G
= 4 vac . (62D)
c

From Eq.(62C) its magnitude is

8 G c (2) 2 (2 ) G 1 2
= 4 4 3
= 4 3 3
= 2 l .
2 p
(62E)
c (2) (2 ) (2) (2 ) c (2) (2 )

We now consider the following quirky result

2 = 1 (62F)

(which will be proved in Eq.(62N) of Section [12] below) that has far-reaching
consequences in string theory for wrapping strings around a cylinder. It helps an
open string of length ls to morph into a one-loop closed string without borrowing
or stretching its length:

1 = 2 ls = 2 ls . (62FF)

The trick ------ stringy scale is used to achieve this ------- will be discussed in
Section [12]. We have chosen mF = 2mc as Planck unit of mass instead of planck
c
mass m p = = 2.176 105 g in Eq. (61 ) , and the reason for this switch has
G
already been discussed in Section [4]. Since we consider mF as mass unit in

planck scale, mF = 2mc = = 1 , implies
c

229
 = c. (62Ff)

This requires the following equality in dimensions:

1
gcm 2 s 2 s = cms 1 , gcm = 1 cm = .
g

This relation is supported by the following formula, after recalling that

c G 1
m pl p = 3
= = 2mc = mF = 1 l p = ,
G c c mp

1
which is similar to expressing cm = in particle physics using natural units.
eV
In the opening lines of Section [ 8],
8] we discussed about utilizing the minimal
distance signature of supersymmetry ( x)min. = 1 in real energy-free vacuum and
also in the context of quantum vacuum. Since minimal distance is l p in Planck
scale, it is only necessary to prove that

( x) min. = 1 l p = 1.

We have seen in numerous occasions in quantum theory that angular frequency

is equal to speed. It is also true in Planck scale:

p = c (62FG)

however peculiar it might look. We know all speeds in Planck scale are equal to
c . As a result,

2 1
p = 2 p = c, = c, = c, (62G)
tp tp

since 2 = 1, and, p and t p are respectively planck frequency and planck time
related as

230
 1
= .
tp

From Eq.(62G), the minimal distance is obtained :

l p = ct p = 1. (62GG)

G G
Consequently, l p2 = 3
= 1. But, we have already set = c. Therefore, l p2 = 2 = 1.
c c

Therefore, in such units, G = c2 . (62GG1)

c c2
Also, mp = = = 1. (62 G #)
G G

h
And since = = h, we find
2

c 2 h2 (2 ) 2 2 c2
mp = = = = = 2 = 2 = 2 , (62H)
G G G G G G

because c 2 = G. Note that all these apparently strange-looking relations hinges

on a key result 2 = 1.
Note everything that went into obtaining these weird relations :
(i) We assumed mF = 2mc , the least mass of an open string equal to 1, i.e. = c.
(ii) We set 2 = 1, which is not without proof (see Eq.(62N) in Section
[12] below). This also means that an open string ls is as good as a
closed string: Radius is equal to length of circumference !

ls = 2 ls . (62H@)

(iii) We utilized the proven supersymmetry signature ( x )min. = l p = 1. (62H&)

None of these seem unusual. A close inspection of Eq.(62H) shows that one may
c2
as well write in its stead m p = 2 = 2 m p . Which boils down to
G

231
 2 = 1. (62H*)

There is certainly an atypical geometry of space at play here: A straight line

conjures up to curl into a loop by spookily maintaining invariance of loop radius
with loop length ! But nothing comes from nothing, nothing ever could !------- ( to
borrow a line from a popular song of the famous movie Sound of Music, or from
Shakespeares King Lear ) : While extending its length from the radius l p to
2 l p , the string self-adjusts its linear density from
mass mF 2mc m p l p
l = = = = = mp
length l p lp lp
mass m 2mc m p l p m p
to l = = F = = = . (62H#)
length 2 l p 2 l p 2 l p 2

But l is assigned to a straight line l p requiring just one-dimensional space, while

l belongs to a circumference 2 l p that requires two dimensional plane to sit on.
In one dimension, we have seen from Eq. (G #) that m p = 1. And this means
l = m p = 1. What is true in two ( D = 2) dimensions is also true for one-
dimensional ( D 1 = 1) space, as famously described by Maldacena ([159], [160],
[161] ) in his conjecture. Since linear density is equivalent to tension T of the
[4] where string tension T = m p c 2 = l c 2 ), the latter
string (See Eq. (6 ) of Section [4],
is kept fixed although the spatial dimension D changes by 1. A little rethink of the
equivalence of geometries of l p = 2 l p allows us to equate a straight string
length (l p ) with a closed loop length (2 l p ) . In other words, an open string (
D1 brane) with two end-point particles (D0-branes), each of mass mc attached
to a membrane (D2-brane) is equivalent to a closed string which can move
through a D2-brane. This equivalence of a closed string (hopefully, a graviton of
spin-2) in the bulk (D=2) with an open string on the boundary (D=1) stems from
the relation 2 = 1. A theory containing gravity in the bulk is equivalently
described by a theory concerning its boundary. This is explicitly what
Maldacenas conjecture is about. The linchpin of our conclusion is from the
relation 2 = 1. This relation therefore confirms Maldacenas conjecture in a
small way.
We now go back to Eq.(62H#) recalling from Eq.(G#) that m p = 1. We now
assume that despite change in shape of the string the respective linear densities
m
are the same : l = l 1 = p , and this gives us the crucial gap in the above
2
derivation of :
2 = m p .
(62J)

232
Plugging 2 = m p into Eq.(62E), we now find

2 lp
2
1
= 2 l
2 p
= 2 . (62K)
(2) (2 ) 4m p

Inserting magnitudes of planck length and planck mass, we finally obtain

(1.616199 1033 )2
= = 1.37850499 1057 cm 2 . (62L)
4 ( 2.17651105 )2

WMAP measurements [154, 155] put a stringent bound on : < 1056 cm 2 .

Our theoretical value of fairly satisfies this bound. It also secures the magic
number of (-123) orders of magnitude in the dimensionless quantity

l p2 = 1.3785 1057 (1.61211033 ) 2 = 3.6008 10123 10123 . (62M#)

Which is perhaps the most sought-after incredible fine-tuning in theoretical

physics ! The observed magnitude of cosmological constant yields the
dimensionless number (see p.149 of [172])

l p2 = 1.38 10123 , (62MA)

which is ready for a comparison with our theoretical result:

( l p2 )
Theory
= 2.6092. (62MB)
( l p2 )
Observation

Our theoretical value 10 123 is settled cozily below Weinbergs upper limit for
l p2 10 121 (see p.151 of [172], which was almost a prophetic statement by
Weinberg based on weak anthropic principle ( [173], [174] ) given the fact that it
was suggested nearly a decade before actual observations were carried out by
two groups led by Reiss [68] and Perlmutter [67] in the1990s. Our theoretical
derivation of l p2 does not use any ingredient of anthropic principle, though. But
it assures gravitational condensation needed for galaxy formation. Other

233
theoretical results predicting values of cosmological constant are given by
Carmeli et al and J D Barrow et al [169,170].
Two teams, the High-z Supernova search Team led by Reiss [68] and the
Supernova Cosmology Project headed by Perlmutter [67] obtained almost
identical results, shocking the cosmologists to accept an accelerating cosmic
expansion; their data support a nearly constant cosmogical constant as the
emerging candidate for dark energy [120]. At this point an important remark is
due. Eq. (62K) yields the cosmological constant

l2
= p2
4m
p

The above term contains speed of light c . If however speed of light in vacuum
varies with space and/or time -------- what arguably emerged in astronomical
observation of ultrasmall change in fine structure constant over a few billion years
of look-back time ( [277], [278], [279] ) ----------- then cosmological constant is no
longer a constant, and it too will slightly vary with time (like quintessence, a form
of dark energy) or with time and space both.
The two groups of astronomers also ruled out with a near-100 confidence level
(more than three-sigma limit) an exactly flat universe with vanishing curvature
implicit in a = 0 cosmological model, as encouraged by Cosmic Microwave
Background (CMB) data. This near-certain conclusion of the teams is likely to be
embarrassing to inflationary cosmological models [171] predicting a flat universe.
If (local or global) curvature of space is at all inversely proportional to quantities
like squared radius or length (like Ricci scalar or Gaussian curvature) ------- or
with these quantities in the denominator ------- then it is pretty hard for our
2
universe to have a flat geometry: For example, Ricci scalar requires R = 2 ,
a
where a is the radius of a 2-sphere. If this curvature vanishes, i.e. Ricci scalar
R = 0, then we need

2
R= = 2a 2 = 0 a 2 = 0 (a 1 ) 2 = 0 (a 1 ) = 0 (a 1 ) 1 = (0) 1 a = (0)1.
a2

If radius a is an element of a real or complex number field, then the axioms of

field theory rule out the existence of a multiplicative inverse of zero, (0) 1.
Consequently, the scalar curvature R = 0 implying flat geometry is eliminated by
mathemathical consideration. If we seriously accommodate the following
supersymmetry signatures into our discussion

( x) min. = 1cm. and ( x) min. = l p 1033 cm ,

and these are eqivalent descriptions of minimal length in two different energy
scales, then we may write

234
 1cm. 10 33 cm , 1033 cm 1cm ,

and this equivalence reminds us of T-duality of string theory [89]. This duality is
more strikingly manifest in the gravitational radius of a non-rotating black hole of

mass mc = . The radius
2c
2Gmc 2G 2
R = = 2 = lp. (62 M*)
c2 c 2c

And if the minimal distances ( x) min. = l p and ( x)min. = 1 are equivalent description
of the same physics, then

1
R = l p2 1 l p 33
10 cm 10 cm.
33
lp

If the minimal distance 10 33 cm is dual to the maximal distance 1033 cm (which is

less than size of the observable universe: 46 billion light years 10 28 cm ), then
we may consider 1033 cm as the maximal radius of our universe. This estimate
seems plausible if we think that distance less than l p 1033 cm is as meaningless
1
in a theory of quantum gravity ( for example, string theory) as 1033 cm , if T-
l
p
1
duality is found correct. If we set radius of 2-sphere a = 1033 cm , the minimal
lp
2 2
Ricci curvature R = = 2 1066 cm 2 . If dark energy [120] happens to
(1/ l )
2 66
10
p

vary with time ------- as is expected in quintessence model ( [80], [81] ) of dark
energy, it is expected from T-duality that space curvature of the universe cannot
be whittled down below 2 10 66 cm 2 . If found true, then it questions the existence
of a physical initial singularity.
The existence of minimal distance of quantum theory only allows a minimal
G
radius (which is operationally feasible) equal to 2l p = 2 3 , because one has to
c
leave a separation of l p at both end-points of the radial distance. This sets
(a ) min. = 2l p . I think the fundamental string length scale ls cannot be shorter than
( a ) min. = 2l p . The maximal curvature of space is thus

1 1 1 1
S max. = 2 = 2
= 2 = .
a (2l p ) 4l p

235
We find = 1.0446 10 65 cm 2 = 4l p2 , where is the universal slope parameter (
[156], [157], [158] ) of string theory. This turns out to be the least permissible area
in quantum gravity. The Bekenstein-Hawking entropy of a black hole is
conspicuous by the presence of universal slope = 4l p2 in its formula:
A A
S BH = 2 =
4l
p

which turns out as ratio of horizon area and minimal area.

We shall discuss in a while that is a kind of scalar curvature, much like Ricci
scalar. S max. turns out to be the maximal curvature of space feasible in quantum
1
gravity. This maximal curvature, equal to 2 = 9.57 1066 cm 2 signals that
4l
p
curvature cannot blow up into a singularity in any theory of quantum gravity. We
have already obtained the gravitational radius of a black hole of mass mc in
2 2
Eq.(62M*): R = l p2 . The Ricci scalar curvature is = 2 2 10131 cm 4 , which is
( R ) 2
(l p )
1
almost equal to planck curvature (see p.43 of [115]). Nevertheless, scalar
l p4
curvature is not singular in quantum gravity.
We must stress perhaps on one piece of good news : String theory is likely to be
correct ! I mean, it has already been proved to be experimentally correct. Note
the two central points in Eqs.(62H@) and (62H&) that were utilized to find the
theoretical value of cosmological constant:

(i) Equivalence of open and closed strings via the relation 2 = 1. ,

(ii) A supersymmetry signature ( x) min. = l p = 1 . This signature was
G
utilized to obtain l p = 1 =
2
, which with = c, gave us the
c3
equivalence G = c . This relation was next used in Eq. (62H)
2

that gleaned the most important result m p = 2 of Eq.(62J). This

ultimately determined the theoretical value of cosmological
constant ( that agreed nicely with astronomically observed
value) when inserted in Eq.(62K). I would like to emphasize that
without employing this supersymmetry signature, I could not
have theoretically derived the observed value of .
Supersymmetry may really exist in nature. If this theoretical
calculation for survives, then it is not quite way off the mark to
say that supersymmetry was tested correct back in 1998, when
the two groups studying distant supernovae reported accelerated

236
 expansion of our universe ! At least a central component of string
theory is perhaps correct.
(iii) Strings are indispensible ingredients of String Theory. Without
the relationship between straight strings and closed loop strings
through the equivalence 2 = 1, I could not have obtained the
theoretical value for cosmological constant in planck units
l p2 = 3.6008 10123 , which is a nifty close to the observed value
from various astronomical observations. If the premises of our
derivation of turns out to be correct, then this may probably
reveal an indirect confirmation of some claims for the
underpinning of string theory.

Another (perhaps most crucial) ingredient that determined the value of the
c
cosmological constant is the magnitude of vacuum energy i . This energy
2
could not be obtained without Lorentz Symmetry Violation (LSV) explicit in the
modified form of Lorentz scalar energy of a free particle in the following
equation (see Eq.(56), page 26 in [37]):

2c 2 v 2
E 2 = p 2c 2 + m2c 4 1 . (62MC)
4 c2

If the particle is at rest, i.e. p = 0, v = 0, then rest energy of the particle is

2c 2
E02 = m 2 c 4 . This result flagrantly violates Lorentz invariance of the scalar
4
rest energy E0 = mc 2 of a particle ( [217], [218] ). The violation does not come as
a surprise since Lorentz violation is also expected in many theories of quantum
gravity, for example, string theory and loop quantum gravity.

[12] Black
Black Holes: Entropy and its Meaning, and Information
Loss in it

We now investigate the notoriously famous problem of information loss in a black

hole, also called unitarity problem. But we first set out to understand the
meaning of entropy assigned to a black hole.

237
 [12A]
12A] Entropy of Black Hole and its Meaning

We now find Bekenstein-Hawking entropy [132,133,134,135,136,137,138,143]

1 A
S BH = 2 , (62M@)
4 l p
i.e.
A A
S BH = = , (62M1@)
4l p
2

of a non-rotating Schwarzschild black hole of mass mc with only free space in its
surround. Here A is surface area of event horizon of the black hole and is
universal slope parameter of string theory, and is perhaps the minimal area in
string theory :

= ( A) min . = 4l p2 (62Mi)

We have set Bolzmanns constant kB = 1 in the entropy formula. Gravitational

radius of this black hole is

2Gmc
R= = l p2 . (62M@@)
c2

Area of horizon A = 4 R 2 = 4 (l p2 ) 2 = 4 l p4 . Entropy of the black hole according to

Eq.(62M@) is
1 4 R 2 l p
4

S BH = 2 = 2 = l p2 . (62M)
4 l p l p

It is the right place to ask an iintriguing question: Why the entropy formula
1
contains the mysterious or one-quarter factor of area in planck units:
4

238
 1
S BH = (62MH)
4

A
where =
l p2
. Moreover, Carlip [319] has observed that different roads of

entropy calculation for a black hole lead to the same formula displayed in Eq.
(62MH). Al these rotes assume different fundamental constituents of quantum
gravity. These methods include [115]
{1} Weakly coupled strings and branes in superstring theory,

{2} AdS/CFT correspondence,

{3} Induced gravity models,

{4} Entanglement entropy,

{5} Fuzzballs,

{6} Loop quantum gravity,

It is a deep mystery why so many different approaches using different ingredients

of quantum gravity could reach the same entropy formula that seems universal.
Put in simple terms, the question is Why is everyone getting the same answer?
[115]. Perhaps there is an answer. If we seriously consider minimal separation
between two particles (which is classical physics is zero) as equal to sum of two
unapproachable minimal distances, then in planck energy scale, the sum of two
minimal distances is 2l p . Therefore the minimal area in planck scale is

( A) min . = (2l p ) 2 = 4l p2 . (62MH1)

If black hole entropy is defined as area of black hole horizon, measured in units
of minimal area in Planck scale, then entropy

A A 1
S BH = = S BH = 2 = A (62MH2)
( A) min . 4l p 4

A
where A =
l 2
is area in planck units. Everyone is getting the same answer
p
because it is reasonable to assume that area of horizon should be independent of
the basic constituents of any viable theory of quantum gravity. The factor one-

239
quarter of area emerges due to the fact that distance measurement by a tape
measure always leaves a minimal distance on either side of the tape measure.

Recall that this entropy S BH = l p belongs to a black hole of mass mc , which is

2

actually a D0- brane of string theory ------ not available in any ordinary quantum
theory. But the above entropy is an indicator to something already known in
AdS3 / CFT2 correspondence as a special case of Maldacena conjecture ( [159],
[160], [161] ). According to this conjecture, the entropy of a 3-dimensional black
hole in AdS space ( AdS3 ) in full quantum M / string theory is holographically
equivalent to entropy described by a Conformal Field Theory (CFT) on the 2-
dimensional boundary. In general, there exists a non-trivial relation between the
description of D-dimensional theory in AdS space and CFT on (D-1) dimensional
boundary. In Eq.(62M@) we set out to calculate entropy of a black hole
considering the 3D interior of event horizon of radius R , but ended up into
entropy described on a 2D flat surface obtained in Eq.(62M) ------- an
unanticipated result: Entropy of a 3-ball (curved) surface is equivalent to entropy
described on a 2-ball (flat) surface or disk. Eq.(62M) thus represents a 2D black
hole ( [163], [164] ). A somewhat general consensus about the meaning of
thermodynamic entropy is a measure of uncertainty about the system. We
however find an explicit meaning of entropy from Eq.(62): The entropy of a
particle of fundamental mass constant mc is the area of a disk of radius equal to
minimal distance l p 1033 cm , which is impenetrable. In other words, we cannot
place a device in the impenetrable disk area l p2 to measure what is inside the
disk. We are unable to know about the system inside the disk by enforcing the
necessary evil of minimal distance. Thus entropy of an object in quantum gravity
precisely means the inaccessible area of a quantum thermodynamic system. It
is a measure of uncertainty about the system, that dovetails nicely with missing
information about the system. If S (an increment) is entropy increase in a system
then it corresponds to hidden, i.e. missing ( or, negative) information ( I ) of the
system. This concept was founded by Brillouin [162] as negentropy principle of
information in 1953 :

S = ( I ). (62M)

If S is negative, information I is gained, i.e. I is positive [195]. Negentropy is a

good estimator of nongaussianity (which implies highly structured or ordered
state) of the quantum system. Here, of course, S is not absolute entropy, but
entropy difference between final and initial states.
We now revisit the derivation of area law of Bekenstein-Hawking entropy. From
first law of thermodynamics, we find

dE = H dS BH ,

240
where H is Hawking temperature of a black hole [89] of energy dE . Roughly, the
energy E = mc 2 . And Hawking temperature is

c 3 c 3
H = = , (62M)
8 Gmk B 8 Gm

where we have set Boltzmann constant k B = 1. Combining the last two equations,
we get
8 Gc 2 mdm 4 G
dS BH = = ( 2mdm )
c3 c

4 G 2 4 G 2
dS BH = dm S BH = m + .
c c
(62M)

c
Since m p = , we may also rewrite the above formula as
2

S BH = 4 Rm2 + , (62M0)

m
where Rm is the ratio Rm = , a dimensionless number.
mp
is an arbitrary constant of integration. It is generally assumed that entropy of a
zero-mass black hole is zero (see p.370 of [89]). But we have proved in Eq.(3t#)
of Section [4] that zero-mass or massless particles cannot be accommodated in a
quantum theory. In fact, the massless particles have imaginary mass ( imc ) ------
-- these are vacuum particles, which are always laced with massive particles.
Since energy eigenvalue of a quantum object is complex, quantum mass -------
being roughly proportional to energy -------- is also complex (see Eq.(50) in page
24 of [37]):

E 1 1
EQ = = ( + iv) ( + ic),
2 2

because at Planck scale any speed v = c. Roughly, quantum mass is

EQ
mQ = 2
= 2
+i = m + imc .
c c 2c (62Mz)

Replacing m of Eq.(62M) by (m + imc ) , we find

241
 4 G
dS BH = d (m + imc ) .
2

c
Integrating, we get
4 G 2
S BH = (m + 2immc mc ) + .
2

If quantum entropy is a real number, like classical entropy, then 2mmc = 0, which
is unacceptable because m 0 . This result ultimately morphs entropy and into
complex numbers:

4 G 2
S BH
quantum
=
S BH + iS BH ( m mc ) + i 2mmc .
2

Comparing real and imaginary parts of both sides, we obtain

4 G 2 4 G 2 2Gm c 4 G
3 2 2
S BH = m m =
c 2
2 ,
c c c G c 4c

4 R 2 G A
S BH = , S = 2
l p2 . (62M)
4l 2 3
c
BH
p 4l p

which shows a slight departure from the formula of one quarter of horizon area
in planck units. Since supersymmetry signatures in different energy scales are
described through minimal distances of separation in those energy scales,
namely
( x) min = ( i ) l p 1,

the last term containing l p in Eq. (62M) is just the fluctuating uncertainty of
position of an elemental area on the horizon surface of the black hole (because
horizon area is proportional to entropy of black hole). In fact this term indicates
the existence of a fluctuating skin (membrane) of a black hole. This stretching of
horizon has already been theoretically obtained by t Hooft and Susskind [187].
The correction term l p2 is due to entropy of a black hole of mass mc . More
precisely, we now show that the term ( l p2 ) is equivalent to one bit of information
(negative entropy) provided by the vacuum particle black hole tied as an add-on
with any particle of mass m . The gravitational radius of a vacuum particle of
mass ( imc ) is
2G (imc )
R= .
c2

242
Therefore Bekenstein-Hawking entropy of a black hole obtained from a vacuum
particle is

A 4 R 2 2 c 3 2G (imc ) 2 G
S BH = 2 = = R = = 3 = ( l p2 ) .
4l 4l 2 l 2 (62M!)
G
2
p p p c c

From Eq.(62M), we find that the amount of information I [195] available from
this black hole is positive:

I = ( S BH ) = [( l p2 )] = l p2 > 0. (62M**)

In fact the information that nature allows us to glean from the above formula is:
Space in the universe has increased by an amount A = l p2 . This constitutes the
meaning of entropy of a black hole. For a black hole of positive mass-energy, its
entropy blocks a 2D area for the sole purpose of preventing gathering of any
information from it. In contrast, entropy of black holes of imaginary mass-energy
creates a certain amount of 2D space in our universe to allow astronomers pan
their telescope to these target 2D spacelets to gather information and then
analyze their effect on the increasing rate of space creation or equivalently, the
accelerating expansion of universe from these gleanings.

[12B] Information Loss

Loss in a Black Hole and Wave-
Wave-Particle
Duality of Quantum Systems

Eq.(62M**) above displays information gain and explicitly contradicts the live
problem of information loss paradox in a quantum black hole ( [191], [192],
[193], [194] ). There is an inviolable principle in quantum mechanics , called
unitarity [36] of evolution of a quantum system that always preserves
information content encoded in the wave function of the system. If a quantum
system is in a pure state [1], then unitarity of standard quantum mechanics ( [1],
[77], [88], [179] ) stipulates that it will continue to evolve into a pure state if not
subjected to any measurement. But if pure state of a black hole of enormous
entropy (or, hidden information about things that formed the black hole) emits
Hawking radiation ( [133], [196] ), then arguably the final state is a mixed state

243
composed of thermal radiation of different wavelengths (or, different wave
i=n 2

numbers i = ( 2 / i ) ). Thus the final mixed state f = ai i is an ensemble

i =1

of states i = i i , where each i conains a distinct parameter i . This is in

conflict with the brute fact that all quantum-mechanical tests respect unitary
evolution. The natural question is: Is the theory of quantum gravity (involving
black holes etc.) non-unitary? But before that discussion, we first study a core
mystery of quantum mechanics that led Einstein to struggle throughout his life to
find a satisfactory answer to a question: What is light?

Wave--particle Duality:
(1) Wave

It has been shown in [36] that a satisfactory resolution of Quantum Measurement

problem needs that quantum mechanics be necessarily unitary at measurement
events, but it must switch on non-unitary time evolution in between measurement
events of observables. The observables are inherently non-Hermitian (and
normal) operators with domains in complex Banach space (a non-Hilbert space
having complex eigenvalues) during uninterrupted evolution, but morphs into
Hermitian operators with real eigenvalues only at measurement events. At
measurement events, the quantum space-time is Hilbert space ( [213], [214],
[215], [216], [3] ) on which Hermitian operators undertake measurement
operations yielding real eigenvalues of observables. But during measurementless
quantum evolution, the observables act on complex Banach space (a complete
normed space) ( [211], [212] ) to yield complex eigenvalues as outcomes of
measurement. In effect, non-unitary evolution is switched off, and unitarity is
turned on at a measurement event [36]. We must erase any confusion regarding
two types of quantum measurement:

[1] A quantum measurement will yield only complex eigenvalues of

observables when the particle is not at the measurement device. It may not have
reached the device, or might be receding from the device.

[2] A quantum measurement will yield real eigenvalues of observables when

the particle has reached the device. A subtle examination of the measurement
scenario however reveals that what we measure is factually a real number called
the average or expectation value of two equiprobable complex eigenvalues, one
of which is the complex conjugate of the other. Here, the averaging takes into
account of the fact that (being an extended object) a particle is equally probable
to be on the left or the right side of the measurement point, which is an Euclidean
volumeless point.

To make the complex eigenvalues unique (when evolution is non-unitary), it is

usual to register the measurement results of an observable T (having n complex

244
eigenvalues ) in an eigenvalue sequence { (T )} having the following
properties:

(1) 1 2 3 ....... n 0.

(2) If i = j , then i precedes j , whenever 0 arg(i ) < arg( j ) < 2 .

But in our calculation, we retain the complex eigenvalues sans ordering, or

partial ordering [212]. This is done with the intention of keeping a background of
complex-space-time for quantum dynamics ( [36], [37] ). This additional property
pays: It gives a real number when expectation value is calculated.
The quantum object is detected as a particle at a measurement device, but in the
intermediate region of active non-unitary evolution, it travels as a probability wave
or pulse ( [36],[37] ) with the same speed as that of the particle. The central
mechanism of quantum measurement is:

When a quantum measurement of an observable is made on a particle in

position space, the position probability density wave (or its wave function)
collapses to a value equal to 1, thus morphing the wave into a whole particle.

This scenario captures both the particle and wave nature of a quantum system
which is called, in short, wave-particle duality of a quantum system( [113], [197],
[198], [199], [200], [201], [202], [203] ). To summarize, quantum systems are
localized particles when detected by a device, otherwise, when outside the
device, these are probability waves per se. But the catch is that a massive
particle cannot be infinitely compressed to a volumeless physical space called a
mathematical i.e. Euclidean point [204]. Supersymmetry signature ( x) min. = (i )
in low energy scale bails out quantum mechanics from this embarrassing
situation of forcing otherwise extended objects into forming micro black holes
with naked (visible) singularities. The entire particle is never housed at a
mathematical point. Instead, it has a minimal extension or length of one unit of
distance in an extra imaginary direction. This forces quantum mechanics to
replace particles by one-dimensional strings of length ( i ) attached to D2-branes.
The upshot of this digression into wave-particle duality is that, so long as
classical electromagnetic inputs (which are unwanted in [quantum] probability
description of light) are not used in the description of photons, no real threat
emerges to interpret interference or diffraction of light from single photon states.
A single photon may be excellently described by a legitimate photon wave
function obtained in [37]. All seemingly valid objections to the existence of photon
wave function have been removed in that, perhaps. When only a single photon is
offered with two equiprobable paths through a two-slit screen, it is incorrect to
conclude that the particle photon has passed through one of the two slits if no
path detection is made. The reason is, we have no which-path information in
this case that characterizes a particle. In this case, the spatial extensiveness of
probability wave of photon suffers no obstruction to face both the slits, and then

245
simultaneously pass through both the slits. After this the two divided waves fan
out from the two slits, they merge into overlapping waves to interfere with each
other, and produce interference on a screen. We must plug in a caveat here to
underscore that probability density wave is essentially a mathematical wave with
no physical entity involved. In fact we have produced a pure state which is a
superposition of two eigenstates each corresponding to only one slit. This wave
therefore cannot be a signal that carries information clothed in a physical entity
like electromagnetic waves or photons. It cannot even give any decisive
information from which slit it came. Being mathematical (and related to the
concept of probability space) it has no responsibility to respect special relativity
and its speed barrier for signals. This enables the parent mathematical wave to
get correlated with the two daughter probability waves nonlocally, and in an
appropriate set-up it can instantaneously collapse to a speck of particle in one of
the two particular eigenstates with infinitely large speed. This constitutes the
physics of reduction of wave vector. A description of this reduction of one of the
two eigenfunctions is detailed with a mathematical proof in [36]. Perhaps this
see-through template of collapse mechanism eliminates the difficulties usually
associated with wave- particle duality in the paradigm of Two-slit experiment.
But if we intend to know which-path information of the particle at one of the slits,
the probability wave instantly collapses to generate a single particle, and as a
result, none of the two segments of probability waves are available to form an
interference.
To translate the above arguments in quantitative form, we pick up the celebrated
experiments of Grangier et al ( [199],[200], [198] ) involving almost-ideal single
photon states. They used a pulsed photodiode to produce highly attenuated
pulses well separated in time. In the two-photon ( of different frequencies 1 and
2 ) radiative cascade during a single gate, the probability of detecting a 1
photon ( 2 photon) from the same atom that emitted 2 photon ( 1 photon) is
much much higher than the probability of detecting a 1 photon ( 2 photon)
emitted by any other different atom in the same source. In this procedure Aspect
et al [200] could almost produce single (color) photon states.
To demonstrate particle nature, a single photon of state function s strikes a
beam splitter and it gets partially transmitted as T , and the other part is partially
reflected as R :

s = aR R + aT T , (62Ma)

where all the wave functions are normalized with the constraint

aR + aT = 1.
2 2
(62Mb)

The transmitted and reflected channels are led to two separate detectors to
detect or capture a whole photon in either branches, and also to monitor if the two
detectors record simultaneous clicks, i.e. coincident detection. The wave function

246
in Eq.(62Ma) however gets entangled (see [36] and also p.75 of [197] ) with the
detector (or measuring device) wave functions. This experimental set-up
specifically determines which-path information. According to quantum mechanics
there is no scope for a coincidence signal because as soon as a detector
2
captures a photon, the weight ( i.e. ai ) of the probability density wave first
2
reaching the measurement point in the detector, for instance, aR condenses to
2
1, and instantaneously the weight of the probability density wave, i.e. aT in the
other channel collapses to zero by transporting its quantum of probability to the
reflected channel to add up total probability to 1. ( For detailed mechanism, see
p.22 of [36] ). This is famously called the reduction of wave vector mentioned
above. This experiment exhibits particle nature of a quantum system. The credit
of instantaneousness of collapse goes to unique feature of quantum nonlocality
[205] associated with a probability wave propagating in mathematical space
(probability space) ---------- not in physical space. The latter space is not spared
in speed restriction by special relativity.
According to quantum measurement theory, developed in [36], when the peak of
the probability wave of R (or, T ) reaches the measurement point of a detector
placed in the reflected (or, transmitted) channel, a reduction of state vector takes
2 2 2 2
place, and aR (or, aT ) becomes 1, while , aT (or, aR ) shrinks to zero. That
channel registers a photon detection whose weight becomes 1. The other
channel registers a zero event. Coincidence of detection in both the channels
equipped with perfect detectors is thus nil. This is typical of single-particle nature
of single photon states. This feature is enforced by the presence of detectors to
gather which-path information of the photon.
To demonstrate wave nature of photon with the same light source spewing
single-photon states, Aspect et al used the same set-up with only the detectors
removed (to erase which-path information), and they allowed recombination of
the two beams with a nonzero path difference through mirrors and a second
beam splitter. This arrangement (see Figure 5.3. in p. 289 of [197]) divides the
recombined beam into reflected and transmitted parts. The two parts are then fed
to two detectors with counters measuring probabilities. The same kind of
interference patterns were observed in the two channels. The interpretation here
differs from the previous one in one single aspect. While a superposition state
s = aR R + aT T of a single-photon in Eq.(62Ma) was denied access to each
channel in the previous experiment (thus spoiling interference), this same state
was led to the second beam splitter in the second experiment. The second beam
splitter divided the beam into two parts. The reflected part ( R ) is aR s while the
transmitted part (T ) is aT s :

( R) = aR s = aR (aR R + aT T ) (62Maa)

(T ) = aT s = aT (aR R + aT T ) . (62Mbb)

247
The difference in the two experiments is that in particle nature experiment the
detector in the reflected channel received an eigenstate R in its input signal
(aR R ) . The detector could access the peak of its probability wave, where a
2
photon stays aR times on an average in each single-photon state [36]. The
2
counter correspondingly responded aR times on an average by a blip. But in the
second experiment showing wave nature of single-photon states, the detector in
the reflected channel receives a superposed state s = (aR R + aT T ) in its input
signal. Beyond the second beam-splitter, the detector receives a wave
( R) = aR s = aR (aR R + aT T ) in the last reflected segment, provided the two
beam splitters used are lossless and have the same reflection and transmission
coefficients aR and aT satisfying losslessness: aR + aT = 1. We ignore the
2 2

vacuum particles in the surround of a beam splitter, and assume it a two-port

system (see pp.95-96 of [165]). The detector in this experiment now has a
problem: The probability wave of s = (aR R + aT T ) does not have a single peak
where the photon might stay. The probability wave of aR s is

PR = aR s = aR aR R + aT T = aR
2 2 2 2
(a R
2
R + aT T + aR* aT R* T + aR aT* R T* .
2 2 2
)
The last two terms are interference terms [206] showing interference of
reflected and transmitted wave functions : R* with T , and T* with R . In the
particle experiment the detector had access to the only single peak P = aR R of
2

the probability wave in the reflected channel in one squared modulus term. But in
the expression for PR above in the wave experiment, there are more than one
peak of probability waves. Unable to detect a whole particle at a single position
atop a single probability wave, the detector (which is capable of detecting only
whole particles) allows the train of probability waves in PR to pass through it.
While the photon at the peak of R had a definite position for the detector to
2

pick up, no such sequestered position interval is available to the pure state of the
single photon whose probability density is described by PR . This causes the
single photon states to produce interference. In fact a single photon wave splits
into two parts via a beam splitter, and then two partially recombined photon
waves exit the second beam splitter to form interference fringes due to nonzero
difference in traversed distance. In a subtle sense, a photon (wave function)
interferes with itself, perhaps not exactly in the sense of Diracs remark, though:

Each Photon interferes only with itself. [207].

In the other channel the probability wave of aT s is

248
 PT = aT s = aT
2 2
aR R + aT T = aT
2 2
(a R
2
R + aT T + aR* aT R* T + aR aT* R T*
2 2 2
)
.

If we compare PR with PT , we notice that the interference patterns are quite

similar, but not exactly. Their ratio is not 1:

2
PR aR
= 2
. (62Mf)
PT aT

In case the beam splitters are identical and have equal reflection and
transmission coefficients, then

PR
= 1.
PT

We reemphasize that quantum systems are revealed as localized particles when

they reach the measurement point of a detecting device (where unitary time
evolution reigns), otherwise, quantum systems are (mathematical) probability
waves traveling in between successive measurement events (where non-unitarity
of quantum mechanics rules) [36]. What is light? Perhaps we have an answer:
Light is a particle (photon) when it is detected in a device, otherwise, it is a
probability wave when not detected.
But that is not the end of the story. There is something more startling to learn
from what is light?, or, for that matter, what is an electron or a quantum particle?
We have proved in Eq.(7) (in p.7 of [36] ) that position of a quantum particle at a
particular time t0 , traveling with speed v may be obtained by quantizing the
classical equation

mvt0 t0
s = vt0 = = p,
m m

where p is momentum of the particle. If ( x, t ) is the eigenfunction of position

observable s whose explicit form is

t i t 0
s = 0 p = (64a)
m m x

then the eigenposition is

s it0 iRt0
xc = = = vt0 +
m x 2mv

249
We later derived in that paper from normalization condition that R = v . Therefore,
the position eigenvalue of a quantum particle is always complex:

i t
xc = vt0 + 0 (64b)
2m

We now prove that the imaginary part of

Time Minimum momentum

xc : Im( xc ) = Time Minimum speed = .
Mass

We know from Eq.(9) ( in p.7 of [36] ) that the minimum momentum ( in the guise

of spin) is . Then minimum speed of a particle is . Therefore,
2 2m
t
. Im( xc ) = 0 .
2m

The main reason of complex position is to respect nonzero position uncertainty

xc of Heisenberg uncertainty principle. Even when the particle reaches the
measurement point characterized by xc = vt0 , (which violates the uncertainty
constraint xc 0. ) we have shown in Eq. (3a) in Section [2] that strangely, the
particle is not on the real line where the measuring device is positioned. Instead
the particle briskly commutes between two equiprobable positions ( +i ) and ( i )
on the imaginary axis so as to fool us into believing that its actual position is the
average or expectation value:

1 1
xc = ( vt + i ) + (vt i) = vt. (64c)
2 2

It is for obtaining this real number that we have been unwilling to accept the
following property of ordered field of eigenvalue spectrum for Banach space:

1 2 3 ..... n 0.

The positions ( i ) are the minimal separation between two particles. The strange
aspect of this complex position eigenvalues of a quantum particle is that we can
forever do quantum mechanics without the nebulous concept of a probability
wave. The wavy part of wave-particle duality is not at all required to describe
quantum systems. One can just straightaway tell what are quantum systems:

Quantum systems are localized particles in complex space-time.

250
Is it the description of D0-branes of string theory at low energy scale? And what is
light? We have shown in [37] that photons are also localized particles with an
exception. Photon particles always travel along real line, which may perhaps
conceal the secret about why they are blessed with maximal speed [37]. To be
frank, I tried to make them move in complex space, but fortunately failed. In [37] I
found the photon wave function by quantizing the classical equation

E 2 = p 2 c 2 + m 2c 4 ,

with classical rest mass of photon m = 0 . The quantized equation was then

E 2 ( x, t ) = p 2 c 2 ( x, t ).

The photon wave function we found is

1
( x ct ) +i x it
( x, t ) = e 2
, for x > ct . (64d)

Position operator of photon was always controversial. We simply quantized the

E
classical equation s ph = ct , and instead of c we inserted the classical term .
p
E2
We should have inserted the term 2 instead of c 2 in the altered equation
p
s ph = c t (ready to be quantized), because we did not use the simple form
2 2 2

E = pc
of the more general operator equation E 2 = p 2 c 2 . In [37] we found the
photon eigenposition at time t0 as a definite and exact value

s ph = ct0 .

This triggers the trouble, because now the position uncertainty is s ph = 0. This is
incompatible with Heisenberg uncertainty relation.
To redeem the nonzero position uncertainty of photon position, we redo the
calculation now, and find the following quantized equation instead of what we
obtained in [37]:

s 2ph ( x, t ) = t02 c 2 ( x, t )1,

s 2ph ( x, t ) = t02 E 2 ( p 2 ) 1 ( x, t ),

251
 2
s 2ph ( x, t ) = i 2 2t02 2 ( p 2 ) ( x, t ) , (64e)
t

which is valid only if inverse of the operator p 2 exists. Invertibility of p 2 requires

that the norms satisfy the inequality

p 2 b , (64f)

where b is a positive number. Norm of p 2 is defined as

p 2 = p 2 p 2 (64g)

2 2 2 2
2 2
i i
p =
2
i
2 2
i = + + ,
x 2 x 2 2 2

i i 2
p 2 = + = 2 2 + ,
2 2 4

where the domain of the operator p 2 is a normed space called complex Banach
space in which photon wave function (described by Eq.(64d)) lives satisfying
unit norm: = = 1. Since

2
p 2 = b = 2 2 + > 0 ,
4

where b is a positive constant , even when = 0 , we are ensured that the

inverse operator p 2 exists. The eigenvalue of this operator is obtained from

i 2 i
1 = ( p 2 )( p 2 ) =)( p 2 ) p ( p ) = ( p 2 ) p + = ( p ) + ( p )
2 2

2
i
( p 2 ) + = 1
2

252

2

( p 2 ) =
1 = + i (64h)

i
2
2
+
2

But , whether we symmetrize Eq.(64e) or not, involving the position operator s ph ,

the end result is

2 2 1 ,
s ph = t0 E ( p ) = t0 E
2 2 2 2
i
2

+
2

where we have been helped by the eigenvalue Eq. (64h). Since

2 2 21 2

2 2
2
i i t0 c i
2
s ph = t0
2 t 2
= 2 ,
i
2
i
2

+ +
2 2

and = c for photons, we finally obtain

2 2 2 1
2

0
c t i + i
s 2ph = 2
= c 2t02 . (64j)
1
2

+ i
2

If the position eigenvalue of photon is s , then s 2 = c 2t02 . This result is bizarre with
two eigenvalues of position observable at the same particular time t0 :

s = ( ct0 ). (64k)

But these seem to be necessary evils, because unlike zero position uncertainty in
[37], here these equiprobable eigenvalues generate nonzero position uncertainty
bringing back compatibility with Heisenberg uncertainty relation:

253
 1 1 1 1
s = (ct0 ) + (ct0 ) = 0; s 2 = (ct0 )2 + (ct0 ) 2 = (ct0 )2 .
2 2 2 2

(s )2 = s 2 s = (ct0 ) 2 ; s = ct0 0 .
2
Then, (64l)

The eigenpositions of photon at time t0 shown in Eq. (64k) are not complex, but
almost unavoidably real spatial positions. The nitty-gritty of all these calculations
is to show the repeated and consistent result that photons travel in real space.
This is an exception in quantum dynamics where all quantum particles generally
travel in complex space, i.e., a space equipped with extra imaginary directions,
like the octonion imaginary basis units, {e1 , e2 , e3 , e4 , e5 , e6 , e7 } . This seems to
suggest that a part of energy or speed of any massive particle is spent in
executing extra motion along the extra imaginary directions. When these extra
dimensions are no longer imaginary, the massive particle then moves in extra
real dimensions. Since this motion in real dimensions is analogous to photon
motion in real dimensions, the massive particle now must travel with speed of
photons. This argument perhaps has some element of truth because we have
earlier shown that at Planck scale energy, all particles of arbitray masses move
with speed of light. when supersymmetry signature switches from imaginary to
real values, for instance,

{+i, i},{i, j , k},{e1 , e2 , e3 , e4 , e5 , e6 , e7 }

Supersymmetry
l p = 1.616 1033 cm(Planck scale energy)

This is an indicator telling us that particles slow down in speed in complex space
while moving simultaneously in real and imaginary dimensions. Removing
imaginary parts from the set of complex directions embedded in complex space
amounts to awarding the particle with the maximal speed, speed of light.
Therefore, a photon`s motion in real space in low energy physics is the
underlying reason why it can travel unhindered with a maximal speed..

The other question whether quantum gravity is non-unitary has an already known
answer: Quantum gravity is unitary at a measurement event, otherwise it is non-
unitary in the absence of a measurement event.

Information
(2) Informatio n Loss Problem in a Black Hole:

When Stephen Hawking discovered that black holes radiate [134] by emitting
particles in perfect black body spectrum, it triggered a clash with a basic tenet of
quantum mechanics that guarantees evolution of a pure state, for instance,

254
 = a 1 + b 2 + c 3 (62Mg)

into a pure state through a time evolution operator that is unitary. Unitarity is
absolutely essential to preserve total probability of the quantum system
represented by . To zero in on the problem, we consider a black hole of mass
M , and drop into it an additional quantum system represented by the wave
function [225] described in Eq. (62Mg). When the black hole has radiated away
the mass-energy of the quantum system described by and the black hole
returns to its initial mass M , we face an almost unavoidable problem:
Information loss in the black hole! To account for this loss, we first recall that we
had information contained in about
(1) the eigenstates (for instance) of an observable A having
eigenvalues 1 , 2 , 3 , corresponding to eigenstates 1 , 2 3
,
respectively.
(2) the respective probabilities a 2 , b 2 and c 2 for finding the system in
the states 1 , 2 and 3 repectively.
But after the emission of thermal radiation we retrieve only a single information,
the temperature of Hawking radiation. But temperature is always associated with
an ensemble of particles each of which is in a different state assigned with a
distinct frquency or wave number. Essentially it means that temperature belongs
to a mixed state. This toy model exposes the loss of information about a system
that goes inside a black hole horizon. But unitarity of quantum evolution implies
that no information can ever be lost, because of invertibility of unitary evolution
operator. The inverse of unitary operator can always reverse the process, and
connect the initial state of the quantum system with its final state. Unitarity
guarantees this retrieval of information about the object that went into the black
hole interior.
But the gedankenexperiment clearly shows an irreversible loss of
information triggered by a process that apparently cannot be accommodated into
the formal structure of standard quantum mechanics. Thermal nature of radiation
( having temperature) belongs to an ensemble consisting of a mixture of different
emitted particles, each of which is either in state 1 , or 2 , or 3 ------ but all of
them are not at all in the same initial state .

This mixed state, a thermal state is usually represented in quantum mechanics

by a density matrix to describe photons and other particles in the emitted
radiation. ( Wave function of photons has been derived in [37].) But, unitary
evolution in standard quantum mechanics never permits evolution of a pure state
( see [1] for details)
= (62Mh)

into a mixed state

255
 = a 1 1 + b 2 2 + c 3 3 .
2 2 2
(62Mj)

To convert a pure state ( which statisfies the relation 2 = ) into a mixed

state (which satisfies the relation 2 ) one requires a non-unitary
evolution operator. The condition for unitarity of time evolution operator

iHt
U (t , 0) = exp (62Mk)

is UU = U U = 1. The Hamiltonian of the quantum system is H . When unitarity

prevails, the Hamiltonian H acts on the state vectors , 1 , 2 , 3 that
live in a Hilbert space. The eigenstates 1 , 2 , 3 of Hamiltonian H are
orthonormal to each other. The Hamiltonian is then a Hermitian operator and
yields real eigenvalues of energy.
However, it seems mathematically and logically consistent that there exists
a non-unitary time evolution operator U N (see pp. 9 - 12 of [36] for detailed
calculation) which enables a pure state to evolve into a mixed state
described by Eq.(62Mj):

= a 2 1 + b 2 2 + c 2 3 . (62Mm)

While pure states obey the condition Tr ( 2 ) = 1, mixed states satisfy the
relation [230]

Tr ( 2 ) < 1. (62Mo)

From Eq.(62Mm), since

a + b + c =1 a + b + c
2 2 2
( 2 2
)
2 2
= 1 a + b + c <1,
4 4 4

Tr ( 2 ) = a + b + c < 1.
4 4 4
we find that

This makes a mixed state. In fact this unexplored non-unitarity of quantum

mechanics perhaps resolves the seemingly intractable measurement problem
of quantum mechanics [36]. The key result that ensures a definite outcome in a
measurement event is that

When a quantum system is left to itself, it evolves non-unitarily with time and as a
result the Hamiltonian (including almost all observables) become non-Hermitian
normal operators acting on state vectors residing in complex Banach space [226].

256
These observables yield complex eigenvalues which are not accessible to any
measuring device living in real space-time. But when a measurement event takes
place, all the observables including the Hamiltonian transform from non-
Hermitian to Hermitian operators at the measurement point, yielding real
eigenvalues recorded by a device placed in real space-time. The complex
Banach space switches to regular Hilbert space at the measurement event.

When the pure state disentangles from the entangled state en (entangling
with the device state ) described by

en = a 11 + b 22 + c 33

the measuring device successively captures the eigenstate 1 of the quantum

particle a 2 times in its device eigenstate 1 , then registers the eigenstate 2 of
the particle b 2 times while it is in state 2 , and then state 3 the remaining c 2
times corresponding to its own state 3 . Of course, the order of recording the
eigenstates 1 , 2 , and 3 by the device is completely random. The upshot of all
this discussion is that retrieval of all the information contained in 1 , 2 and 3
is perfectly possible, provided

(1) black holes emit Hawking radiation, and

(2) each emitted particle is collected and measured by a dedicated

measuring device.

The theory of measurement problem discussed in [36] thus ensures that there is
absolutely no information loss in a black hole. Although unitary evolution is
switched off in the intermediate period between measurement events, it is
switched on just at the measurement event. In [36], we have found that non-
unitary evolution U N satisfies the relation

it
U NU N = exp ( H H ) .

Since
iv
H = E+ ,
2
and
i v
H = E ,
2

257
we find that
it it
UU = exp ( H H ) = exp ( H H )

it iv i v
= exp E + E+
2 2
it
= exp ( iv ) = exp ( vt ) .

This result conclusively proves that

it
( iv ) = U NU N = exp ( vt )

exp

i.e. U NU N = exp ( vt ) 1.
(62Mn)

The above relation reveals that the evolution operator is non-unitary between two
measurement events.
We have thus shown that indeed no information is lost in a black hole. In fact
invoking AdS/CFT correspondence and holographic principle, Susskind [320]
was able to arrive at the same conclusion of no information loss. This result is
also supported by string theoretical calculations involving black holes ( [227],
[228], [229] ).
We now present another proof of no information loss in black holes by
evaluating von Neumann entropy ( [232], [233] ) of a black hole. This equips us
with von Neumann entropy of a quantum system of density matrix defined as

S ( ) = k BTr ( ln ) . (62Mp)

Since for a pure state 2 = , and therefore ln 2 = ln , 2 ln = ln , ln = 0.

This is utilized to find

Tr ( ln ) = Tr[( )(0)] = (0) = 0.

As a result, entropy S ( ) of a pure state vanishes

S ( ) = 0. (62Mp#)

If entropy and density matrix of a quantum system in mixed state is represented

by S ( ) and , then from Eq.(62Mo)

Tr ( 2 ) < 1. (62Mo)
But

258
 Tr ( ) = 1. (62Mp$)

Therefore, Eq.(62Mo) becomes Tr ( 2 ) < Tr ( ). This implies that 2 < .

Taking logarithm of both sides, we find

ln( 2 ) < ln( ), 2 ln < ln , ln < 0.

Let ln = a, where a > 0 .

Then,

Tr ( ln ) = Tr ( a) = Tr[ a] = [a ] = b,

where, a = b, with b > 0. We plug this term into von Neumann entropy
formula Eq.(62Mp) to obtain quantum-mechanical entropy of a mixed state :

S ( ) = k BTr ( ln ) = [ k B (b)] = k Bb, (62M1q)

and since k B b > 0 , this boils down to the hard fact that entropy of a mixed state
is

S ( ) > 0. (62Mq)

Comparing Eqs.(62Mp#) and (62Mq) we conclusively prove that

Compared to a pure state, a mixed state possesses higher quantum-

mechanical entropy.

The above result conceived the problem of information loss in a black hole
because it happened to capture the heart of the infamous and near-intractable
measurement problem of quantum mechanics :

How can a pure state containing a lot of information about eigenvalues of an

observable ( in the superposition state involving its eigenfunctions) as well as the
set of various probabilities ( for finding the system in its possible eigenstates in a
measurement event ) that evolves unitarily according to standard quantum-
mechanical formalism becomes a mixed state, and in the process hike its entropy
resulting in an inescapable loss of information?

This information loss problem is actually a threat to the unquestionable validity of

unitarity in quantum mechanics.
The problems central core is to conjure non-unitarity out of unitarity so that a
definite outcome of measurement is possible in macroscopic world. In short, how

259
to universalize quantum mechanics in all domains including so-called classical
realm.
I have addressed this measurement problem in [36], and attempted to tease out
non-unitarity from Schroedingers equation once an entangled [1] state of a pure
quantum system, i.e. a particle plus measurement device is allowed to evolve
undisturbed for a period of time during which no measurement is made. Initially
prepared state of the system is a pure state and the final state is also a pure
eigenstate at the measurement device. This ensures that unitarity is observed at
the measurement level. But during the unobserved period of time, non-unitarity is
permitted to morph a pure state into a mixed state. Finally, the components of the
mixed state are seamlessly separated out by the mechanism of reduction of
state vector ( [36], [1] ) at the measurement event at which unitarity is retrieved.
The mechanism is not so simple, though. Immediately after Eq.(3a) in Section [2],[2]
we have discussed somewhat updated version of this mechanism where
Heisenberg uncertainty relation forces us to accept irreducible uncertainties in
position and momentum (not position OR momentum) of a quantum system.
Non-unitarity in quantum mechanics is a spillover of this result which perhaps
allows this atypical time evolution to even play right through a measurement
event. Perhaps complex Banach space -------- instead of Hilbert space ------- is
needed as a background for quantum dynamics. There is probably no place of
Hermitian observables in quantum mechanics. What we measure as real
eigenvalues at the measurement device is actually the real expectation value or
average value of an observable (in complex Banach space) that possesses two
equiprobable complex eigenvalues. This scenario is enforced by existence of
irreducible uncertainties or, to be precise, existence of irreducible extra
(imaginary or other) dimensions at all energy scales. As explained in Fig.(3) of
Section [4 ], this reveals the necessary connection of quantum mechanics of
point-like particles to extended strings of string theory. Renormalization in
quantum field theories ( [234], [235], [236],[ 237] ) effected excellent cure for
divergences that surfaced while trying to get a handle on the workings of the
three non-gravitational interactions. But it failed to tame the infinities in case of a
quantum theory of gravity. This and other reasons led Weinberg (see page 516 of
Vol. I. of [234]) to question whether Renormalization is necessary. A realistic
quantum theory, he expects, might not contain only renormalizable theories.
The underlying theory might not even be a field theory at all ---- [234]. Extra
imaginary dimensions included in the framework of quantum mechanics cure all
the divergences that suface in calculating quantum vacuum energy density. This
might send a signal that while dealing with sub-stringy scale, string theory
perhaps need to incorporate extra imaginary (i.e. quaternionic or octonionic )
dimensions. If supersymmetry is unbroken now (as I am inclined to believe
unless experimental evidence discards) the following may be the succession of
supersymmetry signatures in look-back cosmological time:

[( x) min. ]S .M . = [(i )] Susy

breaking
[( x) min. ]Pl .S . = (l p ) Susy
breaking
[( x) min. ]Transpl . S . = (1). (62Mr)

260
where S.M. = Standard Model, Pl.S. = Planck Scale and Transpl. S. =
Transplanckian Scale. For this reason the wave function of a quantum relativistic
particle (see Eq.(50) in page 24 of [37])

1
( x, t ) = exp ( x vt ) + i x it , for Re( x ) Re(vt ) (62Ms1)
2

at low energy (unbroken supersymmetry) should read at Planck scale energy

1
Pl . ( x, t ) = exp ( x vt ) + l p x l pt , for x vt (62Ms2)
2

where, the extra spatial dimension

l p x = (1.616 1033 ) x,

and extra time dimension

l p t = (1.616 1033 ) t

are indeed turned very small. In Eq.(62N) in Section [15] below, we have proved
2 = 1. This allows an open string of rectilinear length l p to form compactified
(curled up) extra space dimension

2 l p x = 2 R,

where R = l p x = 1.616 1033 x is the radius of the curled up loop. Since in stringy
scale, the minimal or irreducible radius ( rir ) of a black hole is l p2 , which requires
the peculiar dimensional relationship cm 2 = cm , dimension of R poses no
problem. Similarly, the curled up (compactified) extra time dimension is

2 l p t = 2 r

having time loop radius r = l p t = (1.616 1033 )t. String theory in its present form
does not contain extra time dimension. That itself is not a problem since we have
shown earlier that time is space, and vice versa.

We now go back to Eq. (62Mp) to calculate von Neumann entropy St ( t ) of a

quantum black hole during non-unitary time evolution ( before a measurement
event ) at time t . We find that

261
 St ( t ) = [k BTr ( t ln t )] = [k B ln t ] (62Ms3)

iHt iH t
= k B ln exp
0 exp

iHt iH t
= k B + ln 0 +

itk B
= k B ln 0 H + H

itk
= k BTr ( 0 ln 0 ) B t H H t

itk B
= S0 ( 0 ) ( E + iE )* t ( E + iE ) t

itk B
= S0 ( 0 ) t ( E + iE )* ( E + iE ) t

itk B
= S0 ( 0 ) t ( E iE ) ( E + iE ) t

itk B
= S0 ( 0 ) t ( E iE E iE ) t

itk B
= S0 ( 0 ) t 2iE t

2i 2 k BtE
= S0 ( 0 ) + t t

2 k B t
= S0 ( 0 ) t t .

If no measurement is made at time t , then increase in entropy of the black hole

during non-unitary evolution is

S = St ( t ) S0 ( 0 ) = (2k B t ) t t .

262
 S = St ( t ) S0 ( 0 ) = ( 2k B ) [t 0] t t

If duration of non-unitary evolution is very small, and the energy scale involved is
subplanckian, we may switch to differentials and find

dS = (2k B dt ) t t

dS
= ( 2k B ) t t (62Ms4)
dt

where we have assumed that entropy varies only with time. The above equation
claims that entropy decreases with time ------------ a flagrant violation of Second
law of thermodynamics ! If non-unitary evolution really solves the measurement
problem, then it is an inescapable conclusion that the Second law of
thermodynamics is switched off during measurement-free evolution of a quantum
system ------------ and this is valid not only for black holes, but for any unobserved
quantum system, including our universe (which is perhaps unobservable or
unmeasurable by a device from outside the universe!).Surprisingly, when the
black hole or quantum system is finally measured for an outcome of an
observable, non-unitarity comes to a halt, and reduction of state vector leads to a
mixed state [36] = t t . From Eq.(62Mp$),

Tr ( t ) = 1 Tr ( t t ) = t t = 1. (62Ms5)

Combining the two Eqs.(62Ms4) and (62Ms5), we find that

dS
= ( 2k B ). (62Ms6)
dt

Since Hawking radiation is a mixed state constituting a perfect black body

radiation, the above result indicates full retrieval of information if we recall that
information I = ( S ) :

dI d ( S )
= = 2k B > 0. . (62Ms7)
dt dt

But what are the implications of this result? In a word, it shows that there is no
loss of information that went into a black hole. All the information content may be
retrieved once we make use of the tools of quantum mechanics. Quantum gravity
may be at peace with unitarity.

We consider Eq. (62Ms6) which we have derived from quantum mechanics, and
find what surprise is stored in it. Apart from transparent violation of the classical
second law of thermodynamics, ( i.e. decrease of entropy is possible in a
process, as shown by Lloyd [238] and Zurek [239],) we know that

263
In all natural processes, entropy provides information about evolution of an
isolated system along increasing time line. In a way, it specifically depicts the
quantum arrow of time.

We know that if the increase in entropy from the initial to a final state of a
quantum system is S , then irreversibility of a process implies

S > 0, (62Ms**)

and its reversibility implies

S = 0. (62Ms$$)

But Eq.(62Ms6) may be rewritten as

dS 2k B 2k B E
= = 0, (62Ms8)
dt

since energy

E = = 0. (62Ms9)
t

If an isolated system (like our universe) started with zero energy (zero-energy
universe models) then imaginary part of its quantum complex energy Ec is

E = 0.

This is not unlikely, since E = Im( Ec = E + iE ) may be zero. This type of

universes prefer (from Eq.(62Ms8)) entropy gradients like

dS
= 0, S = ,
dt

where is a real constant. The entropy increase is then

S f Si = = 0, S = 0,

which supports Eq.(62Ms$$). The universe then evolves according to the Second
law of quantum thermodynamics that states
quantum thermodynamics

Quantum evolution of the universe is reversible! STATEMENT (1)

It is a piece of good news that we happened to prove in [36] that quantum physics
is a universal theory subsuming classical physics. The above statement
STATEMENT (1) consequently is universalization of all evolutions, including the

264
startling fact that thermodynamic arrow of time is reversible! There is no preferred
arrow of time. This result might resolve the seemingly intractable and famously
hyped conundrum of arrow of time. Since reversibility in quantum physics
ultimately means Time-reversal symmetry or according to Sakurai [240], more
appropriately, motion-reversal symmetry, the above statement is (arguably) an
welcome news filled with distilled joy for all lifeforms of our universe. The reason
is, by definition,

= = ( ),
t t

where only the negative sign retains non-negativity of energy of our universe.
Realizing that

= ( ), = ,
t (t )

Eq. (62Ms6) then may be rewritten as

dS
= (2k B ) = 2k B = 2k B (62Ms10)
dt (t ) t

To remove the partial derivative, we write

d
= [1 (t ) + 2 ( x ) ] = 1
t t dt

where we have, as usual, assumed separation of variables [36]. Eq.(62Ms10)

then yields

dS d dS d1
= 2kB 1 = 2k B . (62MsIn)
dt dt d (t ) d ( t )

The above equation shows perfect symmetry: (t ) ( t ), i.e. if time t is

exchanged with ( t ) in Eq. (62Ms10), the physical process described in the
equation remains unchanged, i.e. the physical processes occurring in a closed
system in the forward direction of time is equivalent to those occurring in negative
direction of time. This means that in quantum thermodynamic phenomena, the
natural processes occurring in the universe is time-reversible, or, motion-
reversible. Eq. (62MsIn) shows that quantum entropy is time-reversible. This is
perhaps a suitable answer to Loschmidts paradox , or reversibility paradox [241]
-------- perhaps a relief ! And what more, the second law of quantum
thermodynamics in Eq.(62Ms7) when read in terms of quantum information
suggests why biological systems progress and maintain an enviable degree of
order, and most importantly, why we grow more experienced in terms of
information (i.e. ordered storage of information ) with age, or time! The last

265
piece of these results is perhaps presumed to be beyond the territory of physics
knowledgespace !

We now discuss an intriguing question why the universe started from an highly
ordered initial state, for instance, zero entropy state --------------- and this is
perhaps an implication of existence of a positive cosmological constant [242].

It is amazing that Eq.(62M) for entropy of a black hole satisfies the bound of
maximum entropy advanced by Flanagan, Marolf and Wald [188]

( A A)
S ( L) (62M1)
4l p2

where A is a 2-surface on which light rays terminate before reaching a caustic

or singularity [189,190]. Since the surface area is A = 4 l p4 , as calculated from
Eq.(62M), we cannot minimize this 2-surface area A because of minimal
distance l p . This is a hint that perhaps light rays terminate on an irreducible 2-
surface 4 l p4 , and therefore cannot be extended to reach a caustic or
singularity.This seems to indicate that perhaps black holes are singularity-free.
Bekensteins universal entropy bound (a first of its kind) of maximum entropy in a
mass of energy E contained inside a boundary surface area A of circumferential
radius R , defined as
A
R= (62M2)
4
is
2 RE 2c E
S , S ,
c c

where c = is Compton wavelength of the object of mass m . Therefore, if
mc
the object is assumed to be at rest, and if we do not invoke quantum-mechanical
analog of (non-relativistic) rest energy [36], then for a particle of mass mc ,

( mc c ) 2
2 2 c
S mc c = 2 ,
c
c ( c )
2c

which puts the Bekenstein entropy bound of a fundamental mass mc as

S 2 . (62M3)

266
If we make use of the quantum-mechanical analog of Einsteins rest energy
formula E0 = mc 2 from Eq.(3f) of Section [2] :

2
E0 = mc 2 ,
8m

then Bekensteins entropy bound is

2
2 RE0 2c 2 2
mc mc 2 = 2
2
2 2 2
S = mc = mc = 2 1 2 2
c c 8m c 8m mc 2 8m 8m c

which implies


2c 2 2c 2 2c 2
S 2 1 2 2
= 2 1 2 1 , (62M4)
2 2 8 E02
8(mc )
8 E0 +

8m

where we have made use of the approximation

2
2
0
E + E0 .
2

8m

For a black hole or an object of mass mc surrounded by a 2-surface of

circumferential radius

h 2
c = = = 4 = 4 (1) 2 ,
mc c ( / 2)

i.e. mc is inside a surface of a unit sphere, we find that its rest energy is

2 c 2 c c c
E0 = mc c 2 = = = .
8mc 2 (8 / 2c) 2 4 4

From inequality (62M4) the universal entropy bound is

267
 2c 2 2c 2 1
S 2 1 2 2
= 2 1 2
= 2 1 ,
8(mc c ) 8(c / 2) 2

i.e., the universal bound of entropy of an object of mass mc is S . This result

takes into account correction due to Lorentz non-invariance, and therefore, differs
from the Lorentz invariant result of inequality (62M3),

S 2 .

But what is the entropy bound from which our universe might have started? If
we advance a speculation of free lunch universe (i.e. zero-energy universe) ----
------- we have discussed its possible workings in Eq.(6b) of Section [4] ------------
starting with one of the self-canceling mass sets

{+ mc , mc }, or {mc , + mc },
(62M5)

then entropy bound for + mc is S + , and entropy bound for mc is S ( ) .

Therefore for a zero-mass ( or, zero-energy) initial investmestment at the start of
journey of our universe, Bekensteins entropy bound is

Sinitial = ( S + + S ) ( ),

or, the universe must indeed have started with a very low entropy

Sinitial 0 . (62M6)

This perhaps answers the question raised by Dyson, Kleban and Susskind [221]
why the entropy of the universe at the start is so low. The universe really started
from a highly ordered state. The zero-energy universe scenario [222] considers
emergence of universe from quantum fluctuations caused by presence of a
particle antiparticle pair, which the sets of particles in Eq.(62M5) may
adequately represent.
Contrary to what is expected from Bekenstein-Hawking entropy formula
Eq.(62M@), we find from Eq.(62M) that when horizon area A = 0, which means
black hole mass m = 0, entropy of a black hole does not vanish. It is simply the
entropy ( l p2 ) supplied by the vacuum particle black hole. What is more
startling, when the entropy vanishes, the black hole still manages to retain an
irreducible mass mir = mc :

268
 A (2Gm / c 2 )2 c4 4
= 0, 2 = l p , = l p , m =
2 2 2
S BH l ,
2 p
4l l p2 4G
p

c 4 G 2 2 2
Therefore, m = 2 6 = 2 = mc2
2

4G c 4c

A non-rotating black hole cannot have a mass less than this irreducible mass
(see p.290 of [115] ):
mir = mc . (62M)

We may retrieve this result from the Penrose process that allows us to determine
increase of black hole mass due to charge Q and angular momentum J of the
black hole through the celebrated mass-energy relation [224]

2
E2 Q2 J2 c2
m = 4 = mir +
2
+ 2 . (62M)
c 16 0Gmir 4mir2 G

Here mir is defined in terms of the irreducible radius Rir :

2
c2
= mir .
2
Rir
2G

To show this, we recall that classical thermodynamics implies that when entropy
S = 0, TdS = dE = 0, E = constant, but to relate this result to quantum
black holes, we have to quantize the classical equation E = constant, and find

i = E ,
t
and inserting the standard ansatz

= 1 (r ) 2 (t ) = 1 P2 (t )ei (t ) 2

Into above equation, we obtain after a little algebra

1 dP2 i dP2
i + i ( ) = E , + = E.
2 P2 dt 2 P2 dt
We find, contrary to our experience, the imaginary part equal to zero. But this
result blows up probability to any arbitrary constant. Therefore, the imaginary part

269
is nonzero. Let it be E = . If the real part of energy is nonzero, classical
(real) entropy cannot be zero. Therefore, E = 0. We know that in quantum
mechanics, = v, and for the imaginary part 2 = . Since all speeds are
equal to c in Planck scale, We find

v c
= = = . (64Mmx)
2 2 2

Therefore if

ic
SClassical = 0, Energy =(i ) = . (64Mny)
2
If a static black hole is chargeless and non-rotating, Q = 0, J = 0 in Eq.(64M),
and the irreducible mass of a black hole is retrieved from

(0 + iE)2 i 2 E2 i 2 2 2
2
E
m =m = 4 =
2 2
ir = 4 =
c c4 c c4
2 2
i 2 2 c i i
i.e. m = 4 = , mir = = ( i ) mc ,
2
ir
c 2 2c 2c

i ( i ) mc ( ) mc m m
i.e. mir = ( i ) mc = = = c = c,
i i ( i ) l p

since in Planck scale, supersymmetry signature ( i ) morphs into ( x) min . = l p .

rest mass mc mc
If l = = , then actually (see p.108 of [89] ) = mir = l .
length lp lp

mir is then the irreducible linear density. The irreducible mass of a black hole is
then mir l p = mc . Since zero temperature black holes act like D-branes, (see p.88
of [.] ), mc is the irreducible mass of a D0-brane because D0-branes are the
most stable objects, and cannot decay into anything more stable and lighter.

Since angular frequency of a particle is

2
= 2 = = angular speed, then angular momentum
T

270

Lz = r p = zrp
sin(r , p ) = zrp
sin = zrp
= z(i )(m angular speed)
2

i
= z( i )(mc ) = z i c = z ,
2c 2

where z is unit vector along the axis of rotation. Evidently, the imaginary radius
indicates that the angular momentum is intrinsic, i.e. it is the spin S z of a particle
1
of mass mc . More precisely, it is a spin - particle of mass mc . From the last
2
equation, we arrive at an important result:

mc = , mc c = = S z .
2c 2

This relation unfolds spin as the source of mass-giving process :

S
mc = z . (64Mnz)
c

There may be an element of truth that particles acquire mass initially from
spinning motion. Also, there may be a grain of truth in that Einsteins relativistic
m v
mass M = m = grows by simply pushing up the boost = . In short,
v 2
c
1 2
c
motion produces mass.

I have deliberately kept the possibility of a negative mass ( mc ) because I have

discussed this in the context of initial condition of the universe in Eq.(6b) and
portrayed that description in Fig (1) and Fig(2) in Section [4].
[4] The Hawking


temperature for a black hole of irreducible mass mc = is obtained from [165]
2c

1 c
H =
k B 4 R
(62MX)

Since gravitational radius for this black hole is R = l p2 (which is also the
irreducible radius of horizon for any uncharged non-rotating black hole), and

271
 mc 10 38 g is the minimal mass in quantum gravity, the highest possible
temperature is incredibly high:
c
( H ) max. = 1065 K ,
4 k B l p2

almost planck temperature squared !

[13] Extremal Black Holes of Vacuum Particles Discretize

Quantum Space and Time

What is the temperature of a black hole formed with the vacuum particle mass
(imc ) ? To find it we first determine the horizon radius of such a vacuum black
2G (imc )
hole: R = 2
= ( il p2 ) . In effect, the horizon area of such a black hole is
c
negative (which makes us breathless!): A = 4 R 2 = 4 (il p2 ) 2 = [4 l p4 ].
Undaunted, we compute its entropy :

A 4 l p
4

S BH = = = ( l p ),
2
2 2
(62MY)
4l p 4l p

which is also negative. Since entropy is precisely the missing information about a
system, we may set the measure of information equal to minus the entropy of the
system:
I = ( S BH ).

From Eq.(62MY) we get the following information about the vacuum particle
black hole:
I = l p2 .

But what does this information mean? It simply implies that each vacuum particle
(which occupies zero space in real space-time of classical general relativity) is, in
effect, creating a real-valued space equal to the area of a disk of radius

272
l p = 1.616 1033 cm . All vacuum particle black holes thus contribute l p2 of space
each, whose accumulated effect creates the accelerated expansion of our
universe. This is the physical cause of the cosmological constant-driven
acceleration of cosmic expansion.
The Hawking temperature of such a black hole of mass (imc ) is

1 c
H = ,
k B 4 R

2G ( imc )
where gravitational radius R = = ( il p ) . Plugging this in the above
2
2
c
formula, the Hawking temperature obtained is imaginary:

1 c c
H = = i 2
.
k B 4 ( il p2 )
4 k Bl p
(62MZ)

As a result Re( H ) = 0 K. This zero temperature is a generic feature of extremal

black holes, which do not emit Hawking radiation [166]. If we relate to string
theory, these zero temperature black holes are D-branes. Consequently, vacuum
particle black holes are stable quantum objects. In fact they may be D0-branes or
the Primordial Black Holes (PBHs) [153] that were formed before the time of
nucleosynthesis. We may call them Cold Dark Matter (CDM) filling the entire
universe. Since nothing can enter into a black hole interior wrapped up by horizon
surface (see discussion after Eq.(18V) in Section [5])
[5] these extremal black holes
of vacuum particles of imaginary mass ( imc ) align themselves in arrays or
stacks in quantum space in such regularity that space becomes discrete in
quanta determined by the separation between two primordial black holes. Since
the minimum separation is l p ( in high energy scale, and ( i ) in low energy
physics), available space for motion of another non-dark-matter particle is a
distance l p . After this minimal distance, the background space is blocked by the
horizon disk area l p2 ; the particle cannot enter into the disk, so it has no option
except traversing half the perimeter of the disk to reach again a free space of
discrete unit l p . In a way, the particle moves by hopping around the extremal
horizons of primordial black holes. But how is time discretized in this motion?
Since physical properties of all particles are weaned away after Planck scale,
particles, as we find and do physics with, are not available beyond planck energy.

273
 Fig. (6): Hopping motion of a particle in extra dimension ( shown
along arrow ) in quantum space filled with impenetrable 2D black
holes formed from mass / energy of vacuum particles with a
minimal separation between them equal to planck length in Planck
scale physics.

As a result, to measure time quanta we must look into planck scale physics.
Since we know that all particles of arbitrary masses move with unique speed c in
Planck scale, the time taken by a particle to negotiate a horizon disk of perimeter
2 l p l p
2 l p is = = t p , where we use the fact that 2 = 1, and the quanta of time
c c
lp
t p = = 5.39 1044 s is planck time. The disk area is entropy, and this implies no
c
information can be obtained about the time taken by the particle to bypass the
vacuum black hole. The result is time t p remains unclocked. It is unmeasurable.
The time scale is thus made discrete by time gaps -------- each time gap
equals planck time t p . This discreteness of space and time is made possible by
regular arrangement of vacuum particle black holes in the intervening quantum
space and time. This discreteness of space and time has long been advanced by
the theorists of Loop Quantum Gravity( [180], [181], [182], [183], [184], [185],
[186] ) in which atoms of space, called spin networks, evolve in time in discrete
steps. The theory does not require a background space-time to embed dynamics
of particles. In fact spacetime emerges from the theory itself -------- just as
smooth water surface of a lake emerges from the underlying discrete
arrangement of zillions of water molecules living in the lake. Loop quantum
gravity also derives discrete spectrum of eigenvalues for quantum operators like
area operator and volume operator.

274
 [14] Curvature of Space and Age of the Universe

According to Eq.(62K), the dimensions of should be cm 2 g 2 (if we take naively

m p as mass).
If we consider m p as linear mass density, then dimensions of cosmological
constant should be cm 4 g 2 . Again if we consider the first equation of Eqs.(62E)

8 G c
= 4 4 3
c (2) (2 )

then dimensions of cosmological constant should be

(cmg 1s 2 )(erg.s)(cms 1 ) 2 1 2 2 2
[ ] = 4 4 = (cm g s )( gcm s ) = 1. (62 M )
( cm s )

This consideration makes dimensionless. However, dimension of length in

quantum theory melts into pure number: 1cm = 1. One may easily restore the
2
standard unit cm 2 of in Eq. (62 M ) by invoking the above rule : 1 = cm .
The best way to determine the dimension of is to compare it with the Ricci
scalar curvature R in Einstein Field equations:

1 8 G
R g R g = 4 T . (62 EIN)
2 c
2
Evidently, has the same dimension as Ricci scalar curvature R , which is 2
a
with a as radius of a 2 sphere or (according to mathematicians) a 3-ball. This
assigns cm 2 as the straightforward dimension of both R and .
One immediate consequence of recognizing as a curvature similar to Ricci
scalar is that we may safely understand it as the curvature of empty space in
classical general relativity, or (in the context of quantum gravity) curvature of
quantum vacuum space filled with ubiquitous vacuum particles of imaginary-
valued energy. The Supernova Cosmology Project led by Perlmutter [67] could
not measure the present spatial curvature of observable universe. It is
remarkable that we can predict this tiny quantity. Our theoretically determined
value of estimates as a tiny positive spatial curvature of our universe as

1057 cm 2 . (62MM)

275
This magnitude is very close to zero, but not exactly zero ! We now have a
glimpse of the secret to the cosmologically observed fact that why the present
universe is very close to flat ! We may now roughly determine the quantum-
mechanical age of the universe if we set the curvature of vacuum universe as

1
= 2
(62 P )
RVU

where RVU is radius of a 2-sphere we posit as quantum vacuum universe (VU )

containing only vacuum energy. If we imagine that there is no real-valued matter
energy in this hypothetical universe, then recalling that the unique speed c of
Planck scale physics is the highest speed of information transfer in the vacuum
universe, then

2
RUV c 2TA2 , (62Q )

where TA is the time elapsed since this universe started its journey from big bang.
In short, TA is the age of such a universe. Combining Eqs. (62 P ) and (62Q ) , we
find from Eq. (62 L ) the rough estimate of age of such universe from

1057 2 1057 2
c 2TA2 cm T 2
10 2
s .
(1.3785) (2.997 10 )
A
1.3785

The age of this universe is TA 1.1127 1018 s. If we consider 1 year equal to a

sidereal year, about 365.25 days, then

TA 35.259 109 years, (62R)

while the age of our factual universe containing matter-energy, measured by

WMAP team in 2003 based on Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) radiation
(see p.13 of [153] ) is

Tuniverse = (13.84 0.14) 10 years.

9

In early 2010, WMAP 7 year results [326] reported a refinement of the earlier
number and revised the age as

TUniverse = 13.75 109 years .

276
It is encouraging that our theoretical result TA is of the same order of magnitude
as the observed Tuniverse . It is also reassuring that the theoretical age TA is greater
than the ages of the oldest stars of galactic clusters

Tstar = (13.5 2) 109 years

measured in 1996 [153]. The discrepancy in the magnitudes between TA and

TUniverse stem from the fact that TA corresponds to a vacuum universe while
TUniverse refers to our real universe containing matter and radiation. This seems to
indicate that this quantum cosmological model of vacuum may turn out to be
viable.

[15] What is Electric Charge? What is Dark Matter? A

Theory of Quantum Electrogravity (QEG)?

We now concentrate on the very small quantum correction in Eq.(56) present in

quantum mass-energy relation in order to explore the meaning of an undefined
entity electric charge:

2 v2
EF = F = mF c 2
1 . (62 E2 )
8 mF c 2

( For a different approach by S. James Gates Jr and assisted by Warren Siegel to

identify charge in isotopic charge space, which is also an imaginary i.e.
unobservable space, see p.241 of [252]). In Planck scale physics, all particles
travel with same speed c and same mass ( mF , i.e. twice the mass of mc , if we
consider a string with two beads with Dirichlet boundary conditions [89] at its
ends). Actually, a bead of mass mc spins in an extra imaginary direction with a
speed c to generate the intrinsic angular momentum or spin

mc c = c = .
2c 2

277
 1
Since translational motion is absent, v = 0, and so = = 1. And, therefore,
v2
1 2
c
2
Eq.(62 E2 ) becomes E = F = mF c 2 = mF c 2 + VQP , where
8mF

2
VQP =
8mF (62Ee)

is the quantum potential first proposed by Bohm [48]. This potential energy is
spent by the particle to generate spinning motion.
To find the internal structure of a particle of mass mc , we first find its moment of
inertia I . For such a particle, Eq.(62Ee) tells us that the quantum potential
energy that supplies the spinning energy to the particle is

2 1 2
VQP = = spinning energy = I , (62Ef)
8mc 2

where I is the moment of inertia of the rotating particle, and is the angular
speed, or angle swept out in unit time, i.e. is equal to

Total angle 2
= = 2 ,
Time for one vibration T

i.e. angular frequency. But we know that angular frequency is equal to speed in
quantum mechanics: = v . In Planck scale, when spinning of a particle is
revealed in real dimensions, all particles have speed v = c . Therefore, from
Eq.(62Ef)

1 2 2 2 2c c
Ic = = = (1) .
2 8mc 8 4

The moment of inertia of the particle (whose shape we do not know as yet) is
then

I = (1) = mc (i )2 (62Eg)
2c

278
This moment of inertia is of the form I = mr , which indicates that the particle of
2

fundamental mass mc is a hollow sphere [301] of radius

r = (i ). (62Eh)

The hollow sphere has negligible thickness, and rotates about a diameter. It is
amazing that we could finally manage to tease out the definite shape and size of
this particle of fundamental mass mc from its quantum potential.
In case of a particle of mass mF = 2mc , the spinning energy may be obtained
from Eq.(62Ee). It amounts to

2 2 c c
VQP = = = , (62Ej)
8mF 8 8

which implies

i c i c

( )

2

c ( i ) c
2
= QQ = QQ .
* *
= 2 2
= =
r 2 4 r 2
VQP
( )
8 2 [2(i )]2
2
[2( x) min . ]2
min . 0 min.

(62 E3 )

i c
where Q = is an imaginary-valued electric charge proportional to
2
planck charge

q p = 4 0 c = c , q p 1018 Coulomb. ( 62E4 )

1
Recall that planck charge normalizes Coulombs constant = 1 4 0 = 1.
4 0
One of the supersymmetry signatures at low energy scale is ( x ) min . = ( i ). We
relate it to minimal separation between the charges in Eq. ( 62E3 ) :

rmin . = 2( x ) min . = 2(i ).

279
From Eq. ( 62E3 ) , we observe that spin of a particle is created by mutual attraction
between two imaginary electric charges Q and Q = (Q ) of opposite sign
*

placed on two diametrically opposite sites on a sphere of radius (i ) Note that

.
energy or mass has now been converted into electric charge. The attraction
produced from electric charges may now be utilized to generate spin ! Note from
Eq.( 62 E3 ) a quirky equivalence : Energy ( VQP ) = Force ! The relation 1 cm = 1
may be responsible for this.
Fundamental mass constant

c q2
mc = = 2 = p2
2c 2c 2c

may now be expressed in terms of planck charge

q 2p = c = 2mc c 2 = 2 Ec q p = 2 Ec

or, (
q 2p = 2mc c 2 = (2c 2 )mc q p = mc c 2 . ) ( 62E5 )

Since c 2 = , is a constant, we find the desired result:

q p = mc . (62Em)

This equation provides the elusive definition of What is electric charge?: Electric
charge is equivalent to square root of mass or energy. Since Eq.(62 E3 ) does not
contain a mass term, electric charges now have no massive particles to sit on.
Eq.(62 E5 ) helps relate mass with electric charge

c
mF = 2mc = = 2 = ( c ) 2 = (q p ) 2 (62Ek)
c c

1
where = 2
is a constant. This introduces another equivalence relation
c
involving mass/charge, quite similar to Einsteins equivalence relation of
mass/energy. Said loosely, the two relations may be merged into the following:

)
charge) 2 .
Energy = Mass = (electric charge (62EE 5 )

280
We shall discuss about this result in detail below. But what we obtain is far more
profound. We have finally got a handle on the meaning of gravity. Gravity, apart
from its classical underpinning of curved spacetime geometry effected by
presence of matter or energy, now gleans an unanticipated property in quantum
gravity. What is gravity?. The answer is mutual attraction between two
imaginary-valued electric charges, one of which is the complex conjugate of the
other. This has a profound implication:
This is perhaps one of the robust theoretical results that reveals gravity is not at
all a fundamental interaction. String theory has shown that gravity is not a
fundamental interaction like strong force [92]. Here, gravity emerges through
holographic principle , i.e correspondence of AdS/CFT [309] :

Interaction in bulk Image of interaction embedded on the boundary CFT.

We too now find gravity emerging as a non-gravitational force at the fundamental

level in Planck scale physics where it is identical with electric interaction :
To prove it, we consider two dust particles (separated by a distance r from each
other) each of which has mass equal to planck mass m p 105 g . We utilize
Newtonian gravity -------- since the mass involved is very small -------- to find the
force of gravity in terms of planck charge q p = c :

( )
2
mpmp m 2p G c c = q p = (+ q p )( q p ) = F
2

FG = G 2 = G 2 = 2 =
r r r G 2
r 4 0 r
C
r2 2

which explicitly shows that in Planck scale, force of gravity FG is identical with
the Coulomb force of attraction FC between two quantum electric charges of
opposite sign. Thus in Planck scale physics gravity and electrostatic force (or,
gravity and electroweak force) merge into a single force. We may call it Quantum
Electrogravity (QEG), or, to subsume more interactions, just Quantum
Electroweak Gravity (QEWG). Recall that planck charge normalizes Coulombs
constant : 4 0 = 1.
If the two masses are arbitrary, for instance, ( N1m p ) and ( N 2 m p ) , (where
N1 , N 2 are pure numbers) the Coulomb force FC is produced by two arbitrary
charges belonging to the set {+ N1q p , N 2 q p } or {+ N 2 q p , N1q p } . Like

281
fundamental mass constant, we can specify a definite minuscule charge qc that
may be regarded as fundamental charge constant, because

c c c q p q p qc2
mc = = 2 = = = 2 (62 E6 )
2c 2c c 2 c 2 c 2 c 2 c

where the fundamental charge constant is defined as

qp c
qc = = = mc c 2 = Ec . (62 E7 )
2 2

qc is almost equal to planck charge. It may be argued that I have balked to accept
planck mass as the basic unit of mass. Instead, I preferred the fundamental mass

constant mF = . A particle mass mF is a spin-1 particle. It can easily be
c
reconciled with gauge bosons [254] once we accept that a fraction of mF , such
as mc , cannot exist as an isolated particle. This perhaps points its origin toward
Riemann sphere formed from two hemispheres, each containing a non-separable
mass mc . If we consider graviton as a composite particle comprising two
particles, each of mass mF , then a complete gauge theory ( [254], [234], [253] )
unifying all the forces of nature is possible, in which the force-carriers are all
gauge bosons. Gravity as a composite interaction has already been studied
[310]. But there is a no-go theorem for composite Gravity known as Weinberg-
Witten theorem [311] that says that massless gravitons cannot be a composite
particle in Quantum Field theory because it violates Lorentz covariance. But there
is a leeway in our framework because this theorem cannot block the path of those
theories where gravitons are considered massive, and where Lorentz covariance
fails [312]. These two conditions are respected in our theory as detailed below:

(1) Our discussion in section [4] has established that massless

particles are indeed massive in the imaginary part of their masses.
We however do not consider gravitons as massless: For a
graviton, we acknowledge that

Re(mass) = 0, but Im(mass) 0.

(2) We have proved violation of Lorentz invariance of scalar mass,

scalar space-time interval (for photons), scalar energy
of a particle, etc. in quantum theory. In fact we could not have
determined the magnitude of quantum vacuum energy (that led to
theoretical derivation of value of ) if there were no Lorentz
violation. Since Lorentz invariance is subsumed in Lorentz

282
 covariance [313], if Lorentz invariance fails, so does Lorentz
covariance.

We then may continue to think graviton as a coposite particle. To prove that

gravity in Planck scale is synonymous with Coulomb force of attraction in ssub
ub--
ub
planck scale between two imaginary electric charges of opposite sign, (or, where
the two charges are complex conjugate to each other) we consider force of
gravity between two objects mediated by a quantum particle called graviton.
Graviton is a massless spin-2 boson. We have already proved that massless
particles do have mass, albeit imaginary-valued. We have proved in Eq.(16Mqbi)
in section [16] below tthat graviton mass in subplanckian energy scale is

(i 2mF ) = (2i) (62EG)
c

The mass itself is explicitly composite in nature, being 4 times (imc ) or 2 times
(imF ) . Since graviton mass in sub-planck scale is

(i )mG = ( 2imF ) = ( imF ) + ( imF ) * = (mU + m*L ) (62E``)

we may visualize upper and lower halves of a Riemann sphere capturing two
mass components mU = ( imF ) and mL = ( imF ) , one of which (imF ) is the
complex conjugate of the other. The two mass components mU and mL in each
hemisphere are separated by the diameter 2 (of Riemann sphere), which
translates into 2l p = in Planck scale. What is the gravitational force between
the two spin-1 masses, mF each, inside a graviton in Planck scale? Quite
unexpectedly, gravity in this energy scale is identical with Coulombs
electrostatic force (or, electomagnetic, or more precisely, electroweak force [308]
to pin down the true nature of this force), albeit with a qualifier : The electric
charges are imaginary-valued. To prove this, we consider force FG due to gravity
in Planck scale between two masses, each equal to mF , (constituting a graviton)
separated by minimal distance 2l p

(mF )(mF ) G 2 G c3 2 c
FG = G = = = (62E!!)
(2l p )2 4l p2 c 4 G c 2 4

283
 c i q p (+iq p )(iq p )
2 2

i.e. FG = 2 = 2
=
4i [2( i )] [2( i )]2

QQ* QQ* ( +Q )( Q )
which implies FG = = = = FC , (62E**)
[2( xmin . )]2 ( rmin . ) 2 (4 0 )( rmin . ) 2

where Q = ( +iq p ) , and Q* = ( iq p ) = [ ( +iq p )] = ( Q ) . We recall that in

Planck units, Coulomb constant (4 0 ) = 1 . Thus quantum electric force FC in
low energy scale is an attractive force in standard model of particle physics,
which is generated by two imaginary-valued electric charges of opposite sign.
Since this force originates in interaction between masses mF = 2mc , this
attractive force is due to mass of four vacuum particles. This attractive force in
galaxies and galaxy halos is attributed to dark matter, which we recognize here
as originating in vacuum particle mass. The attractive force inside and outside
galaxies is due to quantum electric force produced by vacuum particles, and
these particles, having imaginary mass in sub-planck energy scale, are not
accessible to detecting device. And where they have real-valued mass they still
evade detection because that energy scale happens to be Planck scale ---------
beyond the reach of present technology. We have then proved that force of
gravity FG in planck scale is identical with Coulomb force FC in sub-planck
scale. A look at Eq. (62E**) convinces this.

The quantum electric charges Q = ( +iq p ) and Q* = ( iq p ) are actually

chargeless, because Re(Q ) = Re( +iq p ) = 0. Therefore Q and Q * are
analogous to electric charge, but not quite. Added to this is the fact these exist in
sub-planck energy scale. It is tempting to speculate that these may represent
colors or strong charges of quarks, the building blocks of hadrons [308]. If we call
Q color, then Q * must be its anticolor to form a colorless, or color singlet
particle. A color singlet is color-free, just as in a pair containing color and
anticolor, color charges cancel each other :

Q + Q* = (+iq p ) + (iq p ) = 0.

In fact the rule for color singlet will be the simplest if we require that the sum of
imaginary parts of colors be zero : Then in the above case,

Im(Q)+Im(Q* ) = Im(+iq p ) + Im(iq p ) = (+ q p ) + (q p ) = 0, Color singlet .

284
To construct three types of color charges, we may pick up the pure quaternion
basis {i, j, k} instead of just a single imaginary unit i . To form a color singlet,
we prepare a triplet of color charges

{ [(ij)q p ], [(ji)q p ], [(-ijk)q p ] }

where sum of imaginary parts of colors of this set is

Im[(ij)q p ] + Im[(ji)q p ] + Im[(-ijk)q p ]

= Im[kq p ] + Im[kq p ] + Im[(k 2 )q p ]

= (+q p ) + (q p ) + Im[(1)q p ]

= Im(q p ) = 0 ,

since q p = c is a real number. The zero total makes this set of quarks color-
neutral. We may name the elements of this set as

[(ij)q p ] = Red = R,
[(ji)q p ] = Green = G,
[(-ijk)q p ] = Blue = B

3 ++
where the three quarks (uuu) in a spin- baryon are not identical, but may
2
be differentiated by the combination (u R u G u B ) . Equal measures of three colors
thus create a baryon.The subscripts R, G, B refer respectively to three different
color charges shown above. One may also form different combinations, such as

{ (ij)q p , (ji)q p , (-ijk)q p }

with the same result of producing a color singlet. The first two colors of this set
may be rewritten as
[(ij)q p ] (kq p ),

[(ji)q p ] (-kq p ) = (kq p )* .

285
While the first color is red R , the second color is evidently anti-red R . An equal
mixture of quark-antiquark may be represented by (u R u R ) , or equivalently by
(u R u R ) to produce a color-neutral particle such as a meson.
If the colors are

[(jk)q p ] = (iq p ),
and
[(kj)q p ] = (-iq p ) = (iq p )* ,

these may be easily identified as a pair of quark-antiquark. More investigation is

required in order to describe the quark colors accurately by removing any flaw in
this discussion.

We have proved earlier that all particles of arbitrary masses in sub-planck scale

acquire spin equal to and mass equal to mc in Planck scale. It is then
2
reasonable to assign in Planck scale a mass 4mc = 2mF to all arbitrary masses
of sub-planck epoch, when they morph into gravitons that acquire spin equal to
2 .
Electric force (generated by electric charges) and magnetic force had long been
unified into electromagnetic interaction. Its quantized theory, Quantum
Electrodynamics (QED) [144] has excellent correspondence with theory and
experiment. Now, gravity explicitly shows up as quantum electrostatic interaction.
It is tempting to believe that these and the following results below subsume
electromagnetism and gravity ------- a theory of Quantum Electrogravity (QEG)
provided it survives reliable tests. It would be a dream fulfilled if Einsteins
expectation from Kaluza-Klein theory [145,146,147,148] is realized. One ray of
hope may be gathered from the formula of invariant mass of standing waves,
called Kaluza-Klein tower :

nh
mn = (62 E #)
Rc

where, n is an integer, R is the radius of extra dimension. We have proved in

Eqs. (62 E12 ) and (62 E13 ) that any arbitrary mass m may be written as

m = nmc

286
 h
where n is a pure number. From Eq. (62 E #) one expects that ( imc ) and
Rc
should coincide with each other if we consider a vacuum particle. If we stick to
h
basic units and ( imc ) , we find
Rc

h 2
= = , (62 E+ )
Rc Rc R c
2
and

i
(imc ) = = = . (62 E)
2c 2c 2 c
i i

Comparing the above two equations, we find the radius of extra dimension:

R 2 4
= R= = 4 (i ). (62 E )
2 (i ) ( i )

The compton wavelength of vacuum particle is

h 2 4
c = = = = 4 ( i ). (62 E )
(imc )c ( i )
i c
2c

It is certainly encouraging that the radius of extra dimension R from Kaluza-Klein

tower exactly matches the Compton wavelength of vacuum particles.
We now show that any arbitrary mass is a pure number times fundamental mass
constant mc .
From Eq.(19A) of Section [6] rest mass and rest energy are related through

2
E0 = 0 = mc 2 (62 E8 )
8m

This is a quadratic in mass m . The solutions are

1

E c 2
2
m = 02 1 1 + 2
(62 E9 )
2c 20

287
In general, in particle physics, any particle mass m mc 10 38 g . As a result, rest
energy 0 c = Ec = mc c 2 . Therefore,

c ( c / 2 ) c c2 c2
= = 1, 1, 2 < 1.
0 0 20 402 202

Using this result in Eq. (62 E9 ) , we get two solutions:

2 c
m = mc 0 + , (62 E10 )
c 40
and
c
m = mc (62 E11 )
40

Since 0 and speed c are of same dimension in quantum mechanics, we write

20
= N , a pure number. Then, from Eq. (62 E10 ) any arbitrary mass m is
c
quantized as
1
m = mc N + (62 E12 )
2N

1
or, from Eq.( E11 ), m = ( mc ) . (62 E13 )
2N

2
q
Introducing qc2 = mc c 2 mc = c , we may easily reformulate the eigenvalues of
c
mass in terms of square of charge constant qc . For example, a vacuum particle
mass may be written as

iqc2 (iqc )(qc ) (iqc )(qc )

(imc ) = 2 = 2 , or, . (62 E14 )
c c c2

A vacuum particle mass is therefore equivalent to an interaction between a real-

valued electric charge and an imaginary-valued electric charge.
We have discussed in detail about the puzzling large value of planck mass
c
mp = 105 g in Section [4] above. In fact, in Eq. (6 ) , I have shown that a
G

288
whopping planck energy m p c 2 1019 GeV is not energy at Planck scale, but is
factually a huge tension that normally stretches a planck length size string. This
led us to table

mF = 2mc = 1038 g
c

as the mass candidate in planck scale instead of planck mass. If we consider a

black hole of mass mc its Schwarzschild radius, or, gravitational radius [115] is
not a length, but weirdly, an area:

2Gmc 2G G 2
RS = = 2 = 3 = lp. (62F)
c2 c 2c c

If we consider mF = 2mc as the ultimate mass unit of Planck scale, then

RS = 2l p2 . (62 F )

These results are of profound significance in black hole physics. We do not know
what goes on in the interior of a black hole. But Eq.(62F) offers a hint of what
monstrous forces are at play: An innocuous 1-dimensional radial line RS is pulled
out in the transverse direction into a tiny 2-dimensional square area, planck area
l p2 by a stupendous force. Perhaps the interior of black hole is represented in
entirety by tiny planck areas seamlessly woven on the surface of its event
horizon. Information (that went into the black hole) may now resurface encoded
on the tiny area grids equal to l p2 or more plausibly, patches equal to universal
slope parameter

= 4l p2 = 1.0446 1065 cm2 = 1.0446 1069 m2 .

which clothe the entire event horizon surface. Since it is possible that horizon
radius Rs represents an ingredient of volume (a sphere) apart from a disc --------
a 3D space ------ and l p2 is an area element in 2D space, and these two
2
quantities Rs and l p are not only equivalent, but equal, we have a direct
evidence of validity of Maldacena conjecture [159]. Maldacena conjecture offers
to explore the 3D bulk phenomena in terms of the 2D boundary physics
(encapsulating the bulk), thus helps reduce its description by one dimension. But
usually, we take planck mass as mass unit of Planck scale. In that case, the
gravitational radius is

289
 2Gm p 2G c G
RS = = 2 = 2 = 2l p .
3
(62G)
c2 c G c

If we seriously question the largeness of planck mass, and accept instead the
minuscule mass mc as mass unit of Planck scale, which is compatible with other
tiny planck units of length and time, then we have to swap m p for mc . This
exchange also needs to be translated into swapping RS = 2l p (in Eq.(62G)) for
RS = l p2 (in Eq.(62F)). This implies:

2l p should be replaced by l p2 .

We have already learnt a strange feature of strings, ---------------- an open string

of length ls may close on its own to form a closed string of radius ls ; yet, its
length around the loop remains ls (invariant length) ----- not 2 ls . In real 2D
space we consider a circle (Fig.(8) below) of radius r equipped with a radius
vector that traces out an angle 2 radian in one rotation along an axis
perpendicular to the plane

Fig.(8): A circle of radius r resides in a real 2D space. The radius

vector rotates in a positive mathematical direction to sweep
an angle while traversing an arc s such that angle

290
 s
= .
r

containing the circle. If the rotation is along positive mathematical direction, then
a standard formula states

s
= radian s = r = r (2 ) = 2 r , (62K)
r

where s is length of arc and is an angle in radian units. Note that s is a

curved line while radius r is a straight line. There is a subtle difference in units of
distance along a curved line and a straight line. If 1 c.d.u. refers to one curved
distance unit and 1 cm denotes, as usual, 1 s.d.u., i.e. one straight distance
unit, then Eq.(62K) yields a relationship between these units:

s (1c.d .u.)
= radian. 1c.d .u. = (1s.d .u.) (1rad .) (62L)
r (1s.d .u.)

This relation may enable transfer of rectilinear dynamics of a particle to rotational

dynamics along a loop.
In complex quantum space-time [36] the minimal distance is ( x) min. = (i ) in low
energy scale. If minimal radius of a circle is

rmin. = ( x) min. = (i ),

then one full rotation implies a minimal loop length

( s ) min. = 2 (i ).

Travel along two loops will generate a total path 2 (2 rmin. ) = 2[2 (i )] = (4 i ).
We obtain the same result once we recall that minimum angular wave number
(see Eq.(88) in page 39 of [37]) is

1 2 1
min. = i . = i max. = (4 i ) = 2[2 (i )] = 2(2 rmin. ) . (62M)
2
max. 2

The wavelength covers twice the length of a single loop. But if the string vibration
travels in a path that looks like eight, 8 , then the particle touches the real axis at

291
point P (see Fig.(9) below). This definite particle position would violate the
constraint x 0 , derived as a consequence of Heisenberg uncertainty relation.
The only way to get around the problem is to consider the path followed by the

Fig.(9): String vibrates in a closed loop along a path shaped like eight,
8, But in the process the vibration touches the real dimension
at a Point P, which is not allowed by Heisenberg uncertainty
relation. Inset displays the path followed by a D0-brane along
this mode.

particle in Fig.(10) below in which it traverses a single closed path that has been
formed by barely splitting two loops into a single hour glass type contour.
While the total distance traveled along the contour is extremely close to 4 ( i ) ,
as obtained in Eq.(62M), this distance is equivalent to just 2( i ) , equal to length
between the two arrow tips in Fig.(10), which is twice the imaginary radius of a
single loop. We compare the equivalence of these distances:

4 ( i ) = 2( i ) , (62Nn)
and obtain the important result

2 = 1. (62N)

292
 Fig.(10): Two closed strings split and join to form a closed string of
hour-glass shape to evade touching the real line. The total
string length is 4 ( i ) . The string vibrates in a 2D plane
perpendicular to the plane of D2-branes stacked parallel
to one another. According to an observer viewing the to and fro
vibration (perched on an edge of a 2D-brane) along a line parallel
to the real line, the string covers a distance between the arrow
tips shown in this figure. This distance is twice the radius, i.e.
2( i ) , of a single loop. Therefore, equivalence of two distances
yields the relation 2 = 1. This equivalence of 2D viewpoint and
1D perspective developing this relation may be traced back to a
consequence of Maldacena conjecture.

This relationship is quite profound because it transports integers and other

algebraic numbers into transcendental ( i.e. non-algebraic) numbers :

31 = 2 (31) ,

x = 2 ( x),

293
which implies that a real number on the real line may be represented exactly by
that number times full rotations. We shall come back to its discussion in a short
while. If we conjecture (for no reason whatsoever) that this equivalence of
algebraic numbers and transcendental numbers shown in Eq.(62N) is
mathematically valid then some more strange results follow : This may further
indicate a possibility in string theory for a large real dimension x to be
compactified into x number of windings along a loop of unit radius. This does not
spare even extra imaginary dimensions:

( i ) = 2 ( i ). (i ) N = 2 ( i ) N . (62P)

Here N is a natural number. To find these results we have multiplied both sides
of Eq.(62N) by the various supersymmetry signatures described in Eq.(3g20) of
Section [3A]. All these signatures are but minimal measurable distances
warranted by the uncertainty relation for position-momentum. The
supersymmetry signature for classical physics

SUSY
SClassical = 0,

however cannot take advantage of Eq.(62N) to avoid shrinkability to a singular

point, because

2 ( x)min. = 2 [ SClassical
SUSY
] = 0.

This generates the notorious and painful singularities in general relativity. As if

this was not enough, standard quantum field theories embraced this zero-
distance feature in addition to massless particles into its formalism perhaps to
create avoidable divergences. This has spawned the dreaded infinities, that had
been cured by a process called Renormalization [383] --------------- which is now
being questioned again by none other than Weinberg himself (see p.165 of [450]
). For instance, if wave number is defined as

p2

with = 1, then Heisenberg uncertainty relation precludes from quantum

formalism the momentum

p = 0, = 0, (62Q)

because the uncertainty p cannot be zero. The infrared divergence (due to

small value of ) looming in the integral in Eq.(11.3.11) (see p. 491, vol.I of [383]
) due to vanishing of the denominator

294
 [ 2 + m 2 x 2 + q 2 y ( x y )]3

may be easily checked by setting x = 0, y = 0, but balking at vanishing ,

courtesy of nonzero uncertainty 0.
Another instance of a divergent integral Eq.(11.2.32) (p.482, vol.I of [383] ) stems
from the fact that zero radial distance is accepted in quantum field theory: r = 0 .
But from construction of radial momentum operator p r , we find a commutation
relation (see p. 150 of [39] )

r p r r = i1,
rp (62R)

which immediately yields the radial position-momentum uncertainty relation

rp r (62S)
2

provided the operators are Hermitian. Similar to cartesian counterpart, this

uncertainty relation prohibits the radial position r = 0 as unacceptable in
quantum theory, because

r = 0, r = 0,
in inequality (62S) means

0.

Therefore this divergence will not hurt if we delete the element r = 0 from the
Minkowski space of quantum field theory keeping Hermiticity and unitarity intact.
Added to these are the trouble of zero-mass singularities (see pp.113-119, vol.II
of [383] ). For instance, Eq.(18.1.5) (in p.115 of vol.II ) has a singularity at mass
m = 0. If non-unitarity and Lorentz violation is incorporated in quantum field
theory, then massless particles are exiled forever from the particle zoo, and
instead these zero mass particles then acquire imaginary mass. These are not
the dreaded tachyons, but non-relativistic particles. We have derived this
massivity of massless particles in Section [4]. Renormalization of photon field is
written generally expressed (see pp. 118-119 of vol.II of [383] ) with a constant

e2 2
Z3 = 1 ln 2 + O (e 4 ), (62T)
12 2
m

295
which contains a zero-mass singularity, m = 0. ( in the above logarithm term
should not be confused with cosmological constant). This constant Z 3 also
surfaces in the renormalization of electric charge

eR = Z 31/2eBARE (62T1)
In ordinary energy scale (of standard model) photon mass may be set equal to
(see Section [4] )

m = ( im ) 0, with a real m 0.

This preserves the zero mass of photons in special relativity: Re ( m ) = 0. When

these constraints are adhered to from the very outset, the logarithm of a negative
number in the constant Z 3 would hopefully take a different manageable form.
And the zero-mass infinities might be tamed.

This equivalence between these two numbers, 2 = 1 , lets any line element l p
to close it on itself to form a loop of length 2 l p --------- a practical recipe for
length invariance of open and closed strings.. It also erases the distinction
between the following quantities:

(i) the two Planck constants: and h ,

(ii) the two frequencies : and ,
(iii) the wave number and inverse wavelength : and 1 ,
and most remarkably,
(iv) circumference and radius of a circle: C and r ,
and most crucially, the difference between
(v) an integer and a transcendental number [212].

[15A] Physics Meets Mathematics in Transplanck Scale

After deriving the relation in (62N) in the previous Section

2 = 1 (62N)

296
we made a brief remark on equivalence of integers (such as 1) and
transcendental numbers (such as 2 ) over the field of rational numbers .
Now we proceed to show the intimate relation that physics has with mathematics.
In fact Courant and Robbins wanted to know (see p.300 of [13] ) whether the
number has any simple relationship to the integers. We shall derive the
answer below, but in one word the answer is

"2 = 1" means one full rotation.

In the following discussion (to dispel confusion from the start), note that we have
loosely used the same symbol for sets and fields, albeit their different algebraic
structures. We also assign ordinary upper case F to fields.
Integers are elements of a set denoted by . The set of complex numbers z is
called . And the set of rational numbers ( or ratio of integer numbers) are
defined as [451]

= {a / b | a, b , b 0} .

There are also numbers which are algebraic. We now discuss its properties. A
field E is called an extension field (see p.279 of [466] ) of another field F if
E F . We may say that the field of rationals is not an extension of integer
set (i.e. is not ) just because is not a field : A field must contain
multiplicative inverses. ( 2 , but the element 2 does not have a multiplicative
1 11
inverse 2 that belongs to , because 2 = ) (see p.187 of [466] ). But
2
the reals . This is correct because rationals can afford multiplicative
inverses. Since complex numbers z have multiplicative inverses, we may
describe as an extension of : . Since , we find .
A number E (an extension field of field F ( i.e. E F )) is called algebraic
(see p.281 of [466] ) over F if there exists a nonzero nonconstant polynomial
f ( z ) F [ z ] such that satisfies the polynomial equation f ( ) = 0. Here
F [ z ] is the set of all polynomials with coefficients in F in the variable z (or more
precisely, in the indeterminate z ). If is not algebraic over F , then is called
a transcendental element [452] over the field F .
More explicitly, let K be some extension of a field k. The elements b1 , b2 ,........bn
K are called algebraically independent [456] over the field k, if for each
polynomial f ( x1 , x2 ,........ xn ), with coefficients from k (the rationals) not all of
which are zero,

f (b1 , b2 ,........bn ) 0.

297
 This implies that the elements b1 , b2 ,...........bn are transcendental numbers over
the field k.
(62Na)

Let A be the set of algebraic numbers. An algebraic number is an element of a

field [451] of algebraic numbers. The field A is a finite extension of the rationals
[454].
A complex number is called a transcendental number t if it is not algebraic
over (i.e. in the domain of ) the field of rationals . The numbers and e have
been proved as transcendental numbers [453]. But it is not known which of the
combinations, ( + e) or e is a transcendental number. Logarithms of
algebraic numbers log e a , for a A, ( the field of algebraic numbers) are
ln b
transcendental over A. Euler conjectured that log a b = is transcendental
ln a
if a, b .
The set A of algebraic numbers is countable. But the set of transcendental
numbers is uncountably infinite. It is quite surprising to know, courtesy Borel
[464], that almost all real numbers are transcendental. Evidently, no rational
number is transcendental over . 2 is an irrational number, but Gelfond-
Schneider constant or Hilberts number 2 2 is a transcendental number. This last
result follows from a more general result known as Gelfond-Schneider theorem
[455]. It states that if

(1) a is algebraic, and a 0 , and a 1 ,

and (2) b is algebraic and also irrational,

then the number a b is transcendental.

It is also not known if e , , are transcendental numbers. Nesterenko [485]

e e

and e are algebraically independent. Therefore

has proved in 1996 that

and e are each transcendental. If z is algebraic, Lindemann proved in 1882
z
that e is transcendental. Therefore

1
i
e , e , e2i are all transcendental over the algebraics.
i 2
(62N1)

One more important recall [467] :

If several numbers are algebraically independent, each one of them is a

transcendental. (62N2)

298
All distinct transcendental numbers are real numbers, but they are algebraically
independent of each other. Two numbers x, y are called algebraically
independent of each other if there is a nonzero polynomial P in the two
indeterminates (or, more loosely, two variables) with integer coefficients such
that P ( x, y ) 0.
For example, the numbers and (1 ) are transcendental numbers; but these
are not algebraically independent, because there is a polynomial with the
indeterminates x = , y = (1 ) , such that the following polynomial

P ( x, y ) = x + y 1 = 0.

Since P ( x, y ) 0 , the two numbers and (1 ) , albeit transcendental, are not

algebraically independent. Algebraic independence generalizes the concept of
transcendental numbers.

There is an important theorem in the theory of algebraic numbers, called Bakers

theorem ( [463], [[458] ) which had a great impact in the later investigations of
transcendental number theory. Serre [462] has described this theorem
qualitatively as :

Bakers Theorem (version 1) : If the numbers 2 i and

log a1 , log a2 ,...........log an are linearly independent of the domain of rational
numbers, where a1 , a2 ,...........an are nonzero algebraic numbers not equal to 1,
then those numbers (e.g. 2 i, log ai , for i = 1,2,.........n ) are linearly
independent over algebraic numbers.

By linearly independent it is implied that, a field V = { x1 , x2 ,........xn } is called

linearly independent over the rationals if any xi V cannot be expressed as
a linear combination of all x j s, for j i.
We may restate Bakers theorem [486] in the following way :

1 , 2 , 3 ,......... n are algebraic

Bakers Theorem (version 2) (1966) : If
numbers which are nonzero and not equal to 1, and 1 , 2 , 3 ,......... n are
algebraic numbers such that
n
T = i log e i 0,
i =1

then T is necessarily transcendental.

Bakers theorem easily proves that is transcendental.

transcendental

299
Proof : We set n = 1 , 1 = ( 1), and 1 = 1. Let t = log e ( 1) . Then et = (1) .
But we know from Euler

ei = cos + i sin = (1) .

i
We find that e = et = (1) yields

t = i , log e ( 1) = t = i .

Therefore assuming 1 = ( 1), and 1 = 1, we find that for n = 1,

n
t = i log e i = (1) log e ( 1) = i 0.
i =1

Then Bakers theorem states that t = i is necessarily transcendental. Since i is

algebraic (because it is the root of the polynomial equation x 2 + 1 = 0 ), then i is
transcendental only if is transcendental. This is one of the consequences of
Bakers theorem.

But Bakers theorem does not prove algebraic independence of logarithms of

algebraic numbers over the field of algebraic numbers A. This implies that we
need to prove that each of the elements in {2 i,log a1 ,log a2 ,log a3 ,......log an }
are algebraically independent over . This proof will strengthen Bakers
theorem. Our aim would be to prove that

the numbers 2 i and log a1 , log a2 ,...........log an are algebraically

independent over the field of algebraic numbers or rationals .

Proof : We shall try to prove that these mathematical problems may be resolved
with a little reference to supersymmetric physics at different energy scales. We
shall find that supersymmetry, a mathematical concept (introduced into string
theory and quantum physics to solve some knotty problems of almost all frontiers
of modern physics) may resolve some long-standing problems of number theory
in mathematics. We generally do mathematics and physics at ordinary energy
scales, for instance low energy scales. The supersymmetry signature in this scale
is ( i ) . From Eq.(62Nn) of Section [15] we know that

4 (i ) = 2( i ), 2 ( i ) = ( i ) .

Therefore e( 2 i ) = cos(2 ) i sin(2 ),

300
 e( 2 i ) = 1 , (62N3)

and since the relation

2 = 1 (62N3a)

is valid in all supersymmetry energy scales (see Fig. (10) in Section [15] ), for
example, 2 ( i ) = 1( i ), 2 (l p ) = 1(l p ), and 2 (1) = 1(1), we may rewrite
Eq.(62N3) as

e( i ) = 1. (62N4)

Since 1 is an algebraic number a because it is the root of the univariate

algebraic equation or polynomial

x 1 = 0,

we may rewrite Eq.(62N4) as

e( i ) = 1 = a . (62N5)

This allows us to reformulate the above equation as

log e e( i ) = ( i ) = a , (62N6)

where a = ( i )

is another algebraic number. Since we have already made use of the symmetry
2 = 1 in e 2 i e i , the mathematics has been sent to transplanck scale.
Combining Eqs.(62N6) and (62N5), we obtain an important result in transplanck
scale that contradicts an established result in non-transplanck scale :

log e a = a, (62N6A)

where both a and a are algebraic numbers. It clashes with the result of non-
transplanck scale that logarithm of an algebraic number is transcendental, i.e. not
algebraic (proved by Lindemann-Weierstrass theorem ( [458], [459] )). This is
consistent with our proposal that transplanck scale is populated by only algebraic
numbers. But if we retain the 2 and do not transform it to 1, then Eq.(62N3)
becomes

e 2 i = 1 = 2 ,

which, after taking logarithm of both sides, reads

301
 2 i = log e 2 ,

and both sides are now transcendental in ordinary energy scale. The above
relation is also consistent because we can derive the relationship between
supersymmetry signatures of standard model energy scale and transplanck
energy scale from it :

1
i = (log e 2 ).
2

In case of transplanck scale we replace 2 by 1, and find the equality between

supersymmetry signatures of ordinary scale and transplanck scale:

1
i = (log e 1) = log e e = 1 ,
1

because later we shall prove below that the transcendental number e becomes 1
in transplanck scale.
Note that Eq.(62N4) yields

log e [e i ] = log e 1 = 0. (62N6a)

This effortlessly leads to a disastrous result :

(i ) = 0 . (62N6b)

But this is an avoidable problem if we do not mix numbers from two different
scales. If we presume " e = 1" then we may write log e 1 as either log e e of
ordinary energy scale, or as log1 1 of transplanck scale. Both terms yield 1, and
we find that the supersymmetry signatures are there to coast us safely :

i = 1 . (62N6c)

We now prove that Eulers number e (which Hermite (1873) proved that it is
transcendental) is also transformed (like 2 ) into the integer 1 in transplanck
physics. We know that

e 2 i = 1 .

Therefore, log e e 2 i = log e 1, 2 ( i ) = log e 1.

Since in transplanck scale 2 = 1 and ( i ) = 1 , we rewrite the above relation as

302
 log e 1 = (2 )(i ) = 1 = log e e (62N6cc)

where we have avoided mixing of numbers belonging to two different energy

scales. The bases of the logarithms in Eq.(62N6cc) are equal; so we obtain

e =1

in transplanck scale. 2 also behaves this way in that scale.

We may derive the same result e = 1 from the famous Eulers identity :

ei = 1. (62N6d)

1
Since 2 = 1, = ,
2
1
i
Eq. (62N6d) becomes e = 1. 2

Recalling from Eq. (62N1), I conclude very timidly that if supersymmetry allows
the equality (or equivalence?) 2 = 1 at all energy scales of nonclassical
1
i
2
physics, then this transcendental number e is algebraic at all energy scales.
My timidity stems entirely from my non-expertise in mathematics. It may
ultimately turn out as a silly claim of a non-mathematician.
But there exists a certain amount of consistency in our earlier result e = 1 in
transplanck physics. From the transformation of supersymmetry signature

(i ) 1

1 1
i
in transplanck scale, the number e = 1 translates to e =
2 2
e = 1 in
transplanck scale. This re-enforces our earlier result

e = 1, e = 1. (62N3b)

Since 2 = 1 , and from Eq.(62N6c), ( i ) changes to 1 in transplanck scale, the

transcendental number 2 i for everyday use in number theory morphs into the
integer 1 in transplanck scale.
In the standard theory of algebraic numbers, consider the logarithms to the base
e

log ai = log e ai , i = 1, 2,3,.......n N .

303
Let these numbers be

ti = log ai = log e ai = log1 ai . (62N6e)

It is not possible here to retain the same logarithm structure in this transplanck
scale because unlike mathematics per se, transphysics operates at a different
energy regime where mathematical physics forces us to change the logarithm
base from

e 1. (62N6ee)

Eq.(62N6e) now yields

(1)ti = ai , i = 1, 2,3,........n . (62N6f)

This shows that all nonzero algebraic numbers ai are transformed into a single
integer 1 in transplanck scale. Do we sense some flavor of information bit 1 in
this primordial core of our transphysical universe? If the low energy
supersymmetry signature ( x ) min . = ( i ), reminds us of the other information bit 0
via

Re( i ) = 0 ,

we may perhaps realize that todays humans have lost, perhaps for ever, all
strings of information bits containing all yes-yes

{1,1,1,1,............1} (62N6g)

Information related to the answer regarding the genesis of integer 1. We shall

come back to this set of information bits in a while.

Since Eq.(62N6f) leads to

a1 = a2 = a3 = .......... = an = 1,

we find that

2 i = 1; and log e a1 = log e 1; log e a2 = log e 1; ......... log e an = log e 1.

In Eq.(62N6ee) we gave reasons why e should be changed to integer 1, and it is

no longer possible to stick to the logarithm base e in transplanck scale where it
does not exist. This change of base yields

304
 2 i = 1; and

log e a1 = log1 1 = 1; log e a2 = log e 1 = log1 1; ......... log e an = log e 1 = log1 1 = 1.

The set containg logarithm of algebraic numbers transform into

{ 2 i , log e a1 = 1, log e a2 = 1, log e a3 =1,........., log e an = 1}

in Bakers theorem in transplanck scale. Now it effectively becomes a set

containing all elements equal to 1 :

{1,1,1,1,...........,1} .

Since a set contains only distinct elements, all the numbers in Bakers theorem
collapse to a set containing only one element, the integer 1 :

{1}.

The formal statement of Bakers theorem (version 1)

1) concludes that the numbers

2 i,log e a1 ,log e a2 ,log e a3 ,.........,log e an

which are linearly independent of the domain of rationals, are also linearly
independent over the algebraic numbers. But we find that these numbers are
altered in transplanck scale to such numbers

1,1,1,1,1,..........1

which are all linearly dependent of each other. The integer 1 is not transcendental
in this transplanck energy scale. Bakers theorem seems to fail in the realm of
transplanck scale.
We wanted to prove a stronger form of Bakers theorem, where the numbers

2 i,log e a1 ,log e a2 ,log e a3 ,.........,log e an

are not only transcendental, but also algebraically independent of each other.
Since none of these numbers translate to a transcendental number, this stronger
version is probably not valid in transplanck scale. The reason for this conclusion
is the following : In transplanck scale, let

x1 = log e a1 = 1, x2 = log e a2 = 1, x3 = log e a3 = 1,........., xn = log e an = 1, xn+1 =2 i = 1.

305
If n is odd, then we may prepare the following polynomial in ( n + 1)
indeterminates (or variables) x1 , x2 , x3 ,........ xn , xn +1 , such that

P ( x1 , x2 , x3 ,........xn , xn +1 ) = ( x1 x2 + x3 x4 + ....... + xn xn +1 ) = 0

If n is even, then the following polynomial in ( n + 1) indeterminates

x1 , x2 , x3 ,..............xn , xn+1 , such that

P ( x1 , x2 , x3 ,..............xn , xn +1 )

= ( x1 x2 ) + ( x3 x4 ) + ............. + ( xn 1 xn ) + ( xn +1 1)

= 0.

Since these indeterminates do not satisfy

P ( x1 , x2 , x3 ,........xn , xn+1 ) 0,

the numbers x1 , x2 , x3 ,........xn , xn +1 are not algebraically independent over the

field of algebraic numbers in transplanck scale.

Now we analyze the mysterious yes-yes answer set of information in

Eq.(62N6g). The bit 1 of the bibinary
bi digitt is essentially quantum-mechanical in
nature. But I am unable to say if it is the in-between superposition bit or qubit
that is so common in quantum information theory [473]. A recent surge in
research interest consists in viewing the universe as a hologram [477], or
universe as a gigantic computer processing information ( [475], [474], [476] ), and
it started from initial ideas advanced by t Hooft and Susskind, which is nicely
captured in the Holographic Principle [320]. According to Bekenstein [475], the
hidden or missing information represented by thermodynamic entropy of a
quantum system is equivalent to Shannon entropy [476] if measured in the same
degrees of freedom. Only the dimensions differ in these two cases.
Thermodynamic entropy is measured in units of

Energy or Mass

Temperature

while Shannon entropy is dimensionless. The latter form of entropy fits our
scenario because transplanck physics contains no physical quantities; therefore
the entropy of our primordial universe is Shannon-like rather than

306
thermodynamic. Since our universe in transplanck scale contains the yes-yes
information set represented by the integer element 1,

{1,1,1,1,............1} ,

it contains all possible information of the initial universe . Since there is no

information missing in this set, the universe started with zero missing
information, or, zero entropy . This answers the much-sought response to the
question, why should the universe start with a very low entropy.

We simply have no way to get at the origin of this supersymmetry signature that
creates the transphysical formless integer 1 :

SUSY
(x) min. = STransplanck = 1.

I should make it clear that I do not understand why and how the supersymmetry
signatures undergo phase transitions at different energy scales. It is anthropically
true that we would not have been here in the first place to ask these questions
unless the signatures changed in the way they did. But perhaps this amounts to
no reasonable answer that attempts to investigate a physical interpretation of
some unknown process (like symmetry-breaking) involved in the cosmological
evolution.

Our attempt to prove a stronger version of Bakers theorem yielded a disastrous

result, contrary to what we wanted to prove. We have instead found that if a is
algebraic, log e a is also algebraic ! This unanticipated result stems from our
trade-off between two qualitatively opposite numbers from supersymmetry :

2D space 1D space

2 = 1
TRANSCENDENTAL NUMBER ALGEBRAIC NUMBER

We may turn the tables to prove (not exactly what we wanted to, but ) something
more beautiful, perhaps the grandest symmetry possible in nature, if we realize
that we replaced 2 ( which comes from the interior or bulk, i.e. the 2D plane
containing the combined area 2 (1) of two circles represented by the profile of
2

an hour-glass shaped closed string) by 1 (which comes from the boundary, the
1D length containing the radius, see Fig. (10) of Section [15] ). In short, we
replaced a 2D quantity by a 1D quantity. I did not know that Maldacenas
conjecture had anything to do at all in the context of Algebraic Number Theory!

307
This result is ok if we consider mathematical fields at a lower dimensional and
low-energy physics.
But if we consider the interior or bulk, and trade 1 for 2 ,(i.e. from 1D to 2D )
then we may rewrite Eq.(62N3)

e 2 i = 1 = 2 , (62N9)

where 2 = T is definitely a transcendental number. The upshot of these results

is : Mathematics contains only the field of algebraic numbers in lower d -
dimensional physics at the boundary while it can afford only the field of
transcendental numbers in the higher (d + 1) - dimensional physics in the interior,
or bulk. Thus supersymmetry establishes total symmetry between the field of
algebraic numbers at the boundary and the transcendental numbers in the bulk.
But here comes the unanticipated realization ! We at present are able to discern
that ---------- what was transplanck zone in the bulk or interior in the initial and
earliest epoch, now has travelled to the farthest boundary of our present
universe. Transphysical zone lives at the lower-dimensional boundary while we
now reside in the higher dimensional bulk or the interior of this boundary. This
consideration perhaps has a deep cosmological implication. This explicitly says
that while we humans ---------- living in the bulk (or interior of the present
universe) ----------- may work only with transcendental numbers, we simply do not
have access to the field of algebraic numbers living at the boundary (which was
initially the realm of transplanck epoch). This may be one of the reasons why we,
like Leopold Kronecker, cannot understand the origin of natural numbers (p.6 of
[468] ) ------------- which are at the outer edge of our physical universe. We just
take for granted the integers and other number fields. It is then not unusual that
almost all unresolved problems of transcendental number theory fail at the
transplanck scale (the scale of algebraic numbers), where there is no existence
of transcendental numbers.

Note that in nonquantum physics, i.e. where there is no trace of the reduced
Plancks constant , the minimal distance between two particles is zero. The
supersymmetry signature in this realm, where physicists and mathematicians and
people working in other areas live and work, is

Nonquantum
S SUSY = ( x) min . = 0. (62N2a)

But at all energy scales in quantum theory (including Transplanck scale), the
supersymmetry signatures obey the compactification rule of extra dimensions:

(i) 2 (i ) = ( i ), S SUSY
Standard Model Scale
= ( x) min . = ( i) . (62N2b)
(ii) 2 (l p ) = l p , S SUSY
Planck Scale
= ( x) min . = l p . (62N2c)
(iii) 2 = 1, 2 (1) = 1, S SUSY
Transplanck Scale
= ( x) min . = 1. (62N2d)

308
From these three relations (excepting Eq.(62N2a)), one may expect that the
exact equivalence between the length of circumference (closed string) and radius
of any circle (open string)

2 ( x) min . = ( x) min . , 2 = 1, (62N2e)

(where ( x ) min . 0 ) is valid at least locally, if not globally at all conceivable

energy scales. If it is true that we all live in quantum-mechanical universe, and
quantum theory is really a universal theory [36], then there is no room for a zero
minimal distance between two quantum particles, or equivalently, the
supersymmetry signature S SUSY
Nonquantum
= 0 in our everyday life. Classical physical
world may turn out to be a forever elusive reality. Local reality here depends
strictly what repeated experimental observations, carried out locally , tell. Reality
of a concept (physical or geometrical) perhaps may then be accepted as valid
locally. If we fix our gaze at ordinary energy scale, then Eq. (62N2b) enables the
local reality and equivalence of

2 = 1 (62N)

in our everyday work. Repeated physically carried out tests at different locally flat
regions and in different (points of non-cosmological) times of the following
mathematical relation

Circumference of a circle
Radius of the circle = 2 (62N2f)

by efficient High School students ------------ (with physical objects, pencil, paper
aided by a straightedge and a curve length-meter) ---------- should confirm
repeatedly the physical reality of the relation in Eq. (62N2f). If we truly live in a
quantum world, then Eq. (62N) and Eq. (62N2f) (if tested true) combine to offer
the physically confirmed result

Circumference of a circle
Radius of the circle = 2 =1. (62N2g)

This relation may hopefully link physics and mathematics in our everyday life.
The often-quoted words of Leopold Kronecker (see p.6 of [468] ) that

God created the natural numbers; everything else was mans handiwork.

may now become questionable with the realization that the everyday
experimental result of Eq.(62N2f),

309
 Circumference of a circle
Radius of the circle = 2

may now be identified with an integer 1, that happens to exist in transplanck

(and transphysics) zone. Transcendental numbers such as the set

{2 ,4 ,6 ,8 ,.........2 n,...} ,
( where n N , set of natural numbers, (an undefined term))

that may be prepared by physical means --------- (by drawing circles locally, and
measuring circumferential length and then dividing by the radius ------------ which
utilizes placing physical particles between two points in the circumference, and at
the center of the circle) ------------ in a school mathIab, may now be rewritten as
the set

{2 (1),2 (2),2 (3),2 (4),.........2 (n),...} ,

and recalling the morphing of 2 into the natural number 1 in transplanck scale,
this set may further be reduced to the set

{1, 2,3,4,.........n,...} (62N2h)

of natural numbers N in transplanck scale. This correspondence may then

establish the physical reality of integers in the quantum domain. The natural
numbers will then become physical observables or (Hermitian) operators in
Hilbert space unless we demand the more exact formalism of quantum
mechanics in Banach space. The real eigenvalues of operators or observables
measured at quantum measurement events in Hilbert space, where the
operators are elements of the set

= {2 ,4 ,6 .........2n ,...} ,
Q (62N2i)

or, in compact notation, the observables

= Q
Q {
= 2 n | n N
n } (62N2i)

310
now shall form a discrete eigenvalue spectrum. These operators shall act on the
rotation eigenfunctions R to generate the eigenvalues as the number of full
rotations :

Q (2 n) R n(2 ) R
En = n R
= = = n, where n N , (62N2j)
R R R

only if we agree with the validity of eigenvalue equation

(2 ) R = (1) R (62N2k)

within the framework of standard quantum mechanics. We have to accept that

eigenvalue of the operator (2 ) is the integer 1 in quantum theory. If we do not
cheat ourselves then these eigenvalues in Eq.(62N2j) in low-energy scale (where
2 = 1 2 ( i ) = ( i ) ) will be the set

E = {2 ( i )n | n N } . (62N2l)

( E here should not be construed to imply the extension of a field over F ). Since
on macroscopic scale, mathlab experimentalists will not be able to access the
imaginary units, the measured eigenvalue set of full rotation operator Q n will
be practically the set of imaginary parts of actual eigenvalues :

E = {Im[2 ( i )n] = 2 n | n N } . (62N2m)

Equating (2 ) = 1, a spin-off of supersymmetry, we find that the eigenvalues

now form a set of natural numbers, the number of full rotations :

E = N = {1, 2,3, 4,........n | n N } (62N2n)

If the circumference is measured in the counter-clockwise direction, then we may

arbitrarily impose a rule that the eigenvalues of full rotation operator are positive,
and measurement in the clockwise direction may then yield negative integers.
Once the set of integers has been generated, standard algebraic structures
(rationals, irrationals, complex numbers, etc) may be sourced from .
We may now perhaps be in a position to show a school kid the measured result
2 from the experiment of dividing the circumference of a circle by its radius,
and tell her/him that this physical result 2 actually transforms into the integer 1
in a zone where physics is weaned off all the physical qualities such as mass,
length and time. This zone of integers lie in Transplanck energy scale or
Transphysical realm implying a realm beyond physics. Optimistically, integers

311
may now be soft-landed in schools. And with a concrete meaning. This meaning
has significant applications :

The ineger 1 in transplanck scale means 1 full rotation. The integers 2, 3 imply
2, 3 full rotations in an arbitrarily selected positive (+) direction ------------ with
much the same arbitrariness as in considering counterclockwise direction or
charge of a proton as positive. All complex numbers z (which is at the end of
number system) now transform into rotations :

z = rei
Transplanck scale
e = 1, ( i) = 1.
r (1)(1) = r (1) = r. (62N2na)

The complex number z transforms into r full rotations in transplanck zone. This
transportation of integers and rational numbers (fractions) into integral or
fractional of full rotations is most transparently displayed by writing the complex
number z in the following form :

z = rei = r (cos + i sin ) = r cos + r sin .

Since z is shown as r number of full rotations in Eq. (62N2na) in the perspective

of transplanck scale, we may equate from above

z
Transplanck scale
r

i.e. z = r cos + r sin = r

which implies r (cos + sin ) = r ,

(cos + sin ) = 1 (62N2nb)

(cos 2 + sin 2 + 2sin cos ) = (1) 2 = 1,

In our transplanckian regime, numbers mean number of full rotations. Then the
usual everyday formula

(cos 2 + sin 2 ) = 1 1 full rotation in the positive mathematical direction.

Therefore, one has to confront 2sin cos = 0,

i.e. either sin = 0, or, cos = 0. (62N2nc)

If we pick up sin = 1, = . Then from Eq.(62N2nb)
2

312

cos = 0, = .
2

We should not forget that in this scale 2 = 1, and therefore

1 11 1
= = ( ) = = .
2 2 2 2 4

1 1
But the number here means th of one full rotation. And this translates to
4 4
1
(3600 ) = 900 in everyday scale. And this is consistent because
4

sin = sin 900 = 1,

and cos = cos900 = 0,

which satisfies Eq.(62N2nb). The other alternative also works.

But all the above discussions about reality of natural numbers rests with a catch-
all caveat : I have all along been discussing this with a mild trepidation. I have
trespassed into an unfamiliar terrain with no valid passport ! It is not unusual that
something understood from the point of view of physics may turn out absolutely
wrong to mathematicians who may be able to crush it in a matter of minutes.
But there is a feel for advantage here because these results from supersymmetry
helps resolve many paradoxes and confusions in number theory once we agree
to tilt to this mode of what supersymmetry has to say in mathematics. We recall
that complex power z of a complex number w is formulated as

w z = ( r c e d )( ei ( c + d ln( r ) ) , (62N2p)

i
where w = re , and z = c + id . So, ln( w) = ln(re ) = ln(r ) + i . i

This rewrites Wq.(62N2p) as [ 469]

w z = eln( w ) = e z ln( w ) = e( c +id )(ln( r )+i ) ,

z

w z = ( r c .e d ) e (
i c + d ln( r ) )
i.e., . (62N2q)

It is easy to obtain from this formula two complex-looking cousins that are
actually real numbers :

313


i =e
i 2
(62N2r)
and

i i = e 2 .

1
Since 2 = 1, = , this input changes Eq.(62N2r):
2
1 1 1

i =e
i 2 2
=e . 4

1

4
The left side is real, equal to a real e . Therefore,

e = (i ) = (ii )
i ( 1/4 ) ( 4) 1 1 1 1
= = = = i =1. (62N2s)
( i ) ( i 4 ) (1)

(i )i 4 4i i

The last step follows from the accepted norm [469]

w z = e z ln( w ) , (1) z = e z ln(1) = e z .0 = e 0 = 1,

where w (here, 1) is a positive real number, and the principal value of ln( w)
( here, ln1 = 0 ) is used.

Euler described the logarithm

log e b
log a b = (62N2y)
log e a

as transcendental if a, b . But if log e b = x , then e = b . Since

x

supersymmetry is found to require

e = 2 = 1 , (62N2z)

we find b = e = (1) = 1. Similarly, log e a = y yields a = 1. Eulers relation

x x

Eq.(62N2y) now transforms the transcendental number log a b to an algebraic

number :

314
 log a b = log1 1 = 1. (62N3a)

What Euler thought in everyday mathematics as a transcendental number, is an

integer 1 in transplanck scale. It might turn out that all transcendental numbers in
everyday world were mere integers in transplanck or transphysics scale.
It is a truly remarkable result that we obtain from the following :

z z z z z
Corollary : All exponential functions in the set {e 1 , e 2 , e 3 , e 4 ,.........e n } of
complex numbers z1 , z2 , z3 , z4 ,........., zn are equal to the set
{(1) z1 ,(1) z2 ,(1) z3 ,(1) z4 ,.......(1) zn } = {1,1,1,1,......,1}
provided we recall the supersymmetric result e = 1.

There are a few paradoxes and anomalies regarding exponentiation [469] to

which we now turn our attention with a temptation if we can minimize them. The
first anomaly crops up in

(1) the two different values of the assumed equality [469]

1 1 1

[ (1)(1)] 2 = ( 1) (1) .2 2
(62N3b)

1
It is generally held that the identity [ ( 1)( 1) ] 2 = 1 is wrong. The right side of
relation Eq.(62N3b) yields (-1). The left side then should also obtain (-1).
Accepting relation (62N2z), we show that the identity holds, and each side is
equal to 1 :

1 1 1 1
Left side = [ ( 1)( 1) ] = [ (e)( e) ] = (e ) = (1) = 1.
2 2 2 2
2 2

1 1 1 1 1 1
Right side = ( 1) ( 1) = (e) (e) = (i e) (i e) = (i e )(i e )
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

i2 i2 i i
= e e e e = (1) 2 1 . (1) 2 1 = (1.1)(1.1) = 1.

i
If we use both e = 1 and i = (1) , then e = (1), and
2

1 1 1
Left side = [(1)(1)] 2 = e .e = (e ) = (ei ) = (1).
i i 2 2 i 2

315
 1 1 1 1
Right side = ( 1) ( 1) = (i ) (i ) = i.i = ( 1).
2 2 2 2 2 2

This procedure possibly resolves the validity of this identity in two different
perspectives.

The second dubious identity is

(b )
z2
(2) z1
= (b) z1z2 , where z1 , z 2 are complex numbers. A glaring
counter-example is
Left side = e ( ) 2 i i
= (1)i = 1.

( ) 2 i i
= e 2 i = e2 1.
2
Right side = e

We may easily restore this identity in this particular case if we rewrite the right
side, with the input 2 = e = 1 , as

1 1
Right side = e ( ) 2 i i
= e 2 = e 1 = = = 1.
e 1
Then, Left side = Right side.

Third Identity:

i
(3) Left side = log e ( 1) = log e e = i .

Right side =
i2 i
log e ( 1) = log e ( i ) = 2log e (i ) = 2log e e = 2 = ( i )
2

The two sides of the same number log e ( 1) are unequal ! But a little care may
bring back the lost status. We utilize e = 1 here.

i i
Left side = log e ( 1) = log e e = log e (1) = log e 1 = log e e = 1.

316
Right side = log e ( 1) = log e (i ) 2 = log e ( i ) 2 . Therefore, right side =
i2 i2
log e (1) = 2log e ( i ) = 2log e e = 2log e (1) = 2log e (1) = log e (1) 2 = log e (1) = log e e = 1.

Therefore the identity is now validated.

Fourth Identity:
1
1 2 1 1
(4) Left side = = ( 1) 2
= (i 2 2
) = i.
( 1)
1 1
1 2 (1) 2 1 i i
Right side =
= 1
= = 2 = = (i ).
i i 1
( 1) (i 2 ) 2

The same number yields two values. But we rewrite the above two end-results
(+i ) and (i ) of the left and right sides as

1
i i
1 2
Left side = = i = e = (1) 2 = 1.
2

(1)
1
i i
1 2
Right side = = (i ) = e = (1) 2 = 1.
2

(1)

The second terms of both left and right side, namely, +i, or i, ( i ) in
low-energy scale become equal to 1 in transplanck scale, which are the end-
results in both sides.

Fifth Identity:

(5) Now we move on to resolve Clausens paradox [472] unresolved

since 1827. Clausen starts with the seemingly innocuous result for any integer
n:

e(
1+ 2 in )
= e.e 2 in = e,

( )
(1+ 2 in )
e( = (e) (1+ 2 in ) = e.e 2 in = e,
1+ 2 in )

317
 e(1+ 2 in ) = e,
2

e(1+ 4 in 4 = e,
2 2
n )

e(1+4 in4 = e.e4 in .e4 = e.(1).e4 = e e4 = e,

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
n ) n n n

e4 = 1,
2 2
n

which should be true for any integer n . Evidently, this identity cannot be resolved
with the current apparatus of mathematics. But with e = 2 = 1, the term

e 4 = e (2 n ) = e (1.n ) = e n = (1) n = 1 2 = 1.
2 2 2 2 2 2
n
n
(1)

We could not have proved this identity without the results 2 = e = 1 teased out
of supersymmetry. It seems, supersymmetry is really the grandest symmetry that
can occur in nature. And this symmetry dovetails both physics and mathematics
at the deepest possible level.

(6) The logarithm identity :

There exists an additional problem of failure of identities concerning complex

logarithm when the number is a negative real number. For example, no method
r
can be devised to define b as a real number, where b is a negative real
number, and r is any arbitrary real number. Let y = b . Then
r

r log e b = log e y.

We consider a specific example with b = ( 1). :

Left side = log e ( 1) = log e (e ) = +i .

i

Right side =
i2 i
log e ( 1) = log e (i ) = log e [( i ) ] = 2log e ( i ) = 2log e e = 2 = i .
2 2

318
In transplanck scale, the low-energy supersymmetry signatures ( 1) and 2
convert into the integer 1. Therefore, the above irreconciliable sides now agree :

1 1
Left side = +i = ( +i )( ) = 1. = .
2 2

1 1
Right side = i = (i )( ) = 1. = .
2 2

The value of 00 :

(7) We now enter into the controversial topic of finding the value of 0 .
0

0
Some mathematicians including Benson [470] maintains that the value of 0
depends on the convenience required in a particular context or setting, and not
0
on an unproblematic single correct value. In analysis, 0 is considered as an
indeterminate form. But not accepting

00 = 1

may raise serious problems, such as the formula of differential calculus

d n
( x ) = nx n1
dx

0
is not valid if we do not agree to accept 0 =1. Libri [478] was in favor of setting
00 =1, but Cauchy had listed it as undefined. A mathematician, who chose to
remain anonymous with a terse name S argued against it. Mbius [479] came
forward in support of Libri by observing that

lim x x = 1.
x 0 +

Mbius tried to bolster the argument with the seemingly correct reasoning that

lim [ f ( x ) ] = 1,
g ( x)
(62N3c)
x 0 +

whenever lim f ( x) = 0, and lim g ( x) = 0. The anonymous commentator S

x 0+ x 0 +
then requested Mbius to look at the following functions and their limits :

319

1
1x
f ( x) = e x
lim e = 0;
x 0 +

and g ( x ) = x, lim ( x ) = 0;
x 0+

Since according to power rule [481], the limit of the power in Eq.(62N3c) is 0, the
0
left side is equal to 0 . But

x
1
= lim e x = lim ( e 1 ) = .
g ( x) 1
lim [f ( x)]
x 0 + x 0+
x 0 + e

0 1
We are therefore left with the unenviable job of equating 0 with . The impasse
e
may be resolved in favor of Mbius and Libri once we recognize the power of the
supersymmetric gift e = 1 . Then once and for all we may settle for the formula

00 = 1 , (62N3d)

with no hitch, perhaps.

There are a few unproven conjectures in transcendental number theory. A

crucial one of them is Schanuels conjecture ( [482], [484] ). Many unproven
conjectures will be settled once Schanuels conjecture is proved.

(8) Schanuels Conjecture : If 1 , 2 , 3 ........ n are complex

numbers linearly independent of the domain of , then the transcendence
degree of

(1 , 2 , 3 ,......, n , e1 , e 2 , e3 ,......e n )

is at least n .

a
Proof : Lindemann (1882) has proved that if a is an algebraic number, then e is
transcendental. Since in transplanck scale, e = 1, the exponential functions
e1 , e 2 , e3 ,......en are all reduced to the integer 1. Evidently, the number field is
(1 , 2 , 3 ,.........,1,1,1,.......1) . The transcendence degree in this case is 0.
We must remind ourselves that this field (1 , 2 , 3 ,.........,1,1,1,.......1) does
not belong to ordinary energy regime, though we have traded e for 1 with the

320
assumption that everything happens in transplanck scale. This is because the
complex numbers 1 , 2 , 3 ,........., n , do not exist in ordinary energy scale,
which contains only the transcendental numbers. Therefore it is better we
consider the conjecture from an ordinary energy regime (in the bulk), where only
transcendental numbers exist.

We first acknowledge that the number e is transcendental. We can prove this in
the following way [483] :

ei = (1) , (1) = ei .

log e ( 1) = i ,

1
= log e (1) = (i )log e (1) ,
i

= log e [(1)]( i )
( i )
e = eloge [( 1)] = [(1)]( i )

From Gelfond-Schneider theorem (1934), if a, b are algebraic, with a 0, and

a 1, and b is not rational, then ab is transcendental.
Since
e = [(1)]( i ) = a b ,

where a = ( 1), and b = ( i ) (which is certainly not a rational number), Gelfond-

Schneider theorem tells that e is a transcendental number. We now go back to
Schanuels conjecture.
1
The number e contains a foreign element 1 which is a complex number.
Complex number field does not exist in low-energy region, since these
numbers are not all transcendental numbers. To remain grounded in ordinary-
energy regime, we replace 1 by a transcendental number 21 . The relation
2 = 1 helps here. To determine if e21 is algebraic, we form an equation with
e = T , a transcendental such that

( x) 21 = e21 , ( x) 21 = (e )21 .

The root of this algebraic equation is e . Therefore we must accept e as an

algebraic number. Contradiction : For, we have earlier proved that e is a

321
 21
transcendental number. Therefore (e ) = e 21 must be transcendental.
j 2 j
Similarly, e e j = 2,3, 4,.......n , are all transcendental numbers.
, with
We know that complex numbers 1 , 2 , 3 ,..... n are formed via the sets

in the transphysical zone. These are not accessible in sub-planck energy or

ordinary energy scale. To make them available in everyday scenario, we convert
them into transcendental numbers aided by the relation 2 = 1 :

1 21 ,

2 2 2 ,

.... .........

n 2 n .

Schanuels conjecture (from the supersymmetric point of view) may now be

constructed in ordinary energy scale to determine its degree of transcendence :

( 21 ,2 2 ,2 3 ,.........,2 n ,e
21
,e2 2 ,e23 ,.........e2 n ).

Since all these numbers are transcendental in everyday ordinary energy regime,
cardinality (size) of the set is 2n . The transcendence degree is thus 2n , which
is n . Thus Schanuels conjecture holds in ordinary energy scale.

Note: The proof is based primarily on the supersymmetric signature 2 = 1 of

quantum theory. The proof may not survive under the scanner of purely
mathematical arguments sans physics.

To summarize, introducing some results from transplanck physics into

mathematics, we seem to have arrived at a novel result that there is no room for
algebraic numbers in mathematics at ordinary energy scale of physical universe.
This is the zone of non-algebraic or transcendental numbers.
On the other hand, mathematics in transplanck physics, or more accurately,
transphysical zone (or zone beyond physical region) consists of only algebraic
numbers including integers. Transcendental numbers are absent in this zone.
Perhaps mathematics (sans physics) contains only transcendental numbers. One
plausible reason for absence of transcendental numbers like in this

322
transphysical zone is that one needs physical particles to be placed at each end-
points of straight lines or at the center of a circle to measure . But no
measurement is possible without the physical particles, which are not available in
this region.

[16]
[16] A Template for Quantum Gravity

For a Schwarzscild black hole the gravitational radius according to general

relativity is

2Gm 2G (mc 2 ) 2GE0 2G

RS = = = 4 = 4 E0 (16A)
c2 c4 c c

where the rest energy E0 is related to rest mass m of the black hole as E0 = mc 2 .
We do not consider the effect of Lorentz invariance violation here to simplify the
calculations. We rewrite Eq.(16A) as

RS c 4
E0 = (16B)
2G

and quantize it according to standard quantum-mechanical rules:

RS c 4 RS c 4
E0 ( r , t ) =
( r , t ) i = (r , t ). (16C)
2G t 2G

We assume splitting of wave function ( r , t ) of the black hole in the form of

(r , t ) = 1 (r ) 2 (t ) = ( P1 (r )ei1 ( r ) )( P2 (t )ei2 ( t ) ) (16D)

where we assumed that a complex (r , t ) should, in general, mean complex-

valuedness of both 1 (r ) and 2 (t ) . Inserting the ansatz in Eq.(16D) into
Eq.(16C) we find its left side equal to

323
 d 2 1 dP2 i2 d2 i2 1 dP2 d2
i 1 = i e + i P2 e = i 1 2 +i . (16E)
dt 2 P2 dt dt 2 P2 dt dt

We know from previous investigation [36,37] that angular frequency

(r , t ) d2
= =
t dt

d
should force us to choose from 2 = , the negative sign :
dt

d 2
= ,
dt

to exorcise negative energy solutions of a quantum system. The left side in

identity (16E) is then left with the following terms

1 dP2
i + i( ) (16F)
2 P2 dt

while the right side of Eq. (16C) remains

RS c 4
(16G)
2G

Combining the results of Eqs.(16F) and (16G), we obtain quantum-mechanical

version of general relativistic equation (16A) :

i dP2 RS c 4
+ = . (16H)
2 P2 dt 2G

If the gravitational radius RS is real (as is assumed in classical general relativity)

then comparing real and imaginary parts of both sides of Eq.(16H), we obtain
quantum-mechanical energy of the black hole as

R c4
( E )Q.B.H . = = S (16I)
2G

324
 dP2
and = 0, P2 (t ) = , an arbitrary constant. Normalization of wave function of
dt
the black hole must require

1= P(r , t )dr = P1 (r ) P2 (t )dr = P2 (t ) P1 (r )dr = P1 (r )dr.

a .a . s . a .a . s . a .a . s . a .a . s .

Here, the lower limit of the integral a.a.s means all available space for
integration. Since this is a definite integral, its value must be a fixed number, for
1
instance . Then normalization of (r , t ) is possible if 1 = , = = a

fixed number. Since is an arbitrary constant, can never equal 1.
This failure leads us to trace its origin to our wrong assumption that the
gravitational radius of the black hole is a real number. We therefore consider the
radius as a complex number

RS = RSr + iRSi , (16II)

with RSr and RSi real.

Inserting complex RS = RSr + iRSi in Eq. (16H), and separating real and imaginary
parts of both sides, two equations emerge. One of them is

dP2 RSi c 4
= (16J)
2 P2 dt 2G

The other is Quantum Black Hole energy

RSr c 4
EQBH = = (16K)
2G

For a static black hole with zero speed, v = 0, = 1, and M = m = m, is rest

mass/energy of the black hole. The following Lorentz-violating equation [37]

2 v 2
E = Mc 1
2

8M c 2
becomes in this case ( v = 0. ) :

2
EQBH = mc 2 . (16L)
8m

325
Eqs. (16K) and (16L) together bring in

2G 2G 2 2Gm G 2
RSr = 4 EQBH = 4 mc 2 = (16M)
c c 8m c 2 4mc 4

which may be rewritten as

RSr = ( RS )cl . R S > 0 (16M1)

where we expect R S as a tiny quantum correction. We may liken it to a

subtraction radius of a tiny black hole of mass m where these are related by the
last term of Eq. (16M):

G 2
R S = . (16Mqbh)
4
4mc

We assume ------- and this is not quite unreasonable -------- that the correction
term R s is very small. The best way to do that is to maximize the denominator, or
maximize the term m . But in planck scale all arbitrary masses become equal to a

unique mass mc = with the sole purpose of minimizing the (intrinsic angular)
2c

momentum of the particle to just (mc c) = . There is just no way to maximize.
2
Therefore m = mc in such cases.

Since in the black hole interior, a one-dimensional radius is stretched out in
transverse direction to a rectangular area element (just as gravitational radius of
a black hole of mass mc is pulled out into an element of area l p2 ), we also need
(operationally) at least four minimally massive particles to hold and stretch this
area. And this has also provision in the term 4m in the denominator of R s in Eq.
(16Mqbh). This massive particle , comprising four parts each equal to mc , then
has the total mass
2
mG = 4mc = 2mF = . (16Mqbi)
c

Since speed of all particles in Planck scale physics is c , the (intrinsic angular)
momentum of this particle is

326
 2
pint. = s = mG c = c = 2 . (16Mq1)
c

This tiny momentum in units of is most plausibly a candidate for the particle
spin. A spin-2 particle emerging from the physics of interior of a black hole
horizon cannot possibly be anything else than a graviton [254]. Since four
particles each of mass mc generate a graviton, it is most likely that graviton is a
composite particle mediating gravity (which also thus must be a composite
interaction, and not a fundamental interaction.). There is an advantage occluded
D0--brane non
in finding gravitons in our D0 non--unitary theory of quantum gravity in that
one may hopefully derive a slice of Einsteins General Relativity from it, aided by
a few simple properties (see p.299 of [189] ).
When in sub-planckian scale, the physics is governed by the reverse signature
of supersymmetry

( i ) l p (1) (16Mq2)

where the arrow indicates the unbreaking (or making?) of supersymmetry

along the classical arrow of time proceeding since big bang:

((1)) Universe beyond Planck scale (Transplanckian) energy had SUSY

signature ( x )min. = (1)
.

((2)) Universe at Planck scale energy had SUSY signature ( x) min. = l p

((3)) Low energy (todays) universe with current signature of SUSY

( x) min. {(i ), ( j ), ( k )}

There is an important corollary to the Transplanckian signature of

supersymmetry: ( x ) min . = 1, while in low energy physics, ( x ) min . = ( i ) . The
invariant space-time interval in low energy physics is

ds 2 = dx 2 (cdt )2 = dx 2 + (i )2 (cdt ) 2 = dx 2 + ( x) 2min . (cdt ) 2 . (16Mq2*)

This interval respects causality: causal events precede effects. But in

Transplanckian scale, there exists no trace of space-time. All quantities are
purely numbers or transcendental numbers. Space-time is born at Planck scale,
when the dimensionless signature ( x ) min . = 1 becomes ( x) min . = l p cm. and

327
 ( x) l
(t ) min . = min . = p = t p s. 1044s.
c c

In Transplanck scale, the space time interval becomes

ds 2 = dx 2 + ( x) 2min . (cdt )2 = dx 2 + (1) 2 (cdt )2 = dx 2 + (cdt ) 2 . (16Mq2**)

Since this space-time interval sans pace-time is ds 0, it becomes

2

meaningless to talk about existence (or violation ) of causality when ds > 0.

2

Todays universe has signature, for instance, ( i ) . Consequently a Planck scale

2
particle like graviton will now have mass mG = (i ) . This supersymmetry
c
signature consequently makes todays gravitons real-massless particles:

Re(mG ) = 0. (16Mq3)

This method of formulation is perhaps at best a template for how to find purely
quantum gravity equations from classical general relativity. To find this, we
started from the simple formula for gravitational radius Eq. (16A) of a
Schwarzschild black hole. Apart from the contemporary theories of quantum
gravity that have progressed so much, one may also take up any classical
equation from general relativity, preferably simple ones at first, and proceed
generating quantum counterparts of observables from classical general relativity.
As we have tried to prove (and shall try to prove it more methodically later) that
time is indeed an observable or operator in quantum mechanics, one may revisit
the celebrated Wheeler-DeWitt equation and introduce time evolution in it via
interchangeability of space and time in quantum theory.

To add one more example of quantum gravity equation, we proceed with the
famous deflection of light by a large mass (see p.288 of [189] ).This issue of
deflection of light by the sun was settled by famous experiments led by Eddington
[432] during a solar eclipse in 1919, and this historic test immediately instilled
phenomenal credibility to Einsteins theory of general relativity.
If the source (a distant star) and observer (on the earth) are separated by a large
distance from the deflecting mass (the sun), then the deflection angle of a
perturbed geodesic traced out by a photon is [189]

328
 4Gm 2 2Gm 2 Rs
= = = , (16Mq4)
c 2b b c 2 b

where b is magnitude of the impact parameter defined by a transverse vector b

directed from the background geodesic to the mass m at the point of shortest
approach (see Fig. In p. 288 of [189]. We refer to Eq.(16A) above and rewrite

2Gm
RS = 2 (16Mq5)
c
where RS is the gravitational radius of the deflecting object of rest mass m . We
have already quantized Eq.(16Mq5), and found in Eq.(16II) that RS in quantum
gravity is complexified:

( RS )Q = RSr + iRSi (16Mq6)

r i
where RS and RS are reals. From Eq.(16M) and Eq.(16qbh) we find

2Gm G G 2 G 2 G
2
R = 2
r
S = ( RS )cl . = ( RS )cl . = ( RS )cl . ,
c 4mc
2

4mc 2
(4mc )c 2
2c

(16Mq7)
where
2
4m = 4mc = Graviton mass mG = . (16Mq8)
c
Since RS is a complex number in quantum gravity, the impact parameter in
Eq.(16Mq4) will also be complex. The quantum gravity result for deflection angle
of a photon is now complex and obtained from Eq.(16Mq4), (16Mq6) and
(16Mq7):

2( Rs )QG 2 ( RS + iRS )
r i
2 RS
( )QG = = = ,
b QG (b)QG b1 + ib2

where (b)QG = b1 + ib2 , with b1 , b2 . This yields

2(b1 ib2 ) 2Gm G

( )QG = 2
+ iRSi . (16Mq9)
b12 + b22 c 2c

329
The deflection angle in quantum gravity is complex. Only the real part is
accessible to measurement:

2b 2Gm 2b2 RS
i
Re( )QG = 1
2 Gmc ,
b1 + b22
2 c
b12 + b22

which is rearranged as

2 2Gm
Re( )QG = b1 2 Gmc b2 RSi . (16Mq10)
b2 + b2

c
1 2

45
Here a tiny correction Gmc = 1.107 10 cm.s 2 sneaks into the gravitational
radius term, but suffers from dimensional anomaly just as mc does. This equation
may be tested in non-terrestrial space with upgraded technology, given the tiny
scale of the correction term.
We now derive some well-established results of string theory from our non-
unitary Lorentz-violating theory of quantum gravity.

[17] Relating Some Results to String Theory

Now we must pause, and think to which part of the black hole this tiny correction
radius R S belongs. Since Eq.(16M1) tells us that

R S < ( RS )cl . (16M3)

we are actually probing the interior of the black hole --------- and here we should
be ready to encounter the most bizarre things nature has to offer.
We have already shown that a minimal string of length l p is equivalent to a
closed string of loop length 2 l p , which by the way established a connection
between trancendental numbers and natural numbers:

2 = 1. (16M4)

330
This energy scale that exists inside a quantum black hole is beyond Planck scale
energy , i.e. transplanckian. The signatures of supersymmetry that we have
found are

Minimal distance ( x) min. = ( i ) (l p ) (1) , (16M5)

and may hopefully proceed mathematically by employing extended complex

plane {} and generalized circles L{} in the theorem of The (inverse)
Cayley transform [250] which allows (loosely speaking) a linear fractional
transformation to send elements of extended complex plane to itself. This is an
example of conformal equivalence (used in Conformal Field Theory, CFT)
which preserves angles. This allows us to recall an important result of sending
elements (like a patch, a hemispherical curved surface 2 l p2 of the upper half of a
sphere of radius l p ) of a Riemann sphere (a unit sphere of radius 1 bisecting the
complex plane with the center of the sphere seated comfortably at the origin of
the complex plane ) (see figure in p. 201 of [251] ) --------- also called an extended
complex plane -------- to elements (like a flat patch of area l p2 , a disc of radius
l p ). In essence this theorem allows to paste upper half of spherically curved
Riemann sphere of radius 1 seamlessly (i.e. conformally, i.e. preserving angles)
to a flat unit disc ( a disc of radius 1). In our discussion of quantum black holes
embedded in complex space, this theorem allows us to consider only the upper
half of spherical horizon surface of a black hole to be conformally equivalent to a
flat 2D disc black hole (hole?) or black disc (containing no hole or singularity). If
the whole spherical horizon surface of a black hole requires a mass m to be
squeezed inside this horizon, then only the upper half of this spherical horizon
1
requires only half of black hole mass, i.e. m to form its hemispherical surface,
2
like the upper half of Riemann sphere. Then, the gravitational radius of such a
hemispherical black hole is

1
2G 2 m Gm
( R S )Q = = (16M6)
2 2
c c

Before making an attempt to incorporate a few concepts like T-duality, S-duality,

moduli problem etc of string theory into this non-unitary quantum gravity theory,
we first proceed to show the presence of gravitons into its dynamics.
The gravitational radius in Eq.(16M6) must be equal to that in Eq. (16Mqbh):

331
 Gm G
2

2 =
c 4mc 4

These tiny hemispherical black holes generate space in string theory, since
these are required to block naked singularities, and are needed to formulate
string theory as a much sought-after background- independent theory like
general relativity or loop quantum gravity. The space fabric of string theory is
produced by these tiny upper-half of Riemann spheres depicting impenetrable
tiny half-horizons separated by a minimal distance (perhaps equal to
2l p = ( A)min. = ). We should recall space-time equivalence which says space
is time, and time is space . Loop quantum gravity creates space, but it
nevertheless requires time to get from its theory to add as a background element
to this space (see p. 279 of [252]). But if space-time equivalence, even if locally,
is tested correct, then that will be regarded as a precious spin-off for string theory
as well as Loop Quantum Gravity. The time dimensions will be regarded
equivalent to space dimensions. Then the ubiquitous zero branes in our universe

(of minimal mass mc = or, mR = ), which may be the unobservable
2c 2 2c
hemispherical horizons of primordial micro black holes separated by the
minimal distance studded on an extended complex plane ( or upper-half of
Riemann sphere) will create the space fabric (not spacetime fabric!) from within
the frameworks of these theories. This extended complex plane (which may be
compactified into the upper-half of Riemann sphere) is perhaps a complex D2-
brane. String theory and loop quantum gravity theories will have the common
background-independent structure, as is often considered important to subsume
general relativity. The lower-half of Riemann spheres (the half-horizon surfaces)
containing their partner zero branes (superpartners?) separated by minimal
distance between two zero branes will create another extended complex plane (
or a compactified lower-half of Riemann sphere) that may be considered as
another complex D2-brane. These D2-branes are separated by the minimal
distance between the zero-branes. These two zero-branes are clothed and
therefore unobservable at infinite or large distances characterized by low energy
scales. The upper and lower halves of the Riemann sphere (black hole horizon
surface) each containing a zero-brane are glued on their respective 2D-branes.
But these two halves of the Riemann sphere ( which are equivalent to two flat
discs, thanks to (inverse) Cayley Transform theorem, ([250], [251]), and are
pasted on their corresponding D2-branes) are constrained to remain separated
by the minimal distance (along which the minimal string of length
2l p = ( A)min. = vibrates). The vibrations of strings are always transverse, i.e.
normal to string length. At minimal distance, the string energy is ground state
energy, or true vacuum (energy) of string theory --------- which corresponds to a
gravitational radius equal to minimal distance 2l p ------- is ETrue . This energy may
be calculated from the minimal gravitational radius :

332
 2G 2G E
2 ( True )
RTrue = m 2 True , (16M7)
c c
2
c

which calculates true vacuum energy equal to

( R )c 4 (2l p )c c4 c3 l p c c
4

ETrue = True =
= (l )
p = (l ) (c) = 2 = . (16M8)
p
2G 2G G G lp lp

We know that
m p l p = 2mc , (16M9)
2m
which requires lp = c (16M10)
mp

Eq.(16M8) then forces us to conclude that

c m c
ETrue = = ( c ) p = ( c ) m p = m p c 2 = E p . (16M11)
lp 2mc

Planck energy E p then comes out as True vacuum of string landscape! But let
us consider what is called the Topological duality (or, equivalence of shapes of
objects) of string theory, called T-duality [89]. This duality has shown that small
distances are equivalent to large distances in string theory ! However incredible it
may sound, we have already noticed a few examples of T-duality in our
discussion

(1) T-duality : 2 = 1 2 R = R , ( R is any distance, small or large) Loop =

Straight line change of shape.

(2) T-duality : For a black hole of mass mc , gravitational radius is not a straight
line, but a stretched membrane or area (change of shape): Rs = l p2 straight line
= a square area Birth of an extra real dimension. But when we realize that the
gravitational radius Rs is also a minimal distance (because the black hole mass
is minimal), we are forced to set l p = Rs = l p , we obtain a preposterous result :
2

l p = 1. (16m)
Therefore,
1
l p2 = 1, l p = , a supersmall distance = a superlarge distance. (16n)
l
p

333
 2 1
And since 2 = 1 , we have exactly 2 l p = = 2 = 2 R p , where
l
p lp
1
R p = . This shows that a small (closed ) loop is exactly equal to an ultra-large
l
p
loop, the two loops belonging to vastly different energy scales, or forces ---------
or, equivalently to vastly different theories operating with vastly different coupling
constants ( which describe how much strong or weak the force is). This is
perhaps an instance of S-duality (equivalence of strong-weak interactions) of
string theory (see p. 179, volume II of [92] ) directly linked with T-duality.
1
(3) T-duality : Since l p = , we may multiply it with 2l p to find
lp

(2l p ) (2l p )[2l p ] 4l p2

l p (2l p ) = , l p (2l p ) = = = . (16p)
lp l p [2l p ] (2l p )l p (2l p )l p

If 2l p = r , a very small number, then (recalling that 1 cm = 1 in quantum

mechanics), Eq.(16p) now reads

rl p = ,
rl p

A very small length rs = rl p satisfies an exact symmetry called T-duality of

string theory:

rs = . (16q)
rs

Since rs = 2l p , and
2
= 4l p2 , Eq.(16q) yields

4l p2
2l =2
p = 2. (16r)
2l p2

Since we have proved the strange-looking relation 2 = 1, we multiply both sides

of Eq.(16r) by 2 , and hit upon a profound insight :

4 l p2 = 4 = 4 (1) 2 . (16s)

334
While in transiting physical planck scale to transcendental transplanck scale, the
minimal spherical surface in planck epoch (containg the seedbed of the universe)
is equal to the surface area of the Riemann sphere with no physics-specific
concepts whatsoever. And transplanck scale, a more tantalizing result perhaps
emerges: Since 2 = 1, Eq. (16s) now reveals

4 (1) = 4 = (2 )(2) = (1)(2) = 2(1)

2

4 (rR ) 2 = 2(rR ), (16t)

where the radius of the sphere comes out as rR = 1. Eq.(16t) states that surface
area S R of a Riemann sphere ( [156], [378] ) is equal to its diameter d R :

SR = d R , (16u)

i.e. the 2-sphere collapses to its own diameter. The 2D space becomes
equivalen to a 1D space. The dimensions have been reduced by 1. This is again
a proof of a special case of Maldacena conjecture ( [377], [159], [91] ) which
equivalues physics of the bulk to physics at the boundary. More specifically, the
AdS/CFT correspondence is conjectured. This means that a theory containing
gravity (for instance, string theory, which may be intractable to solve in the bulk
( N + 1) dimensions) is totally equivalent to a conformal (quantum) field theory
without gravity at the boundary in N dimensions ( [253] ,[156] ).
It is really a surprise that we proceeded in the opposite direction of Maldacena
conjecture to start with a non-unitary quantum theory of D0-branes in 0D-space,
and then went into higher dimension 1D to find vibrating strings, and then
ventured into 2D space to get a feel of closed strings or loops of length (via the
strange-looking relation 2 = 1 )

ls = nl p = 2 (nl p ) = n(2 l p ), (16v)

where ls is entire string length, and n is the number of windings that the string
wraps around a circle of radius l p . We could also foray into 3D black holes,
whose entire purportedly trapped interior (a 3D matter-energy) is thrown out to
form a 2D (2-sphere) membrane or, just a 2D disc. This shows the way in the
opposite direction: We may start with quantum particle theory (D0-branes)
without gravitation, and delve into the bulk of a theory with gravity. This may
conjure up as special cases of reverse version of Maldacena conjecture, and if
found true in other models, may be called CFT/AdS correspondence, or
Reversible Maldacena conjecture.

335
In transplanckian physics, beyond the signature regime ( x ) min . = l p ,
supersymmetry signature morphs from ( x) min. = l p ( x) min. = 1. Then universal
slope of string theory changes from = 4l p2 = 4(1) 2 = 4. In this transplanckian
scale (when l p = 1 ), planck mass becomes

2mc
mp = = 2mc = . (16M13)
lp c

The true vacuum then becomes

ETrue = EP = m p c 2 = c 2 = c = 1 (16M14)
c

which is permitted if it turns out that similar to natural units of particle physics
= c = 1, To achieve this, we realize that one way to settle on a fundamental
mass unit (that is long overdue) is to designate the mass

mF = 2mc = = 1 (16M14*)
c

as the mass unit of nature (where mF = 1 is not dimensionless), as we have

already done in Eq. (61 ) of Section [4].
[4] This leads to = c. We recall Eq. (54a4)
of Section [9] and find that we can construct string theory as well as theory of
loop quantum gravity background-free once we acknowledge that in quantum
theory time is an observable and

eigenvalues of spatial observables = (constant speed c ) (eigenvalues of time

observable)
(16M14@)

which merely requires c to be some universal constant, for example, speed of

causal connections. (It need not necessarily be speed of light in free space). The
theories of quantum gravity becomes background-free (i.e. space = time) if we
set

constant speed c cms 1 = 1. (16M14%)

The immediate dimensional result from Eq. (16M14@) is

336
 cm = s. (16M14**)

Since quantum theory already requires cm = 1 , we obtain something profound:

cm = s = 1 . (16MM)

The actual test of universal constants of nature requires that they are measured
to have the same value everywhere and everytime in the universe. If this
program is really a symmetry of nature, the natural units must be dimensionless
with a view to remove arbitrariness of choice of units used in measuring devices
or observable-meters. In Eq. (16MM) we find space and time are not only the
same entity, but they are factually spaceless and timeless in the sense we use
these quantities. To escape any sort of philosophizing, we merely describe space
and time as dimensionless pure numbers. If we add to this our earlier
requirement of Eq. (16M14*) that

mF = 1, = c (16MM##)

dimensionally, then it would require gcm 2 s 1 = cms 1. Which means

gcm = 1.

Combining this with cm = 1 of Eq. (16MM), the fundamental mass unit mF also
becomes massless/energy-free:

g = 1. (16MM^)

This , together with with Eq. (16MM) now tells that

g = cm = s = 1 . (16MM*)

In short, observables sans physical units merge into pure numbers. And all the
fundamental forces get united to form a theory of quantum gravity that contains
no space, no time , and no energy. It is hard to visualize such a theory, but what
is tempting in such a theory is that it is completely nonperturbative, and
rediscovers a number of results already firmly established in contemporary
theories of quantum gravity. But what in this theory indicates that the forces are
really unified?

Since cm = s = 1, eq. (16M14%) requires:

constant speed of causal connections = c (cms 1 ) = 1, c = 1. (16M14a)

337
Now dimensionless c becomes equal to pure number 1. As a result, from the
above equation and Eq. (16MM##) we obtain

= c, = c = 1. (16M14b)

c
Since Eq. (16M13) wants m p = , and also, by definition m p = , we equate
c G
them and utilizing Eq.(16M14b), finally obtain

1
= 1, G = 1. (16Mm14)
G

Sending this result to Eq.(16M14b), we reach the ultimate symmetry of a primary

theory of all forces:

= c = G = 1. (16M14c)

All the fundamental forces in standard model , electromagnetic , weak, strong are
unified by the following symmetry of natural constants

= c = 1.

It was supersymmetry ------------ ( in our case, finding three signatures of

supersymmetry from minimal position operators at different energy scales ) -------
-- that came to rescue while deriving the tiny positive cosmological constant
theoretically from this non-perturbative theory, and dovetail a balking gravity to
meld with quantum mechanics. The strength of all the four interactions including
gravity is the same, as revealed in the normalization of planck units through the
following dimensionless symmetry

= c = G = 1.

This shows the probable hint of a primary theory. What is achieved is perhaps
great, but also comes at a huge cost. All the physical properties of space-time-
matter are weaned away from this non-unitary theory and only pure numbers
rule. This may not be true, because it seems nature loves to hide, and also
because not all of the existing problems have been solved.

Since now = c = 1, true vacuum of string landscape

1
( ETrue ) 2 = 1, ETrue = . (16M15)
ETrue

338
The necessary unit also obey the peculiar relationship:

(GeV ) 2 = 1, (GeV ) = (1), (16M16)

disclosing that the result that energy now melts into dimensionless number. Since
true vacuum of string theory (we happened to select from among a dreaded 10500
forms of vacuum states that exist in string theory landscape), from Eq. (16M14) is

ETrue = E p = c = 1, (16M16a)

it is straightforward to get a glimpse of S-duality [92] that exchanges strong-weak

interactions, or equivalently, strong-weak enenergy scales:

1 1 1 20 1
( ETrue ) 2 = 1, ETrue = = = = 8.19 10 (Gev ) . (16M17)
E
1.22 10 GeV
19
ETrue p

The true vacuum state of string theory where the theory with a positive
cosmological constant may remain stable is perhaps this tiny height in the
landscape

ETrue = 8.19 1020 (Gev) 1 = 8.19 1020 (GeV ) (16M17a)

from zero level (sea level). The anomaly in energy unit need not worry us
because Eq.(16MM*) allows us to write

(GeV ) 2 = 1, (GeV ) 1 = GeV

based on the space-time-matter-number symmetry of Eq.(16M14c). I think the

possible root to the moduli problem leading to 10500 quantum states
corresponding to Einstein vacuum lies in allowing massless scalar moduli fields
(creating massless moduli particles ------- not ever detected ) to play on Calabi-
Yau manifolds [253] of string theory. As we have discussed extensively in
Section [4] massless particles can hardly exist in a quantum theory. Mass m = 0
for any quantum particle (including photons and gravitons ) is disastrous to the
sacrosanct (?) principle of conservation of probability in quantum mechanics. In
fact these massless particles have imaginary masses of the form m = ( im),

339
where Im( m) = m may have arbitrary values, and these arbitrary values of scalar
mass m may produce 10500 or more massless fields. But the bottomline of these
masses are constrained by only one true vacuum with a property that all these
numerous moduli fields actually satisfy:

Re( m) = Re( im) = 0.

Near string scale energy and beyond that, supersymmetry signature switches
from

( i ) l p (1),

and these masses become (im) (ml p ) m when string theory emerges as
the underlying theory. The moduli particles are now no longer massless, but are
of arbitrary masses (ml p ) , innumerable in number like 10500 or more -------- but
still suppressed to a broad spectrum of very low vacuum energy states due to
ultra-small magnitude of l p . A large number of false vacua states are thus
created from which it is quite impossible to select the one that belongs to our own
universe. The problem may be resolved if we are able to find the least possible
positive eigenvalue of mass or mass gap from a physical theory. The upshot of
this is to find the minimal mass from all the arbitrary values of m . We have done
just that in Eq. (6*) of Section [4],
[4], and have found the minimal mass

(m)min. = mc = . (16M17b)
2c

While this particle in massless form (im) min. = (imc ) is vacuum particle, under
the spell of supersymmetry signature transition ( i ) (1) , it becomes massive,
but its mass is contained only within the horizon of upper half of Riemann sphere.
All such particles move with speed c -------- it is really incredible, (but we have
proved it). To complete the sphere we need another particle of same mass mc to
be squeezed inside the lower half of Riemann sphere. The total mass inside a

Riemann sphere is then 2mc = mF = . But this mass totals to an energy
c

2
c c = c (16M18a)

equal to true vacuum energy c as explicit in Eq. (16M14). One can then pick the
true vacuum ETrue through the same procedure as that yielded Eq.(16M17). The
shielded (unobservable) mass beads in upper and lower halves of zillions of
Riemann spheres in the universe may be the long-sought forms of monopoles

340
(i.e. single magnetic charges ) which are basic ingredients of any Grand Unified
Theory or GUT [282]. I hope to report about the puzzle of no-detection of
magnetic monopoles later.

[18] Coincidence Problem: Dark Energy and Dark Matter

Matter are
One and the Same Stuff

The coincidence problem is the most puzzling piece in the cosmological constant
jigsaw. It asks the intriguing question: Why we humans happen to exist just at the
same era (period of time) in the evolution of the universe when dark energy and
dark matter densities happen to be almost equal. The factor relating the two is
nearly 3.
What is dark matter? The astronomers have observed that this unobservable
matter is responsible for generation of gravitational attraction that form the
galaxies and jell their components (stars) to stay inside, and also to form clusters
and superclusters of galaxies in our universe. The nature of this dark matter is
unknown. Also dark matter has an exceptional property of not interacting at all
with normal matter, for example, baryons and photons. The existence of dark
matter was revealed once it was astronomically observed that galaxies actually
rotate in curves. The striking revelation through astronomical observations is that
the velocities of stars at any region of the galaxy (near its center or at any
arbitrarily large distance from the center) are nearly equal: The velocity curves
are flat ! This is not at all expected given the Keplers law of variation of speeds
of planets with distance in our solar system, which approximately simulates
rotation of stars around center of a galaxy. Also a dark matter-free universe
cannot comfortably account for the cause essential for formation of galaxies.
The nature of dark matter has been extensively investigated, and various models
including cold dark matter, hot dark matter and exotic dark matter [153] have
been proposed. I would like to regard dark matter as constituting mass of a
particle.. These vacuum particles are perhaps photinos -----------
quantum vacuum particle
1
- spin- superpartner of photons. The particles are not visible and accessible to
2
detecting devices because they live in imaginary time (which exists as an extra
imaginary dimension in low energy scale). All supersymmetric particles or
sparticles such as photinos are most likely to remain undetected at sub-planck
energy scale. They are most likely to be observed in extra real dimension --------
(if present technology undergoes a sea change enabling direct or indirect
detection) ------- when supersymmetry signature exits the hidden extra dimension

341
( x) min . = ( i ) to open up a real extra dimension in the signature ( x )min . = (l p ) ,
where they can be detected. We present a proof that perhaps would lead to a
startling conclusion :

Dark matter and dark energy are one and the same stuff ! What is more
intriguing is the fact that dark matter generates attraction in the galaxy rotation
originating in attraction between two free imaginary-valued quantum electric
charges of opposite sign produced from the mass of quantum vacuum particles (
as we have proved in Eq.(62E**) in sectio n [15] , while dark energy too creates
section
repulsion between two free real-valued quantum electric charges of same sign
produced from mass of quantum vacuum particles. The repulsive force produced
by dark energy is generated by mutual repulsion between two free planck
(electric) charges of same sign. This repulsion creates extra space between the
charges, and zillions of such charges cumulatively drives the galaxies apart, thus
accelerating cosmic expansion which was first astronomically observed in the
late 1990s. It seems paradoxical that opposite kinds of forces stem from a
common source : Quantum electric chargecharge. But what is a quantum electric
charge? First, quantum electric charge contains a quantum hallmark in its term.
Secondly, this maverick charge is free, which means it is not tied to any particle
mass or structure. Quantum electric charge does not need to have a seat on a
particle ! For this reason these massless charges are truly free. These are
produced by converting mass into quantum electric charge. It is a happenstance
that these forces of opposite nature owe their origin to the same entity: Quantum
vacuum particle. The attractive force due to dark matter originates from
imaginary--valued planck charges of opposite sign
imaginary sign. The planck charges are
produced from vacuum particle mass in Planck scale. We have studied the
1
nature of dark matter (perhaps spin- photinos, superpartner of photons) and
2
how they produce attractive force inside galaxies and cluster of galaxies in
Section [15]. The repulsive force due to dark energy is also generated by the
same process as in case of dark matter. The only difference is that the electric
charges in this case are real-valued, and instead of an attractive force, a
repulsive force is generated by dark energy owing to repulsion between two
planck charges of same sign. The planck charges are created by the same entity,
viz. mass of vacuum particle in planck scale. To summarize: Dark matter and
dark energy are two different aspects of the same entity, namely, vacuum
particle.. Mass of vacuum particles in Planck scale produces the distinctive
properties of dark matter and dark energy in sub
sub--planck energy scale
scale. Although
their source is the same and therefore they ought to have generated equivalent
effects, but paradoxically, they do not end up showing equivalent effects. On the
contrary, they produce opposite effects, attractive and repulsive forces !
Formation of such opposite forces are feasible because these are produced by
two kinds of electric charges in sub
sub--pla
planck scale: (1) Imaginary valued
nck energy scale
planck charge (perhaps color charge of strong force) in case of dark matter, and
(2) Real-valued planck charge in case of dark energy.

342
Let us zoom in to analyze the different mechanisms that are responsible for
producing the attractive force as well as the repulsive force in cosmological large
scale structure of the universe through a single entity, vacuum particles.

[18A] Dark Matter : Source of Attractive

Attractive Force

The inescapable source of the events that galaxies should form, and later stars
and planets would be born, and for that matter, life will evolve in our planet may
be traced back to early formation of dark matter. These matter particles are
called dark, because they cannot be observed directly by any astronomical
devices. Their indirect presence in our universe became clear in the 1970s from
galaxy rotation curves. Early observations, albeit not quite perfect, of the
thermally regular structure of Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR)
revealed that formation of galaxies urgently needed presence of dark matter ,
before it was later found that temperature of this radiation is not uniform
throughout the structure. This is called CMB anisotropies of this relic structure,
still open to observation. Merely baryogenesis cannot offer sufficient reason for
structure formation, without early creation of dark matter. Since these particles
were created earlier than baryons, and we have already proved that quantum
vacuum particles (if they really constitute dark matter permeating cosmic space)
have a mass (imc ) , they cannot have real-valued mass, and therfore, are utterly
hopeless in interacting with baryonic matter and photons by exerting any force
because

Force = ( mass ) ( acceleration) ,

where mass implies real-valued mass. Therefore,

Re(imc ) = 0, (D1)

Implies that unless acceleration is imaginary, real part of interaction is always

zero.
We have already determined the space curvature of todays universe in Eq. (62
MM) of Section [14], and it turns out that curvature is about 10 57 cm 2 provided we
seek help from quantum theory. We must say this is very close to zero, but not
exactly zero. Therefore we have reached todays almost-flat universe with only a
repulsive force generated from a certain kind of dark energy (which we would call
quantum cosmological constant ) that had been constant over cosmological
time. (I am not aware if - driven cosmic acceleration is competent to be an

343
 inflationary
alternative to inflationary cosmology. We know that cosmological inflation ( [243],
[244], [245] ) once started cannot be tamed. Also nature of inflaton is entirely
unknown).
may not indicate slight variations of temperature, i.e. anisotropies observed in
Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR), but nevertheless it worked
well to describe the acceleration that shocked the cosmologists in the late 1990s
astronomical observations. If speed of light has both space and time variations
(as I , like many { [274], [275], [276] }, have tried to prove in [37] while discussing
a varying fine structure constant) then vacuum particle mass or vacuum energy
term containing c may introduce slight variations of temperature or anisotropies
in the surface of last scattering --------- as is predicted by Sachs-Wolfe effect
[153].
Supersymmetry signatures triggered phase transitions in the earliest phase of
the universe from space-time-matterless supersymmetry signature ( x ) min. = 1 ,
when the universe might have started its journey as a Riemann sphere of unit
radius sans any concept of length dimension. But even at this stage, an entire
complex manifold (that will emerge later in complex space-time of quantum
mechanics in sub-planck scale) may be wrapped around the 2D surface of
Riemann sphere. Around planck time, space-time was born and physical
properties emerged, carrying a never-before (or, never-after) elegant symmetry,
which guranteed same mass and same speed for all types of objects : An
electron and a star was placed on the same footing ! This feature came with a
minimal distance, the least string length l p , characterized by a tension equal to

2m
T = mp = c . (D1#)
lp

Copious amounts of magnetic monopoles ( [314], [315] ) were produced, when

two monopoles were separated by the minimal separation 2l p . The two
hemispheres of a Riemann sphere (of unit radius), now changed from the
signature

(r )min . = (1) (r ) min . = l p ,

hiding a magnetic monopole in each. Even monopoles of opposite magnetic

charges cannot self-cancel because of the impenetrable and irreducible
separation between them. Monopoles are predicted by Grand Unified Theories
(GUT) as well as string theory ( [316], [282] ).
Since then the universe had cooled down with a transition in phase from
supersymmetry signature ( r ) min . = l p to the present signature (r ) min . = ( i ) . The
present (hypothetical) snapshot of the universe shows its outermost shell ruled
by space-time-matterless signature ( r ) min . = 1 . The question of finiteness or
boundary of the universe is meaningless in this physics-free regime of

344
supersymmetry, where physical dimensions dissolve into pristine numbers. This
transcendental number regime that made the magical relation

2 = 1 (D1#*)

possible, probably started at the big bang carrying a supersymmetric signature

( r ) min . = 1 with no initial investment of matter-energy or space-time. The physical
universe peppered with real dimensions, matter-energy, and most importantly
space-time must have then had a start when the dimensionless signature
( r ) min . = 1 breathed out space and time by swiching on the Planck epoch
33
signature (r )min . = l p = 1.616 10
centimeter . It seems incredible that a
purely mathematical Riemann sphere of unit radius and surface area S equal to
just a pure number 4 (1) = 4 , or more precisely equal to the number
2

S = 4 = 2(2 ) = 2(1) = 2

can indeed morph into a spaceful diameter d = 2l p cm with two hemispheres,

each of surface area 2 l p (which again may be considered as equivalent to a
2

2
flat area l p , thanks to Eq.(D1#*)) glued to form a Planck scale Riemann sphere.

This sphere (or a disc of radius 2l p = ) of surface area

4 l p2 = (2l p ) 2 = ( ) 2

is the primeval piece of space-time containg the universe, signalling the birth of
space-time. The question of initial singularity is meaningless now, because there
was no space, time, and matter before the birth of this finite sphere, or disc. It
was a transcendental zone of pure number stripped of any physical event. The
question What happened before the big bang? may now be answered
perhaps: Nothing happened ! This interior shell is ruled by Planck physics, and it
is in this shell where strings and branes undergo dynamics according to
superstring or M-Theory. When Grand unification energy scale is reached, and
its larger symmetry gave way to Standard Model symmetry, huge amount of
magnetic monopoles were produced. But then the universe was much smaller in
size. Since that time the monopoles are living in the region wedged between the
cosmological shells which are governed respectively by the existing
supersymmetric regimes

(r ) min . = l p

345
and {i, j, k}, and {e1 , e 2 , e3 , e 4 , e5 , e6 , e7 } ,

where the last two sets are respectively pure quaternions and pure octonions
serving as units of hidden or compactified extra dimensions in Standard Model
physics. Of course black holes and formation of overdense compact objects in
ultra-high gravity require laws of Planck scale physics, although these objects still
live in the innermost core of our universe where supersymmetry signature of
planck regime does not hold. The existence of objects such as black holes and
ultra-dense compact objects in sub-planck scale is probably possible if we
consider these black holes as topological defects [153] (like magnetic
monopoles) that occurred due to phase transition from

( x) min . = l p to ( x) min . = ( i ).

The largest number of dimensions of physical world in standard model regime is

then 7 compactified dimensions dovetailed with 4 real space-time dimensions.
This 11 dimensions are all decompactified (i.e. become real) in the energy scale
of M-Theory [ 91]. There are probably two reasons why monopoles have not been
detected yet. Firstly, they now live in a region far far away from the observable
universe, beyond the surface of last scattering. If the magnetic charge is qm , and
quanta of electric charges are multiples of qe , then Dirac charge quantization rule
states magnetic monopoles satisfy

n c
qe = , where n = 0, 1, 2, 3, .....
2 qm

which may be rewritten as

( )
2
n c n c = n qp
2
n qp n
qm = = = q p = q p
2 qe 2 qe
2 qe 2 qe 2

qp
where = is dimensionless number and q p = c is planck charge.
q
e
Since qm is proportional to planck charge, and this magnetic charge term does
not contain G , monopoles do not live inside Planck shell of quantum gravity.
Monopoles now live in the fringes nearest to Planck shell, under the
supersymmetry regime of hidden extra dimensions spelt out in Eq.(D1%) below.
Since the simplest signature here is (r ) min . = ( i ), monopole charge is most
likely imaginary:
qm ( i ) qm ,

346
and therefore immune to detection.

The innermost core in the present-day universe is where Standard model physics
governs the quantum objects from stars to subatomic particles. It is in this core
that vacuum particles play the twin roles of dark energy and dark matter when
supersymmetry lets loose the extra hidden dimensional signature

(r ) min . = {i, j, k}, or {e1 , e 2 , e3 , e 4 , e5 , e6 , e7 } (D1%)

where the minimal distance in quantum theory is represented by the pure

quaternions, or the pure octonions, which are division algebras, with each
element equal to square root of (-1). We may call this cosmological phase
governed by unbroken supersymmetry, but actually, the preceding signature of
real dimensions has broken into this lower symmetry forcing physical space-
time to compactify 7 extra dimensions, and flaunting only 4 real dimensions. The
observable universe and the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR)
live in this innermost shell, and are ruled by extra concealed dimensions
displayed in Eq. (D1%).

Since the Planck shell undergoes cosmic acceleration, the shell inflates like the
surface of a pumped up balloon, and in the process, creates space and inflates
the next inner core containing the signature described in Eq. (D1%).
In the supersymmetry regime ( x ) min . = ( i ) vacuum particles live in imaginary
time, and are therefore unable to interact with each other. There is a fair chance
of these particles to be observationally proved as dark matter. These vacuum
particles (perhaps photinos, a superpartner of photon with spin tamped down

from to ) would then certainly be required to interpret the rotation curves of
2
galaxies. Vacuum particles as dark matter add up the attractive force to a
sizable amount that prevents the fringe stars to fly away from their trajectory
around the center of their galaxy.
We have already proved and discussed extensively in section [15] that dark
matter particles are really quantum vacuum particles that create an attractive
force of not-so-obvious quantum electrical origin. These charges might turn out
as color charges present in quarks and gluons. I have conjectured color charges
of quarks and gluons as imaginary-valued planck charges. Being imaginary-
valued, they are not accessible to devices operating in real space-time. This
difficulty in access may be one of the reasons why quarks and gluons cannot be
detected as free particles, and why they are forever confined in hadrons.
i
We know that momentum of a vacuum particle is imaginary, . It has no
2
speed in real space-time. This momentum may at most be likened to quantum

347
jittery motion of a particle which is otherwise classically at rest. This facet
separates vacuum particles from all other proposed forms of hot dark matter.
The vacuum particles are definitely cold dark matter. And our non-unitary theory
of quantum gravity thus qualifies as belonging to CDM model [153]. The force
exerted by dark matter is not of gravitational origin. We have already developed
a theory of Dark Matter from Quantum Electrogravity (QEG) in section [15], [15]
where gravity emerges from an underlying theory of quantum electric interaction
that differs from classical electrodynamics in that it is peppered with the constant
of quantum mechanics through planck charge q p = c . This allows us to
recognize gravity as a composite force, not a fundamental interaction of nature.

[18B] Dark Energy: Source of Repulsive

Repulsive Force

Let us consider a two-dimensional space fabric composed of vacuum particles

each of mass equal to a gauge boson mass in Planck scale, namely, mF .
Calculation of force of gravity proceeds in the same way as in case of dark
matter until we reach Eq.(62E!!) of section [15]:

m m c
FG = G F F2 = (D1a)
(2l p ) 4

This is also the force due to dark matter particles. But we now prove that this
same force (which is attractive in case of dark matter) now becomes repulsive to
display the effect produced by dark energy ! We rewrite Eq.(D1a) as

c q p
2
1 2 1
FG = mc c = Evac = =
2 2 4 (4)

( + q p )( + q p ) ( + q p )( + q p ) ( + q p )( + q p )
FG = 2 = [2( i )]2 = [2( x ) ]2 ,
(2 i ) min .

which discloses the repulsive nature of the same force that was attractive for
being imaginary-valued charges. Distance between any two vacuum particles
must be multiples of

348
 ( r ) min . = 2( x ) min . = 2( i ) .

If we calculate force between any two vacuum particles, force due to dark energy
becomes identical with Coulomb force FC between two real-valued planck
charges:

( + q p )( + q p )
FDE = = FC , (D1b)
r2

where separation between two free planck charges is

r = N ( r ) min . = 2 N ( x ) min . = 2 N ( i ) ,

and here N is an arbitrary integer. Eq.(D1b) states that dark energy creates a
repulsive force that tries to increase the separation r between the two charges.
This tends to create exra space between the two charges. The cumulative
process of creating extra space is responsible for driving the two galaxies further
apart. This force accelerates expansion of our universe, which was first reported
by two collaborations in 1998 through study of type Ia supernovae in distant
galaxies. This unanticipated result was compelling enough to accept dark energy
as something real that is happening in our universe.
If repulsion creates more space between two charges, perhaps by stretching the
space fabric, then is it also reasonable to think that attractive Coulomb force, (or,
for that matter, gravity) brings closer matter or unlike charges by sagging the
space fabric ? This attractive force will then reduce tension of space fabric (or
Dp branes ?) to sag down to locally curved space, and this feature may
connect locally the seemingly disjoint theories of quantum attractive force and
general relativity as a limit, reminding us of Bohrs correspondence principle
[179].
To detect the mechanism of dark energy that is driving acceleration of expansion
of our universe, a satellite called SNAP (SuperNova / Acceleration Probe) [322]
is slated to be launched in 2013.

[18C] Equation of State

349
Cosmologists are very keen to determine the equation of state for dark energy
because such an equation determines the behavior of the material (fluid) that
drives cosmic expansion into accelerating phase. Instead of fundamental mass
mF , we here stick to the vacuum particle mass (imc ) because this mass was
used to find the cosmological constant in section [11].
[11] I refer the reader to
follow that section, especially from Eq. (62aA).
Since minimal separation between two vacuum particles should be 2c , where
c is Compton wavelength of vacuum particle, the minimal separation is

2
2c = ,
( imc ) c

and a volume V = (2c ) instead of V = (c ) , i.e. 8V in place of V should

3 3

enter into calculation of cosmological constant. Since V includes two vacuum

particles, the energy density term should be rewritten as

= 2 Evac 2 Evac Evac

vac = = .
V 8V 4V

We recall Eqs.(62C), (62H) and (62GG1) of section [11],

[11] and find

1 c c c G G c 2 c
= 4
vac = = = .
4 2 (2 )3 64(m p )3 64 c c 64

This might alter the magnitude of the factor, but not the order of magnitude of .
We recall the Eq.(62Ff) of section [11] to obtain

c2 c c2
=
vac = . (D@1)

64 64

Since c = G, we rewrite the above equation as

2

= G
vac (D&1)
64

350
where G is positive. We simply calculate the gravitational force acting between
two vacuum particles each of mass (imc ) . The minimal separation to be kept
for a tape measure from the positions of one particle to another is equal to
2( x ) min . = 2( i ) . Therefore, force of gravity is

( imc )( imc ) i 2 mc2 G 2 G

FDE = G = G 2 = = (D1)
[2( i )]2 4i 4 4c 2 16

where we inserted the relation

= c.

To calculate pressure of (dark energy) fluid, we plug into Eq.(D1) minimal area in
this regime

( A) min . = [2( i )]2 = 4i 2 = (4).

The pressure is

FDE G 1 G
p= = = . (D2)
( A) min . 16 4 64

There is evidence that gravity switches from attractive to repulsive force from the
supersymmetry signature in this regime ( x ) min . = ( i ) . This minimal distance is
( x) min . = l p in Planck scale. Equating the two minimal distances, we are
surprised to find that

l p = (i), l p2 = (1),

G c 3
3 = ( 1), G = = ( c ), G < 0.
2
(D3)
c

Gravity in standard model physics is attractive in real space-time, but repulsive in

a compactified (imaginary-valued) direction. We now understand that force due
to dark energy in Eq.(D1) is repulsive on account of Eq.(D3)

G
FDE = > 0, (D4)
16

351
while the fluid pressure is negative

G
p= (D5)
64

since G is negative. When pressure on a gas is positive, it contracts in volume;

when pressure on the vacuum particle gas is negative, the gas expands with
acceleration because pressure contains force or acceleration. Negative pressure
sustains a constant density as the universe undergoes accelerated expansion.
We replace positive G in Eq.(D&1) by a negative G to arrive at energy density

= G
vac . (D6)
64

What is the equation of state ? Equation of state is defined as

Pressure p
w= = (D7)

Energy density vac

Collecting p and vac

from Eqs.(D5) and Eq. (D6), the equation of state is

p G 64
w= = = ( 1). (D8)

vac 64 G

w = ( 1) convinces us that the simplest model of dark energy, cosmological

constant is probably the model of choice for explaining accelerated
expansion of our universe. But this conclusion carries a caveat : Since G = c
2

switches into a negative G = ( c ) in extra imaginary direction, if speed of light

2

is tested to vary with space or time or both, then this result may go in favor of
some models of quintessence [317].
All reliable observations supports with the equation of state w = ( 1) [318]. In
the early 2010, WMAP 7 year results poured in to announce the equation of state
[ 326]

w = ( 0.98) ,

352
or, within the margin of error,

w = ( 1) .

For instance, two studies reported in 2003 have found the equations of state
[323]

w = (1.05)+0.15
0.20 ,

and [324]

w = (1.00)+0.14
0.24 .

Zhao et al [325] reported a survey in 2012 using latest supernovae data (SNLS 3
year or Union 2.1), along with data for redshift-space distortions due to peculiar
velocities of galaxy [153], and Cosmicrowave Background Radiation (CMBR),
and from BOSS, WiggleZ and 6dF, and found that cosmological constant
implying

w = ( 1)

is consistent with their findings, but concluded that

w < (1) at z 0.25

to
w > ( 1) at higher z

is mildly favored. According to WMAP data investigating CMBR together with

Sloan Digital Sky Survey and observations from type- Ia supernovae, Cosmic
density parameter currently satisfies the strict inequality

1 < 0.01.

This indicates very close to a flat universe.

[18D] Reversible Holographic Principle

353
We now discuss a thing or two about cosmic censorship conjecture [283].
1
A ubiquitous factor in black hole thermodynamics arises perhaps due to an
4
assumption that unit area in quantum gravity is l p2 . It may turn out that unit area
in quantum gravity is universal slope of string theory = 4l p2 , because we have
shown in Eq.(D6*) that ( r ) min. = 2l p . This calculates the minimal area as
( A)min. = ( r ) min.
2
= 4l p2 , and therefore interprets the black hole entropy as ratio of
horizon area and minimal area in quantum gravity:

1 A A A A
S BH = 2 = 2 = = . (D5)

4 l p 4l p ( A) min.

A 2D-brane is an ordinary surface membrane. An extra spatial dimension is

created from just a single spatial dimension. Since the diameter of the black hole
is DC = = 4l p2 , it is actually the total area of the spherical horizon surface of the
black hole formed out of a string of mass 2mc . A quantum black hole therefore
throws out all its contents from its interior to its horizon surface to shield the black
hole singularity from being a naked singularity. This has already been discussed
with concepts like holographic principle and cosmic censorship conjecture (but
not yet proved). It is also a counter-example of Maldacenas AdS/CFT
conjecture. The reason is : Maldacenas conjecture helps describe the N
dimensional bulk physics as equivalent to (N-1) dimensional boundary
phenomena. The space dimensions are reduced by one. But what is puzzling is
that the gravitational diameter DC may as well represent a circle or loop -----------
instead of a horizon radius of a 3D black hole. No experimental evidence exists
about the workings of the interior of a black hole. If this black hole is a loop, then
1D spatial dimension like diameter of a loop has been hiked to a 2D spatial
dimension in the form of area, DC = 4l p2 = ( A) min. clothed on horizon surface.
Perhaps the AdS/CFT correspondence is a reversible symmetry in the following
way

AdS CFT (D6)

( N ) dim. ( N 1) dim. (D7)

This may be a possible generalization of AdS/CFT correspondence, or

reversible holographic principle.

354
We have already proved that the black hole singularity and initial singularity are
perhaps ruled out by quantum theory. We have discussed about these
extensively in section [3A]. Penroses cosmic censhorship conjecture [283] of no
naked singularity in the universe, that is, space-time singularities are forever
shielded from being visible to any observer at infinity may be circumvented if
quantum theory can ensure that singularity theorems cannot be accommodated
in complex space-time. In addition to this, we need to accept that no event point
(or, endpoint) p (or, q ) exists in quantum regime, because of irreducible
uncertainties present in position coordinates of any event imposed by
Heisenbergs uncertainty relation. Since null intervals are not allowed by the
same uncertainty relation, light cone surfaces are simply excised in quantum
space-time (see arguments leading to statement Eq.(3G32a) of section [3A] )
leading to difficulty in constructing a local Minkowski patch (without event points)
in a Lorentzian manifold. Consequently, statements such as ( see Eq.(5.1) in p.
109 of [283] )

p R and R I ( q ) for some p, q M

(where p, q are event points in the manifold M ) are not appropriate in the
context of a quantum theory.
We shall now try to find a satisfactory answer to the most puzzling piece of
cosmological constant problem, that defies the intellectual power of humanspace.
It carries an eerie feeling associated with the coincidence of two densities at
exactly the same time when we came to know about their existence in nature.

[18E] Is There Any Problem of Coincidence?

The other segment of Cosmological Constant Problem is the so-called

Coincidence Problem. It is really puzzling to find that the densities of dark matter
and dark energy are nearly the same (differing by a factor of 2 or 3) [153] at the
present time ! It quite straightforward to understand that dark matter and radiation
density together was more dominant than dark energy density in earlier times
because the size of the universe was much smaller at that time, while in the
future time (by cosmological time scale) dark energy density will overtake the
dark matter density because dark energy content will increase with volume, but
dark matter density will fall off with increasing size of the universe. It seems that
an uncanny coincidence is happening just at the present epoch when we have

355
become cosmology-savvy, and technologically capable of measuring the two
densities !
But actually, there is nothing special about it. There is no coincidence to be
dreaded. There always were, are, will be vacuum particles. These particles will
simultaneously generate both attractive and repulsive forces. Since the source of
both the forces is the same stuff (vacuum particle mass / energy), the densities of
dark matter and dark energy are always equal. And these (had been always
equal, and) will remain equal for all epochs unless the physical law governing
quantum vacuum particles changes over cosmological time. And we, humans,
are not special either. We are not unique to find this coincidence of densities.

Perhaps it was Copernicus who is first credited to drive away the diehard notion
of We are special from humanspace, and light a lamp that burned its midnight
oil to remove darkness from a little corner of a room called the earth.
Nature hardly favors.

[19] What is a String ?

Perhaps the most long-sought question in string theory is What are strings?. We
go back to low energy phenomena and find that a particle (while reaching a
measuring device at a measurement event of its position) has two equiprobable
positions x1 = +i, and x2 = i. We are fooled by nature into believing that the
particle position is at the origin while the fact is the device just measures the
expectation value of position:

1 1
x = (+i) + (i) x = 0.
2 2

This result is easily reconciled with reality if we accept the reasonable statement
that the particle briskly commutes between two equiprobable positions

x1 = ( +i )

and x2 = (i )

along a route that crosses the real line at x = 0. The measuring device (placed
in real space-time) for finding the position eigenvalue cannot penetrate into the
extra imaginary dimension to capture the particle at the two imaginary-valued

356
positions x1 = ( +i ) and x2 = ( i ) . The device has only one chance of getting a
glimpse of the particle while the particle just crosses the real line at x = 0. During
a very brief finite time the device counts n number of passage of the same
particle at the real position x = 0. In effect the detector records the average of
positions recorded:

Sum of positions recorded 0 + 0 + 0...

Average position = = = 0.
Total number of detections n

One thing is certain: The particle must undergo brisk simple harmonic vibration
(see Fig. (11) below) along the path extending from the two extremes ( x1 ) = +i
and ( x2 ) = i . The midpoint of the path is x = 0. The particle executes vibration
along the extra imaginary direction. But what happens to the real line containing
the position x = 0? We have already established that space has some reality, as
extensively experimentally verified in different predictions of general relativity
(like bending of light). If that is correct, then the quantum particle, a D0-brane,
goes through the real line element briskly up and down. While doing this the

Fig.(11): A quantum particle or D0-brane briskly commutes between

two equiprobable positions (+i) and (-i) in a path along an extra
imaginary direction containing its average position x = 0. At low
energy scale the minimal length of string is determined by
supersymmetry signature ( x ) min . = ( i ). The string extends
between two end-points fixed at (+i ) and (i ). In low energy
physics, the minimal string length is (ls ) min . = 2i. This implies

357
 that the string then lives in extra imaginary dimension, and
therefore it cannot be observed in low energy phenomena. In
this regime, the minimal string length is
Re[(ls ) min . ] = Re(2i ) = 0. At stringy scale the minimal string
length becomes, thanks to supersymmetry switch, (ls ) min . = 2l p ,
and the string becomes observable. Since 2l p is minimal string
length, this minimal string vibration cannot ever be stopped. This
irreducible vibration of string owes its origin to minimal (nonzero)
position uncertainty, a built-in in Heisenberg`s uncertainty
relation. String theory, therefore, can be recognized as a
necessary ingredient required by quantum mechanics for its self-
consistency and its nonzero vacuum energy.

Fig.(12): The particle plucks the real line element at x = 0 and the real
(is it real now?) line vibrates with the D0-brane particle on the ( x - i)
vibrating plane with transverse amplitude (+i). The vibrating real (?) line

358
 causes a tear around the origin in the real space containing X-Y axes.
The physical (but not real) line element between two minimal positions
extending from (-i) to (+i ) is called the string. This string is of length
ls = 2i in low energy physics, and becomes of minimal length ls = 2l p
in planck scale. The plucked point x = 0 no longer exists in real space,
but oscillates like a yoyo bob along the extra imaginary dimension i .
The path of this point x = 0 is called the string. This string ends on two
points (+i ) and (i ) which are situated on two D2-branes parallel to
XY plane. Only one transverse vibration has been considered.

particle or D0-brane must rip the real X-Y plane and create a run in it. The particle
quickly stretches the real line element (see Fig.(12)) to two maximal
displacements (or amplitude) +i and i in quick succession. The net effect is:
The particle plucks the real line element at x = 0 , and the (real?) line element
executes a transverse vibration along the extra imaginary dimension each time
going through the run. This vibrating physical path along the imaginary direction
reaching the extreme positions ( x) min. = ( i ) and ( x) min. = ( +i ) in one vibration
is a string. This is the string vibration corresponding to minimal amplitude (+i ) .
All possible vibrations of strings of various lengths ls of arbitrary amplitude ( +iN )
are possible where N is an integer. Since the two end-points of the string are
fixed, and do not move, they satisfy (not exactly) Dirichlet boundary conditions
[89]. Since the string of length ls = 2i stretches along the imaginary direction i ,
the string remains unobservable in sub-plancian energy scale. When
supersymmetry signature changes to ( x) min . = l p , the imaginary direction gives in
to generate a real extra dimension with a unit equal to l p . The minimal string,
now of length 2l p , vibrates along the path joining the minimal positions of string
end-points ( x) min . = (+l p ) and ( x) min . = (l p ) . In fact this minimal vibration is not
at all a vibration, because the string (of length 2l p ) extends upto, and ends on
the points ( x) min . = ( l p ) fixed on two D2-branes parallel to XY plane. It cannot
go beyond the D2-branes in its minimal vibration. This is an example of a static
relativistic string. This requires two vacuum particles or two D0-branes (each of
mass mc ) each attached to one D2-brane. The D0-branes of same mass repel
each other, and are responsible for dark enrgy producing repulsive gravity. The
result is: the superstring extended between the two D2-branes is maximally
stretched taut and stable. They do not and cannot come closer to produce
tachyons which are hallmark of instability in string theory (see p.85 of [246] ). We

359
can prove and confirm our earlier result that planck energy is actually the
maximal tension from the simple formula [89]

T0 = 0c 2 (E1)

where T0 and 0 are string tension and mass of string per unit length. The total

mass of the minimal string is 2mc = . The length of the string is 2l p when
c
supersymmetry signature is stringy: ( x) min. = l p . If we are to satisfy Dirichlet
boundary conditions [89] at the endpoints we find that the origin endpoint x = 0 is
not available here because of the irreducible position uncertainty x 0. To
reconcile the two situations we need to double the string length: a 2a. Our
minimal string now has a string length 2a = 2l p . Therefore the potential energy of
the string is now

V = T0 (2a ) . (E2)
The string tension is then
V
T0 = . (E3)
2a
The total mass of the minimal string is 2mc and and total length is 2l p . Then rest
mass per unit length is

2mc 2mc
0 = = (E3)
2a 2l p
Since
c G
m pl p = = = 2mc (E4)
G c3 c
we find
2mc m pl p 1
0 = = = m
2l p 2l p 2 p
(E5)

Since rest energy per unit length is string tension, we obtain, using Eq. (E5),

V (2mc )c 2 m pl p 2 1 2
T0 = = = c = m p c = 0c .
2
(E6)
2l p 2l p 2
2l p

360
This tension is half the planck energy. Planck energy becomes string tension only
in case of gravitons, i.e. quantum gravity ! To prove it we consider a graviton
created by 4 units of fundamental mass constant mc , which we have discussed in
in Eq. (16Mq1) of Section [16].
[16] Then

V (4mc )c 2 2(m pl p ) 2
T0 = = = c = m p c = 0c .
2 2
(E7)
2l p 2l p
2l p

As long anticipated, quantum gravity equipped with gravitons just starts at a

string tension exactly equal to planck energy!
But what stuff plucks the string? We know that only spin is irreducible at all
energy scales. Therefore when string tension T0 is solely responsible for spin or
angular momentum of a particle (or D0-brane) of mass mc the torque = T0 , and
1
from Eq.(E6), = T0 = m p c 2 . According to definition of torque [300]
2

dL
= ,
dt
where L is angular momentum of the particle. In Planck scale physics, the
lp
minimal time is not 0, but planck time t p = . Instead of standard derivative,
c
we are now forced to convert it to Planck derivative (named in honor of Planck)
where the independent variable time t cannot be arbitrarily close to 0, but just
stops decreasing at time t = t p . Then the torque

dL L L L L L
= = lim = = = = c. (E8)
dt t 0 t t t =t p t p (l p / c) l p

dy
For any arbitrary derivative , the corresponding Planck derivative is defined
dx
as

dy dy
:= (E9)
dx x p

where x p is the value that x takes up in Planck scale. Since for a single D0-
brane rotating in a circle (or, along the great circle of a sphere) of radius l p ,

361
 1
torque = tension T0 = m p c 2 , we find from above the intrinsic angular
2
momentum or spin of the 1D0-brane particle as equal to

l T l
s =L = p = 0 p (E9a)
c c

where the spin s of the particle comes out as

1
m pc2 l p
T l = 1 (m l )c = 1 (2m )c = m c = c = .
s = 0 p =
2
p p c c
c c 2 2 2c 2

It is ultimately the irreducible minimal volume at Planck scale that sends the disc
APQ (containing the D0-brane) in (vibratory) motion to and fro along AB (see
Fig.(13) below). Heisenberg uncertainty relation rules out the position of the disc
at O, and offers instead two equiprobable positions (+i ) and (i ) for the disc.
The disc briskly commutes between these two positions sweeping out a
cylindrical volume equal to Vp = ( l p ) (2l p ) = (2 )l p . Since a weird relation
2 3

2 = 1 rules in this realm, the cylindrical volume ultimately comes out as planck
volume Vp = l p . It seems plausible that nature needs disc ( or, string) vibration
3

along AB to avert emergence of zero volume or singularity in string theory. Then

what plucks the string? The nonzero uncertainty needed by Heisenbergs
uncertainty relation of quantum mechanics to sustain a nonzero minimal volume
turns out to hold the key to sring vibration.

This connects origin of string theory directly from quantum mechanics.

To realize the above statement into fact, the x component of the radius vector
stretches to maximal values (+i ) and (i ) through the minimal value 0 at the
origin O of the XYZ axes (see Fig. (13) below). In fact the disc APQ containing
the D0-brane at A vibrates between A and B retaining its minimal radius intact.
The disc, however, never goes through the position x = 0 .

362
 Fig.(13): A D0-brane of mass mc rotates along a loop of radius l p
in the counter-clockwise direction in the YZ plane. The disc
containing this loop vibrates simple harmonically in a
direction transverse to the plane of disc APQ, with mean
position and maximal positions at O and (i ) respectively.
There is no mode of disc (string) vibration along the
diameter of the loop, but the disc vibrates along an extra
imaginary direction. At Planck scale, the extra imaginary
direction becomes real such that the separation OA = a (l p ) ,

where a is unit vector along OA .

Instead of rotation of the D0-brane along the loop, it may also rotate along the
great circle of a sphere of radius (+i ) or (i ) . This mechanism interprets internal
1
structure of an electron or any spin- particle. In Planck scale, the extra
2
imaginary direction is morphed into an extra real dimension along OA . At this
high energy scale, the string vibration along OA would be observable to a Planck
scale camcorder.

To obtain the internal structure of a spin-1 particle, for example, a photon, we just
add another bead of D0-brane of mass mc placed at the symmetrically opposite

363
end of the former D0-brane. The composite system now contains two D0-branes
of total mass 2mc rotating as a two-body system along the loop of diameter 2l p ,
or along the great circle of a sphere of radius (i ) (see Fig. (14A) and Fig.(14B)
below). (See also p.61 for a stringy picture of photon in [246] ). In Fig.(14B)

Fig. (14A): Two D0-branes in a spin-1
particle rotate with their
positions fixed on the loop
of radius l p .
Fig.(14B): The disc (which is the
string) shown as a solid
circle vibrating between
(+i ) and (i ) in a
direction normal to the
dotted circle.

the two D0-branes rotate (with their positions fixed) along the solid loop in
counter-clockwise direction, while disc containing the loop vibrates simple
harmonically in a direction normal to the plane of the disc. The maximal positions
of the vibrating disc are (i ) .
3
For a spin- particle (for instance, gravitino ------ a superpartner of graviton) we
2
add one more D0-brane to the structure of a spin-1 particle. Only an equilateral
triangle (with the three zero branes at its vertices) qualifies as the symmetrical
figure circumscribing the disc. The separation between any two D0-branes is
evidently greater than the minimal distance l p (see Fig. (15)).

364
 3
Fig. (15): The internal structure of a gravitino, or any spin- particle.
2
The three D0-branes occupy the vertices of an equilateral
triangle. The length of a side of the triangle is greater than
planck length. The radius of the circle is planck length.

To find the structure of a graviton, a spin-2 particle, we place another D0-brane

on the disc rim. Now four zero branes naturally pick up the four corners of a
square area to symmetrize the figure. The disc is inscribed in the square of side
length equal to 2l p , the diameter of the disc (see Fig.(16)). (See also p. 61 for a
stringy picture of a graviton in [246], and Figure 7.7 in p.299 of [189] ). The area
of the square is ( A) min . = (2l p ) = 4l p = , the slope parameter of string theory.
2 2

Since

365
 Fig.(16): The square with four D0-branes constitute a spin-2 graviton. The
square vibrates between the extrema positions (+i ) and (i ) ,
which represents a string vibration.

requires at least an area equal to = 4l p2 , any quantum theory of gravity, for

instance string theory, must contain the slope parameter into its framework.
The Bekenstein-Hawking entropy of a black hole thus requires :

1 A A A
S BH = 2 = 2 = . (E10)
4 l p 4l p

The relationship between D0-branes and spin of supersymmetric particles thus

depends on a hierarchial procedure. The procedure changes the internal
structure of the particle as well as its spin. If the particle is electrically charged, an
extra mass equal to charge squared would have to be added to particle mass. It
should be emphasized that string vibrations can include various modes that are
multiples of minimal separation.

366
 [20]
[20] Closing
Closing Words

The principal aim of this paper has been to find the theoretical value of
cosmological constant in a logically consistent way from quantum theory. In the
process, I found that Heisenberg`s position-momentum uncertainty relation plays
a crucial role in revealing a built-in minimal distance present in energy scale of
Standard Model particle physics. This led to finding three supersymmetry
signatures in the form of minimal distance separating two quantum particles.
From these we found the core properties of supersymmetry by using Grassmann
algebra. Supersymmetry signatures allowed us to transport quantum dynamics
from electroweak to Planck to transplanckian energy scales. I would like to
emphasize that without explicit use of supersymmetry (that prepared many
strange-looking relations) I could not have been able to determine the fine-tuned
magic number 10 123 for the dimensionless cosmological constant. Of course, I
tried hard to interpret these strange relations by invoking the well-established
dualities of string theory. In an almost transparent way, determination of
cosmological constant depended very much on the use of supersymmetry,
especially on the relation 2 = m p . Since the theoretical value we derived for
cosmological constant is in excellent agreement with the results obtained in
astronomical observations to date, we may expect that perhaps the existence of
supersymmetry is already an experimentally tested symmetry of nature. Most
physicists were dying for an experimental verification of this symmetry, however
remotely linked. I think the two groups led by S. Perlmutter and A. Reiss ( who
conducted the observations for dark energy or cosmological constant ) had
already established the existence of supersymmetry back in 1998 ! This is
perhaps an indicator that supersymmetry is an ingredient in the workings of
nature. If this is really an indirect test on the surface, validating existence of
supersymmetry then it will surely give a much-needed shot in the arm in studying
string theory and other theories like MSSM that require supersymmetry as the
linchpin.
The most novel attempt in this work (in my opinion) has been to try to understand
what is a string? While doing so I had to probe the internal structure of
elementary particles in terms D0-branes. There are many results (already
obtained from other models of quantum gravity) that were obtained while
formulating this non-unitary model of quantum gravity. Description of these here
again would surely try the patience of the reader.
I shall be grateful if errors of any kind (and there are certainly many) are
communicated to me at the earliest. Before concluding, I must emphasize the
obvious: Most of the theoretical results in this paper ------- however consistent

367
and convincing --------- are at most tentative, ------- before being supported by
robust experimental results. Nevertheless, the current set of physical laws,
however well-established in this continuous process of quest, are not immune to
change. This is nicely expressed by Earl of Rochester (1647-1680) in a famous
quote:

Since tis Natures law to change,

Constancy alone is strange.

Perhaps theres no knowing if this continuous process has an end ! Rabindranath

Tagore (who discussed physical reality { before Einstein launched the famous
EPR paper [327] in 1935} with Einstein in 1930, as reported in New York Times
[328] ) captured this inexhaustibility of meaningful scientific quest tangentially in a
cool statement: Theres no end, surely. Who then has the last word ? [329].

Acknowledgements

I am vastly indebted to the following and many others for valuable help and
inspiration, and even for inspirational action at a distance :
Abhay Ashtekar, Abhaypada Banerjee, Abhijit Sarkar, Ajoy Kumar Nag, Alak
Banerjee, Alok Chakraborti, Amal Kumar Banerjee, Amar Bose, Amar De,
Amartya Sen, Amitabha De, Amit Kumar Ganguly, Animikh Biswas, Anita
Sandilya, Anjan Banerjee, Anjan Dutta, Apurba Ghosh, Archan Shubhra
Majumdar, Arun Chatterjee, Arun Kumar Biswas, Ashis Sen, Ashok Banerjee,
Ashok Roy Pradhan, Ashutosh Sarkar, Asit Dasgupta, Asmita Sandilya, Avijit
Lahiri, Baidyanath Basu, Bechugopal Dey, Bhupendra Narayan Ghosh,
Bidhubhusan Nanda, Bijon Roy, Bimal Ghosh, Birendranath Guha, Biswanath
Chakraborty, Biswanath Poddar, Chandranath Patra, Chittaranjan Kundu, Chris
Isham, Debabrata Chowdhury, Debashis Bhattacharya, Debashis Ghosh,
Debashis Mukherjee, Debkumar Bandyopadhyay, Debu Chatterjee, Dipankar
Home, Dipak Chatterjee, Dipak Kumar Saha, Dipan Mitra, Dipten Pal, Durgapada
Banerjee, Gopal Bhattacharya, Gouri Shankar Ghosh, Himadri Datta Chowdhury,
Hirak Chatterjee, Rev. Jacques de Bonhome, Jahar Guhathakurta, Jayanta
Chowdhuri, Jayant Vishnu Narlikar, Jayanta Mukherjee, Jhulan Dasgupta,
Kalpana Bhattacharya, Kamal Mukherjee, Kanai Bag, Kanai Saha, Kanailal
Ghatak, Keshab Bhattacharya, Krishna Mohan Ghosh, Kushal Goswami,
Mahadeb Bhattacharya, Manish Ghosh, Mihir Dasgupta, Milinda De, Mithilesh
Gupta, Mithun Banerjee, Mrinal Bhattacharya, Mrinal Pal, Namita (Chatterjee)
Ghosh, Narayan Banerjee, Naresh Dadhich, N. M. Mukunda, Niren Paul, Onkar

368
Ghosh, Palash Baran Pal, Paritosh Basak, Paritosh Sandilya, Partha Sarkar,
Pradeep Sharma, Pradip K Chakrabarti, Prabhas Naskar, Pravat Pal Chowdhury,
Prasun Mullick, Ramanath Cowsik, Ramenbabu (Rahara), Ramkrishna Ghosh,
Ranjan Dutta, Ranjan Ghosh, Reetam Chatterjee, Sabita (Chatterjee) Mukherjee,
Sabita Mukherjee, Samadhan Sarkar, Samir Ghosh, Samir Majumder, Samit
Bhanja, Sanchayita Chatterjee, Santanu Ghosh, Santupada Majumder,
Satyabrata Bhaduri, Sarvajeet Mukherjee, Shailaj Chakraborty, Shambhu De,
Shankar Ghosh, Shankar Sengupta, Sharmila Sen, Somnath Ghosh, Srirup
Pathak, Subhashis Mukherjee, Subhro Mukherjee, Subir Chowdhury, Sudarshan
Chowdhury, Sudhin Pradhan, Sudipta Saha Roy, Sukanta Ghosh, Sukumar
Dutta, Sunil Chatterjee, Sushanta Ghosh, Sushanta Lahiri, Sushanta Roy,
Swadeshranjan Mukherjee, Swapan Saha, Tamal Kumar Dasgupta, Tanmoy
Kushari, Tapan Das, Tapan Dutta, Tapan Burman, Tarun Talukder, and Yash
Pal.

I feel fortunate for having chances to discuss some topics with Abhay Ashtekar,
Alak Banerjee, Amar De, Animikh Biswas, Ashok Roy Pradhan, Ashok Sen, Asit
Bhattacharyya, Bikashranjan Sinha, Chiranjib Bandyopadhyay, Chris Isham,
Debananda Bhattacharya, Dhrubeswar Sur, Dipankar Home, Kip Thorne, Kushal
Goswami, Mithilesh Gupta, Narayan Banerjee, Naresh Dadhich, N.M.Mukunda,
Nemai Chandra Chandra, Palash Baran Pal, Parijat Biswas, Paritosh Basak,
Pathik Guha, Pradeep Sharma, Ramkrishna Ghosh, Ranjan Ghosh, Sekhar
Sengupta, Shankar Ghosh, Shankar Sengupta, Srijib Biswas, Stephen W.
Hawking, Sukhomoy Biswas, Sushanta Dattagupta, Umashankar Purkait and
Yash Pal. I would not have access to many of the physicists were it not for Prof.
Yash Pals untrammeled generosity. Prof Jayant Vishnu Narlikar unknowingly
and nonlocally helped me decide to pick up science course when I was an
eighth-grader.

I am specially indebted to an anonymous referee of Physical Review and Animikh

Biswas for their priceless suggestion: Say it with Mathematics. I sincerely
appreciate helpful and considerate suggestions I received some years before
from Bernd Crasemann and Peter W. Milonni through communications from The
Physical Review.

Apologies to anybody I have forgotten.

I am indebted to All India Reserve Bank Employees Association, arXiv.org,

Calcutta Mathematical Society, Eqworld, Foreign Publishers Agency (Kolkata),
Google, Google books, Google Scholar, Indian Association for Cultivation of
Science Library (Kolkata), Indian Institute of Science (Bangalore), Seth
Anandram Jaipuria College (Kolkata), Kumar Ashutosh Institution (Branch) at
Dum Dum (Kolkata), Library of Science College (Rajabazar) at Kolkata, Library of
Presidency University at Kolkata, Mangalik Cooperative Housing Society Limited,
(Kolkata), National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT),
Pathik Guha of Desh( a bimonthly Bengali magazine), Physics Today,
PlanetMath, Pramana Journal of physics, Ramakrishna Mission Boys Home

369
(Rahara) in West Bengal, Reserve Bank of India (Kolkata), Reserve Bank
Employees Association (Kolkata), Saha Institute of Nuclear Physics, Sarat Book
House (Kolkata), Scholarpedia, Scientific American, Shilpakala Shiksha Mandir
(Kolkata), St. Xaviers College (Kolkata), The Indian Physical Society (Kolkata),
The Royal Society( London); The Telegraph (Calcutta edition), University of
Calcutta, Library of Science College (Rajabazar) at Kolkata, Wikipedia,
Wikibooks, WolframMathWorld, and numerous websites (including the inimitable
John Baezs) for enormous help.

This work would not have been possible without having access to, and reading
the written minds of the authors whose hard work in their works are saved in the
references cited below. Obviously, many others remain unmentioned not sans my
appreciation.

My tenth-grade physics teacher Bijon Roy instilled into us the joy of physics that
still lives young inside me. He was a cool pioneer who taught us excerpts from
differential and integral calculus to derive Newtons laws of motion in our tenth
grade about 50 years ago. We did not feel then the slightest sense of struggle to
cope with this early exposure. We were under a spell of learning.

And finally, I owe the deepest debt of gratitude to Jharna Chatterjee, Ranabir
Ghosh Roy and Subrata Samaddar for their patience, understanding and
continuing support.

References

[1] Isham, C. J., (1995) Lectures on Quantum Theory: Mathematical and

Structural Foundations. Imperial College Press, London.

[2] Szekeres, P., (2004) A Course In Modern Mathematical Physics.

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, p.371.

[3] Geroch, R., (1985) Mathematical Physics. The University of Chicago

Press, Chicago and London, pp.324-333.

[4] See Ref. [3], p.329.

[5] EDM 2: Encyclopaedic Dictionary of Mathematics, Second Edition (1996),

Mathematical Society of Japan, ed. Kiyosi It. The MIT Press, Cambridge,
Massachusetts and London, England.

[6] See Ref. [3]. p.333; Akhiezer, N.I. and Glazman, I.M.,(1961) Theory of Linear
Operators in Hilbert Space, F. Ungar Publishing Company, New York.

370
[7] See Ref. [2], p.360 : Theorem 13.23, Example 13.19, p.361-362: Example
13.20;

[7A] Merzbacher, E., (1999) Quantum Mechanics, Third Edition, John Wiley
& Sons (Asia) Pte. Ltd., pp.217-219.

[8] Rae, A. I. M., (2002) Quantum Mechanics, Fourth Edition, Institute of

Physics Publishing, Bristol and Philadelphia, p.23.

[8A] < www.scribd.com/doc/5998949/Quantum-mechanics-course >

[9] Derbyshire, J. (2004) Prime Obsession: Bernhard Riemann and its greatest
unsolved problem in Mathematics, Penguin, New York, p.36.

[10] Dixon, G. M. (1994) Division Algebras: Octonions, Quaternions, Complex

Numbers and the Algebraic Design of Physics, Kluwer Academic Publishers,
Dordrecht.

[11] Apostol, T. M. (1967) Calculus, Second Edition, Volume 1: One variable

Calculus, with an Introduction to Linear Algebra, Waltham, MA, Blaisdell,
pp.17-19.

[12] Banks, T.(1997), arXiv: hep-th/9710231 v2.

[ 12 ] Howard, D., Revisiting the Einstein-Bohr Dialogue in < http:

//www.nd.edu/.../Revisiting%20Einstein-Bohr%20Dialogue.pdf >

[12A] Wess, J and Bagger, J.(1992), Supersymmetry and Supergravity.Princeton

University Press, Princeton.

[12B] See Ref.[2], p.157.

[12C] See exercise 7(ii) of p.329 of Needham, T.(1997),Visual Complex Analysis,

Oxford University Press, Oxford.

[13] Courant, R., Robbins, H.,(1969), What is Mathematics?, Oxford University

Press, Oxford, New York, p.56.

[14] See Ref.[13], p.89.

[15] Zwiebach, B.,(2004), A First Course in String Theory, Cambridge

University Press, Cambridge, UK.

[16] Khuri, N. N. , arXiv: hep-ph/9405406.

[17] Maggiore, M. (1993), Phys. Lett. B 319,

319 83.

371
[18] Maggiore, M. (1994), Phys. Rev. D 49,
49 5182.

[19] Kempf, A., arXiv: hep-th/9405067.

[20] Kempf, A., Mangano, G., Mann, R. B. (1995), arXiv: hep-th/9412167; Phys.
Rev. D 52:
52 1108.

[20A] Townsend, J.S. (1992), A Modern Approach to Quantum Mechanics,

McGraw-Hill, New York, pp.150-151.

[20B] Wikipedia: Dirac delta Function.

[20C] See Ref. [20B].

[20D] Wolfram Mathworld : Delta Function.

[21] Maggiore, M. (1993), Phys. Lett. B 319,

319 83.

[22] Kempf, A. (1994), J. Math. Phys. 35,

35 4483.

[23] Kempf, A., hep-th/9405067.

[24] Maggiore, M., arXiv: hep-th/9301067 v1.

[25] Veneziano, G. (1986), Europhys. Lett. 2; Proc. of Texas Superstring

Workshop (1989).

[26] Gross, D. (1988), Proc. of ICHEP, Munich.

[27] Amati, D., Ciafaloni, M., Veneziano, G. (1989), Phys. Lett. B 216,
216 41.

[28] Amati, D., Ciafaloni, M., Veneziano, G. (1987), Phys. Lett. B 197,
197 81; Int. J.
Mod. Phys. A 3, 1615 (1988); Nucl. Phys. B 347,
347 530 (1990).

[29] Gross, D. J., Mende, P. F. (1987), Phys. Lett. B 197,

197 129; Nucl. Phys. B 303,
303
407 (1988).

[30] Ciafaloni, M. (1992), Preprint DFF 172/9/91.

[30A] Paschos, E. A. (2007), Electroweak Theory, Cambridge University Press,

Cambridge.

[30 A1 ] Balaban,T., Brydges, D., Imbrie, J., Jaffe, A.(1984), Ann. Physics, 158,
158
pp.281-319.

[30 A2 ] Fukuda, Y. et al (1998), Phys. Rev. Lett., 81,

81 1562.

372
[30 A3 ] Schaefer, B.E. (1998), arXiv: astro-ph/9810479v1.

[30 A4 ] Sivaram, C., (2007), arXiv: 0707.0058v1 [gr-qc]

[ 30 A5 ] Liddle, A., (2003), An Introduction to Modern Cosmology, Second Edition,

John Wiley & Sons Ltd, West Sussex, England. (see Neutrino mass p.
211; Cosmological constant p. 72.,), ISBN 978-0-19-956084-4.

[30B] Sinha, U., Couteau, C., Medendrop, Z., Sollner, I., Laflamme, R., Sorkin,
R., Weihs.,(2008), arXiv:0811.2068 v1 [quant-ph].

[30C] Hecht, Eugene., (1990), Optics, Second Edition, p. 18. , Addison-Wesley

Publishing Co., MA.

[31] Kato, M. (1990), Phys. Lett. B 245,

245 43.

[32] Garay, L.G. (1995), Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 10,

10 145; arXiv: gr-qc/9403008.

[33] Bina, A., Jalalzadeh, Maslehi, A. (2010), arXiv: 1001.0861, v2, (gr-qc).

[34] Kempf, A., Mangano, G., Mann,R. B.,(1995), Phys. Rev. D 52, 1108.,
arXiv:hep-th/9412167.

[35] Kempf, A. (1997), J. Phys. A 30,

30 2093; arXiv: hep-th/9604045.

[35A] Lang, S. (1993), Algebra, Third Edition, Addison Wesley, Reading, Mass.

[36] Chatterjee, P.K. (2004), arXiv: quant-ph/0412144.

[37] Chatterjee, P.K. (2005), arXiv: physics/0509219.

[38] Minawalla, S., van Raamsdonk, M., Seiberg, N. (2002), J. High Energy Phys.
02,
02 020; arXiv: hep-th/9912072.

[39] Flgge, S. (1971), Practical Quantum Mechanics, Problem 59, Eq.(59.5),

Narosa Publishing House, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg.

[40] Carroll, S. (2004) Spacetime and Geometry, Addison Wesley, San

Francisco, CA., ISBN 0-8053-8732-3.

[41] Hawking, S.W., Penrose, R. (1970), Proc. Roy. Soc. London A 314,
314 pp.529-
548.

[42] Hawking, S.W., Ellis, G.F.R. (1973), The large Scale Structure of Spacetime,
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

373
[43] Dadhich, N. (2005), gr-qc/0511123 v2.

[44] Kar, S., Sengupta, S. (2007), Pramana - Journal of Physics, 69,

69 1, pp.49-76.

[45] Damour, T. (1996), gr-qc/9606080 v1.

[46] Damour, T. (2009), arXiv:0906.3174 v1 [gr-qc].

[47] Damour, T., Polyakov, A.M. (1994), Nucl. Phys.B 423,532.

423

[48] Bohm, D., Hiley, B.J., (1994), Undivided Universe, Routledge.

[49] Adelberger,E.(2001), Class. Quantum Grav.18

18,
18 2397.

[50] Turyshev, S.G.(2008), arXiv:0806.1731 v2 [gr-qc]

[51] Kolodziejczak, J. J., Mester, J.,(2007), Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 16, 2215-2226.

[52] Kamke, E.(1948), Differentialgleichungen Losungsmethoden und

Losngen,Chelsea Publishing Co. NY.,p.440,Eq. no. (10).

[53] Gradshteyn, I. S., Ryzhik, I. M.,(2000), Table of Integrals, Series, and

Products, 6th ed., Academic Press, CA., p.921, Eq. no.(7).

[54] Regge, T. (1959), Nuovo Cim. 14,

14 951.

[55] Regge, T. (1960), Nuovo Cim. 18,

18 947.

[56] Hwa, R.C. (1967), Phys. Rev. 162,

162 1706.

[57] Barger, V., Phillips, R. J. N. (1975), Phys. Rev. D, 12, 2623.

[58] Hothi, N., Bisht, S., (2009), Indian J. Phys., 83,

83 339.

[58A] Martin, S. P., (1997), Supersymmetry Primer, arXiv: hep-th/9709356.

[58B] Kane, G.L., Shifman, M., (eds) (2000), The Supersymmetric World: The
Beginnings of the Theory, World Scientific, Singapore.

[58C] Weinberg, S., (1999), The Quantum Theory of Fields, Volume 3:

Supersymmetry, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

[58D] Wess, J., Bagger, J., (1992), Supersymmetry and Supergravity, Princeton
University Press, Princeton.

[59] Cooper, F., Khare, A., Sukhatme, U., (1994), arXiv: hep-th/9405029v2

374
[60] Gangopadhyay, A., Mallow, J.V., Rasinariu, C., (2010), Supersymmetric
Quantum Mechanics, World Scientific Publishing Co., NJ., USA.

[61] Sverdlov, R., (2012), arXiv:1202.4449v1 [physics.gen-ph]

[62] Browne, J.M., (2009),Grassmann Algebra: Exploring Extended Vector

Algebra with Mathematica [ Published online: <
google.com/site/grassmannalgebra/ > ]

[63] Hestenes, D., (2002), New Foundations for Classical Mechanics ,(2nd ed.),
Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, p.39.

[64] Doran, C., Lasenby, A., (2003), Geometric Algebra for Physicists, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, UK.

[65] Marchiafava, S., Piccinni, P., Pontecorvo, M, (eds.) (2001),Quaternionic

Structures in Mathematics and Physics,World Scientific, New Jersey.

[66] Lewis, D. W.,(2006), Irish Math. Soc. Bulletin 57,pp.41-64.

57

[67] Perlmutter, S. et al (1999), The Astrophysical Journal 517 (2), 565-586;

arXiv: astro-ph/9812133v1.

[68] Reiss, A. G. et al (1998), The Astronomical Journal 116 (3), 1009-1038;

arXiv:astro-ph/9805201v1

[69] Perlmutter, S., Schmidt, B. P., (2003), arXiv:astro-ph/0303428v1.

[70] Armendariz-Picon, C., Mukhanov, V., Steinhardt, P. J., (2000) Phys. Rev.
Lett. 85,
85 4438-4441; arXiv: astro-ph/0004134v1.

[71] Zlatov, I., Wang, L., Steinhardt, P. J., (1999) Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 5, 896-899;
arXiv: astro-ph/9807002v2

[72] Chimento, L. P., Jakubi, A. S., Pavon, D., Zimdahl, W., (2003) Phys. Rev.
D., 67, 8; arXiv: astro-ph/0303145v1.

[73] Hu, B., Ling, Y., (2006) Phys.Rev. D. 73.123510;

73 arXiv:hep-th/0601093v1.

[74] The CMS Collaboration (11 September,2011), arXiv:1109.2352v1 [hep-ex];

CERN-PH-EP/2011-138, 2011/09/13.

[75] Answers.com/Q/ No two objects can occupy the same space at the same
time?

[76] Shirkov, D., (2001) Fifty Years of Renormalization Group, CERN Courrier 41

375
 (7).

[77] Shankar, R., (1980), Principles of Quantum Mechanics, Second Edition,

Plenum Press, New York and London.

[78] Milonni, P.W., (1994) The Quantum Vacuum: An Introduction to Quantum

Electrodynamics, Academic Press, ISBN 0-12-498080-5.

[79] Brax, P. et al, (eds) (2002) Proceedings of the XVIIIth IAP Colloquium,On
the nature of Dark Energy, Paris (1-5 July, 2002).

[80] Zlatev, I., Wang, L., Steinhardt, P., (1999) Phys. Rev. Lett., 82 (5):896-899;
arXiv: astro-ph/9807002.

[81] Steinhardt, P., Wang, L., Zlatev, I., (1999) Phys. Rev. D 59 (12): 123504;
arXiv: astro-ph/9812313.

[82] Andrianopoli, L. et al, (1996), arXiv: hep-th/9605032.

[83] Reiss, A. G. et al, (1998) The Astronomical Journal, 116 (3), 1009-1038;
arXiv: astro-ph/9805201v1.

[84] Perlmutter, S. et al. (1998), The Astrophysical Journal, 517 (2), 565-586;
arXiv: astro-ph/9812133.

[85] Perlmutter, S., Schmidt, B.P., (2003), arXiv: astro-ph/0303428v1.

[86] Bjorken, J.D., Drell, S.D., (1998), Relativistic Quantum Mechanics, McGraw-
Hill, ISBN-13: 978-0072320022.

[87] Gross, F., (1993), Relativistic Quantum Mechanics and Field Theory, John
Wiley & Sons, New York.

[88] Biswas, S.N., (1998), Quantum Mechanics, Books and Allied (P) Ltd.,
Calcutta, ISBN 81-87134-17-8.

[89] Zwiebach, B., (2004), A First Course in String Theory, Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, UK, ISBN 0-521- 83143-1.

[89A] Wald, R. M., (2006), General Relativity, University of Chicago Press, (First
Indian Edition (2006) published by Overseas Press India Private Limited,
New Delhi), ISBN 81-88689-27-0.

[90] Greene, B., (2000), The Elegant Universe: Superstrings, Hidden Dimensions,
and the Quest for Ultimate Theory, Vintage Books, New York.

[91] Greene, B., (2005), The Fabric of the Cosmos: Space, Time and Texture of

376
 Reality, Vintage Books, New York.

[92] Polchinski, J., (1998), String Theory, vols. 1 and 2, Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, U.K.

[93] Wikipedia: frequency.

[94] Ortin, T., (1996), Phys. Rev. Lett., 76, 21.

[94] Goldhaber, A. S., Nieto, M. M., (1974), Phys. Rev. D, 9, 4.

[95] Goldhaber, A. S., Nieto, M. M., (1971), Rev. Mod. Phys. 43,
43 277.

[96] Deffayet, C. et al, (2001), arXiv:hep-th/0106001v2.

[97] Gunion, J. F., Haber, H. E., Kane, G., Dawson, S., (2000), The Higgs
Hunters Guide, Westview Press, ISBN-13: 978-0738203058.

[98] Hawking, S. W., (1994), Phys. Lett. B, 134,

134 6.

[99] Duff, M., (1989), Talk delivered at the Strings 89 Superstrings Workshop,
Texas, A & M University :
< http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0370-2693(89)90284-0>.

[100] Wu, Z. C., (2008), Phys. Lett. B, 659,

659 5.

[101] Lee, Jae-Weon, (2011), arXiv: 1003.1878v3 [hep-th].

[102] Narlikar, J. V., (2010), An Introduction to Relativity, Cambridge University

Press, New Delhi, ISBN-13 978-0-521-17877-8, pbk.

[103] Prakash, N., (2000), Mathematical Perspectives on Theoretical Physics: A

Journey from Back Holes to Superstrings, Tata McGraw-Hill Publishing Co.
Ltd, New Delhi, ISBN 0-07-463796-7.

[104] Ballentine, L. E.,(1998), Quantum Mechanics; A Modern Development,

World Scientific , Singapore, P. 109.

[105] See Eqworld: http://eqworld.ipmnet.ru

[106] See Eqworld, Section 2.3. Ordinary Differential Equations involving arbitrary
functions, Eq.39. http://eqworld.ipmnet.ru

[107] Sartori, L., (1996), Understanding Relativity: A Simplified Approach to

Einsteins Theories, University of California Press, Berkeley and Los
Angeles, California, ISBN 0-520-20029-2.

377
[108] Taylor, E. F., Wheeler, J. A., (1992), Spacetime Physics: Introduction to
Special Relativity, W. H. Freeman & Co.

[109] Fayngold, M., (2008), Special Relativity and How it Works, Wiley-VCH
Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Wienheim.

[110] Rindler, W., (1991), Introduction to Special Relativity, Oxford University

Press, Oxford.

[111] Das, A., (1993), The Special Theory of Relativity, Springer-Verlag, New
York.

[112] Landau, L. D., Lifshitz, E. M., (1971), The Classical Theory of Fields,
Addison-Wesley, Reading, Mass.

[113] The Wave Particle Dualism: A Tribute to Louis de Broglie on his 90th
Birthday, (1984),(eds.) Diner, S., Fargue, D., Lochak, G., Selleri, F., D.
Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht.

[114] Padmanabhan, T., (2003), arxiv: hep-th/0212290v2, Physics Reports, 380,

380
235-320, (2003)

[115] Frolov, V. P., and Zelnikov, A., (2011), Introduction to Black Hole Physics,
Oxford University Press, New York.

[116] Weinberg, S., (2000), Talk given at Dark Matter 2000, Marina del Rey, CA,
February,2000; arXiv: astro-ph/0005265.

[117] Blake, C et al, (2010), Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society,
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16747.x

[118] Rugh, S.E., Zinkernagel, H., (2001) ,

< Phisci-archive.pitt.edu/398/1/cosconstant.pdf >

[119] Witten, E., (2000), arXiv: hep-ph/0002297

[120] Peebles, P.J.E., Ratra, B.,(2003), Rev. Mod. Phys. 75,

75 559 -606; arXiv:
astro-ph/0207347.

[121] Dalal, N., Abazajian, K., Jenkins, E., Manohar, A. V., (2001), Phys. Rev.
Lett. 87,
87 141302.

[122] Alcaniz, J. S., (2006), arXiv: astro-ph/0608631.

[123] Krishner, R.P., (2000), The Extravagant Universe: Exploding Stars, Dark
Energy, and the accelerating Cosmos, Princeton University Press,
Princeton and Oxford.

378
[124] Saranton, R. et al, (SDSS Collaboration), (2003), arXiv: astro-ph/0307335.

[125] Carroll, S., (2001), Living Rev. Rel. 4,1.

[126] Weller, J. et al, (2002), Phys. Rev. Lett. 88,

88 231301.

[127] http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap020529 html . This article confirms

presence of dark energy.

[128] Weinberg, S., (2004), Gravitation and Cosmology, John Wiley & Sons
(Asia) Pte. Ltd., Singapore, ISBN 9812-53-073-8.

[129] See page 168 of [115].

[130] Das, A., (2011), Lectures on Gravitation, World Scientific Publishing

Co.Pte. Ltd., Singapore., pp.240-248.

[131] Banerjee, S., Banerjee, A., (2007), General Relativity and Cosmology,
Elsevier: A division of Reed Elsevier India Private Limited, New Delhi,
pp.82-86. ISBN: 978-81-312-0685-0.

[132] Hawking,S. W., (1971), Phys.Rev. Lett., 26,

26 1344.

[133] Hawking, S. W., (1974), Nature, 248,

248 30

[134] Hawking, S. W., (1975), Comm. Math. Phys. 43,

43 199.

[135] Hawking, S. W., (1976), Phys. Rev. D., 13,

13 191.

[136] Bekenstein, J. D., (1972), Lett. Nuovo Cimento, 4, 737.

[137] Bekenstein, J. D., (1973), Phys. Rev. D, 7, 2333.

[138] Bekenstein, J. D., (1974), Phys. Rev. D, 9, 3292.

[139] Bekenstein, J. D., (1975), Phys. Rev. D, 12,

12 3077.

[140] Bekenstein, J. D., (2004), Contemporary Physics, 45,

45 31-43.

[141] Bowick, M., Smolin, L., Wijewardhana, L.C.R., (1987), Gen. Rel. Grav., 19,
19
113.

[142] Susskind, L., (1993), arXiv: hep-th/9309145.

[143] Strominger, A., Vafa, C., (1996), Physics Letters B, 379,

379 99; arXiv: hep-
th/9601029v2.

379
[144] Ryder, L. H., (1996), Quantum Field Theory, Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.

[145] Wesson, P. S., (1999), Space-Time-Matter: Modern Kaluza-Klein Theory,

World Scientific, Singapore, ISBN-981-02-3588-7.

[146] Salam, A., Strathdee, J., (1981),

<streaming.ictp.trieste.it/preprints/P/81/211.pdf>

[147] Witten, E., (2002), Nucl. Phys. B, 186,

186 3, pp. 412-428.

[148] Bose, S., Dadhich, N., (2000), arXiv: hep-th/0001119v1.

[149] Carroll, S., Press, W., Turner, E., (1992), Annual Review of Astronomy and
Astrophysics, 30,
30 pp. 499-542.

[150] Weinberg, S., (2002), arXiv: astro-ph/0005265v1.

[151] Weinberg, S., (1989), Rev. Mod. Phys. Vol. 61,

61 No. 1.

[152] Polchinski, J., (2006), arXiv:hep-th/0603249.

[153] Liddle, A., Loveday, J., (2009), Oxford Companion to Cosmology, Oxford
University Press, Oxford, PP. 12-13.

[154] Spergel, D.N. et al (2003), arXiv: astro-ph/0302209.

[155] Bennet, C.L. et al (2003), arXiv: astro-ph/0302207.

[156] Penrose, R., ( 2004), The Road to Reality: A complete Guide to the Laws of
the Universe, Jonathan Cape, London, ISBN 0-224-04447-8 .

[157] Prosper, H. B., Danilov, M., (2001), Techniques and Concepts of High
Energy Physics, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, p. 159, ISBN 1-
4020-0158-4.

[158] Dolan, L., in Strings, Branes and Extra Dimensions, (2004),(eds.) Guber, S.
S., Lykken, J.D., p. 163. World Scientific, Singapore.

[159] Maldacena, J,. (1997), arXiv: hep-th/9711200.

[160] Witten, E., (1998), arXiv: hep-th/9802150.

[161] Witten, E., (1998), arXiv: hep-th/9803131.

[162] Brillouin, L., (1953), J. Appl. Phys. 24,

24 1152.

380
[163] Strominger,A., (1998), arXiv: hep-th/9809027v2.

[164] Cadoni, M., Mignemi, S., (1999), arXiv: hep-th/9810251v2.

[165] Leonhardt, U., (2010), Essential Quantum Optics: From Quantum

Measurements to Black holes, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
p.213, ISBN 978-0-521-14505-3.

[166] Hawking, S. W., (1974), Nature 248,

248 (5443):30.

[167] Susskind, L., (1993), arXiv: hep-th/9308139v1.

[168] Susskind, L., (1993), arXiv: hep-th/9309145v2.

[169] Carmeli, M., Kuzmenko, T., (2002), Int. J. Theor. Phys., 41,
41 1, p.131.

[170] Barrow,J.D., Shaw, D. J., (2011), arXiv: 1105.3105v1 [gr-qc]

[171] Liddle, A. Lyth, D., (2000), Cosmological Inflation and Large-Scale

Structure, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

[172] Greene, B., (2011), The Hidden Reality: Parallel Universes and the Deep
Laws of the Cosmos, Allen Lane (published by the Penguin Group),
London, ISBN 978-0-713-99978-5.

[173] Weinberg, S., (1987) Phys. Rev. Lett. 59,

59 22, 2607-2610.

[174] Barrow, J. D., Tipler, F. J., (1986), The Anthropic Cosmological Principle,
Oxford University Press, Oxford.

[175] Witten, E., (2000), arXiv:hep-ph/0002297v2.

[176] Poppitz, E., (1997), arXiv; hep-ph/9710274.

[177] Wellman, T., (2003), An Introduction to Supersymmetry in Quantum-

mechanical Systems :
http://www.physics.brown.edu/physics/SeniorThesis_wellman.pdf

[178] Gunion, J. F., Haber, H.E., Kane, G., Dawson, S., (1990), The Higgs
Hunters Guide, Perseus Publishing, Cambridge, MA.

[179] Bransden, B. H., Joachain, C. J., (1989), Introduction to Quantum

Mechanics, ELBS with Longman, Harlow, Essex, ISBN 0-582-23804-8.

[180] Ashtekar, A., (1986), Phys. Rev. Lett., 57,

57 (18): 2244-2247.

381
[181] Ashtekar, A., (1987), Phys. Rev.D, 36,
36 (6):1587-1602.

[182] Ashtekar, A., (2004), Gravity and Quantum, e-print in arXiv: gr-qc/0410054.

[183] Rovelli, C., (2004), Quantum Gravity, Cambridge University Press; also e-
print in http://www.cpt.univ-mrs.fr/~rovelli/book.pdf

[184] Rovelli, C., Smolin, L., (1990), Nucl. Phys. B 442, 80-152.

[185] Smolin, L., (2002), Three Roads to Quantum Gravity, Basic Books, New
York.

[186] Smolin, L., (2006), The Trouble with Physics, Penguin Books, London.

[187] Susskind, L., Thorlacius, L., Uglum, J., (1993), arXiv: hep-th/9306069v2.

[188] Flanagan, . ., Marolf, D., Wald, R.M., (1999), arXiv: hep-th/9908070.

[189] Carroll, S., (2004), Spacetime and Geometry: An Introduction to General

Relativity, Pearson Education, Inc., publishing as Addison Wesley, San
Fransisco, ISBN 0-8053-8732-3.

[190] Sharan, P., (2009), Spacetime, Geometry and Gravitation, Hindustan Book
Agency, New Delhi, ISBN-13 978-81-85931-96-8.

[191] Hawking, S. W., (2005), arXiv: hep-th/050717v2.

[192] Preskill, J. (1992), arXiv: hep-th/9209058.

[193] Susskind, L., (2002), arXiv: hep-th/0204027v1.

[194] Hod, S., (2002), arXiv: gr-qc/0012076v3.

[195] Shannon, C.E., Weaver, W., (1949), The Mathematical Theory of

Communications, University of Illinois Press, Urbana.

[196] Hawking, S. W. in Black Holes and Relativistic Stars, (1998), (ed.) Wald, R.
M., University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp. 221-240.

[197] Home, D., (1997), Conceptual Foundations of Quantum Physics: An

Overview from Modern Perspectives, Plenum Press, New York, pp.271-299.

[198] Aspect, A. in Sixty-Two Years of Uncertainty,(1990), (ed.) Miller, A. I.,

Plenum, New York, pp.45-59.

[199] Grangier, P., Roger, G., Aspect, A. (1986), Europhys. Lett. 1, 173.

382
[200] Aspect, A., Grangier, P. (1987), Hyp. Int. 37,
37 3.

[201] Garuccio, A., van der Merwe, A.,(eds.), (1993), Waves and Particles in
Light and Matter, Plenum, New York.

[202] Gerlich, S., (2011), Nature Communications, 2, 263.

[203] Juffmann, T. et al (2012, 25 March), Nature Nanotechnology.

[204] See p.521 of [156].

[205] Maudlin, T., (1994), Quantum Nonlocality and Relativity, Blackwell, Oxford.

[206] Ghose, P., (1999), Testing Quantum Mechanics on New Ground,

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

[207] Dirac, P. A. M., (1958), Principles of Quantum Mechanics, Oxford University

Press, Oxford, pp.7-10.

[208] CERN press release, 4 July,2012: CERN Experiments Observe Particle

Consistent with Long-sought Higgs boson.

[209] PDGLive particle summary.

[210] Rainville, S., Thompson, J.K., Myers, E. G., Brown, J. M., Dewy, M. S.,
Kassler Jr., E. G., Deslattes, R.D., Brner, Jentschel, M., Mutti, P.,
Pritchard, D.E., (2005), Nature, Dec 22, 2005.

[211] Pietsch, A., (2007), History of Banach Spaces and Linear Operators,
Birkhaser, Boston.

[212] Gowers, T.,(ed.), (2008), The Princeton Companion to Mathematics,

Princeton University Press, Princeton, ISBN 978-0-691-11880-2.

[213] Halmos, P. R., (1951), Introduction to Hilbert Space, Chelsea Publishing

Company, New York.

[214] von Neumann, J., (1955), Mathematical Foundations of Quantum

Mechanics, Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J.

[215] Debnath, L., Mikusiski, P., (1990), Introduction to Hilbert Spaces with
Applications, Academic Press, San Diego.

[216] Akhiezer, N. I., Glazman, I. M., (1961), Theory of Linear Operators in Hilbert
Space, F. Ungar Publishing Company, New York.

[217] Gonzalez-Mestres, L., (2008), arXiv: 0802.2536v3 [hep-ph].

383
[218] Smolin, L., (2006), arXiv:hep-th/0605052.

[219] Kostelecky, A., Mewes, M., (2012), Phys. Rev. D 85, 096005, (2012).

[220] Kostelecky, A, Russell, N., (2012), arXiv:0801.0287v5 [hep-ph].

[221] Dyson, L., Kleban, M., Susskind, L, (2002), arXiv.org: hep-th/0208013v3

[222] Tyron, E. P., (1973), Nature, 246,

246 pp.396-397.

[223] Milton, K. A., (2006), Rep. Prog. Phys. 69,

69 (6), pp.1637-1711.; arXiv: hep-
ex/0602040.

[224] Schiller, C, (Google books), Motion Mountain,Vol.2, Relativity -------- The

Adventure of Physics, p.250.

[225] Baez, J., < math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics//BlackHoles/info_loss>

[226] Yosida, K., (1978), Functional Analysis, 5th ed. Springer International
Student Edition, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg. ( Also an Indian
edition from Narosa Publishing House, New Delhi, 1979), ISBN 3-540-
06812-0.

[227] Strominger, A., Vafa, C., (1996), Phys. Lett. B 379,

379 99-104; arXiv: hep-
th/9601029.

[228] Maldacena, J., (1998), Adv. Theor. Math. Phys., 2, 231; arXiv: hep-
th/9711200.

[229] Hayden, P., Preskill, J., (2007), arXiv: 0708.4025v2, [hep-th].

[230] Blum, K., (1996), Density Matrix Theory and Applications, Plenum Press,
New York.

[231] Susskind, L., (2002), arxiv: hep-th/0204027.

[232] von Neumann, J., (1996), Mathematical Foundations of Quantum

Mechanics, Princeton University Press, Princeton.

[233] Gemmer, J., Otte, A., Mahler, G., (2001), arXiv: quant-ph/0101140.

[234] Weinberg, S., (2000), The Quantum Theory of Fields, Vol. I. and Vol. II.,
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

[235] Dyson, F. j., (1949), Phys. Rev. 75,

75 486, 1736.

384
[236] Brown, L.M. (ed.), (1993), Renormalization, Springer Verlag, New York.

[237] Collins, J., (1984), Renormalization, Cambridge University Press,

Cambridge.

[238] Lloyd, S., (1989), Phys. Rev. A, 39,

39 5378.

[239] Zurek, W.H., (2003), arXiv: quant-ph/0301076.

[240] Sakurai, J.J., (1994), Modern Quantum Mechanics, Pearson Education, Inc.

[241] Loschmidt, J.J., (1876), Kais. Akad. Wiss. Wien, Math. Naturewiss. Classe
73, pp. 128-142.

[242] Dyson, L., Kleban, M., Susskind, L., (2002), arXiv:hep-th/0208013v3

[243] Kazanas, D. (1980), Astro. Phys. Journal, 241,

241 L59.

[244] Guth, A. (1981), Phys. Rev. D23,

D23 347.

[245] Sato, K. (1981), M.N.R.A.S.,195,

195 467.

[246] I am indebted to Steven S. Gubser for pointing out this difference between
space and time through his book the Little Book of String Theory (2010),
Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, ISBN 978-0-691-15093-2.

[247] Needham, T. R., (1997), Visual Complex Analysis, Oxford University Press,
Oxford.

[248] Grosse, H., Lechner, G., Ludwig, T., Verch, R., (2011), arXiv: 11116856v1
[hep-th].

[249] Galapon, E., (2002), Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A 2002,, 458,

458 451-472.

[250] Greene, R. E., Krantz, S.G., (2006), Function Theory of One Complex
Variable, The American Mathematical Society, Graduate Studies in
Mathematics, volume 40, Providence, Rhode Island, pp.187-189.

[251] Krantz, S. G., (2008), Complex Variables: A Physical Approach with

Applications and MATLAB, Chapman & Hall/CRC, Boca Raton, FL.

[252] Jones, A. Z., with Robbins, D., (2010), String Theory for Dummies, Wiley
Publishing, Hoboken, NJ, ISBN: 978-0-470-46724-4.

[253] Yau, Shing-Tung and Nadis, Steve., (2010), The Shape of Inner Space:
String Theory and the Geometry of the Universes Hidden Dimensions,
Basic Books, New York, ISBN 978-0-465-02023-2

385
[254] Zee, A,. (2003), Quantum Field Theory in a Nutshell, Princeton University
Press, Princeton; Also published (2005) in India by Universities Press
(India) Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad, ISBN 81-7371-512-2.

[255] Padmanabhan, T., (2003), Phys. Rept. 380,

380 235, (2003).

[256] Valle, J. W. F. (2006), arXiv: hep-ph/0608101.

[257] Berberian, S. K., (1974), Lectures in Functional Analysis and Operator

Theory, Springer International Student Edition, Springer Verlag, New York.

[258] Bilenky, S. M., (2005), arXiv:hep-th/ 0410090.

[259] Matson, J., (2012), Scientific American, News: 4 July, 2012.

[260] Liboff, R.L. (1992), Introductory Quantum Mechanics, Addison-Wesley

Publishing Company, Reading, Massachusetts, ISBN 0-201-54715-5.

[261] Wikipedia: Frame-dragging.

[262] Kar, S., Sengupta, S., (2007), Pramana Journal of Physics, 69,
69 1, 2007,
pp. 49-76.

[263] Hawking, S. W., Ellis, G. F.R.,(1973), The Large Scale Structure of

Spacetime, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K.

[264] Joshi, P.S.(1997), Global Aspects in Gravitation and Cosmology, Oxford

University Press, Oxford, U.K.

[265] Ince, E. L., (1956), Ordinary Differential Equations, Dover Publications,

INC., New York, ISBN 0-486-60349-0 .

[266] Barcelo, C., Visser, M., (2002), arXiv:gr-qc/0205066.

[267] Penrose, R. (1965), Phys. Rev. Lett., 14,

14 (1965).

[268] Hawking, S. W., Penrose, R, (1970), Proc. Roy. Soc. London, A314,
A314
(1970).

[269] Pospelov, M., Romalis, M., (2004), Physics Today, July, 2004.

[270] Kostelecky, V.A., Lane, C.D. (1999), Phys. Rev. D 58,

58 116010. (1999)

[271] Coleman, S.R., Glashow, S. L., (1999), Phys. Rev. D 59,

59 116008. (1999)

[272] Baez, J. C., (2002), Bulletin of Amer. Math Soc. 39,

39 pp.145-205.

386
[273] Petit, J-P., (1988), Mod. Phys. Lett. A3,
A3 (16), pp. 1527-1532.

[274] Moffat, J. W., (1993), Int. J. Mod. Phys. D2,

D2 351, (1993)

[275] Moffat, J. W., (2001), arXiv: astro-ph/0109350.

[276] Magueijo, J., (2003), Rep. Prog. Phys. 66 (11), p. 2025; arXiv: astro-
ph/0010591.

[277] Webb, J. K. et al, (2002), arXiv:astro-ph/0210531.

[278] Webb, J. K. et al, (2001), arXiv: astro-ph/0012539.

[279] Murphy, M. T. et al, (2002), arXiv: astro-ph/0210532.

[280] Marion, H. et al, (2003), Phys. Rev. Lett., 90, 150801.

[281] Bize. S. et al, (2003), Phys. Rev. Lett., 90,

90 150802.

[282] Lawrie, I. D. (1998), A Grand Tour of Theoretical Physics, 2nd edition,

Institute of Physics Publishing, Bristol and Philadelphia, ISBN 0 7503 0604
1.

[283] Wald, R. M. (ed.), (1998), Black Holes and Relativistic Stars, The University
of Chicago Press, Chicago and London, ISBN 0-226-87034-0.

[284] Merzbacher, E., (1998), Quantum Mechanics, John Wiley & Sons, New
York, ISBN 9971-51-281-5.

[285] Overduin, J., Everitt, F., Mester, J., Worden, P., (2009), Adv. Space Res.
43,
43 pp. 1532-1537.

[286] Goto, M., Natti, P.L., (2010), arXiv: 1007.4846v1 [gr-qc].

[287] Keifer, C., (2007), Quantum Gravity, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.

[288] Smolin, L., (2001), Three Roads to Quantum Gravity, Basic Books, ISBN 0-
465-08735-4.

[289] Carlip, S., (2001), Rep. Prog. in Phys. 64 (8): 885; arXiv: gr-qc/0108040.

[290] Rovelli, C., (2000), arXiv: gr-qc/0006061.

[291] Ashtekar, A., (2005), Current Science, 89:

89 2064-2074.

[292] Ibanez, L. E., (2000), Classical & Quantum Gravity, 17 (5): 1117-1128,

387
 arXiv: hep-ph/9911499.

[293] Alpher, R. A., Herman, R., (2001), Genesis of the Big Bang, Oxford
University Press, Oxford, U.K.

[294] Sen, A., (2006), arXiv: physics/0609062v1 [physics.pop-ph]

[295] Rugh, S.E., Zinkernagel, H., (2002), Studies in History and Philosophy of
Modern Physics, 33,
33 (4), pp. 663-705.

[296] Glashow, S., (1991), Talk given at Les Houches (1991): Particle Physics in
the Nineties

[297] Veltman, M., (1986), Scientific American, Nov. 1986, pp.88-94.

[298] Haisch, B., Rueda, A., Putoff, H.E., (1994), Phys. Rev. A 49,
49 678 (1994).

[299] Rueda, A., Haisch, B., (1998), arXiv: physics/9802030v1 [physics.gen-ph].

[300] McCall,, M.W., (2001), Classical Mechanics : A Modern Introduction, John

Wiley & Sons, Sussex, U.K., ISBN: 0-471-49714-2.

[301] Spiegel, M. R., (1982), Theory and Problems of Theoretical Mechanics,

Schaum`s Outline Series, McGraw-Hill Book Company, (International
edition), ISBN 0-07-099025-5.

[302] Greene, B., (2000), The Elegant Universe, Vintage, (Random House),
London, ISBN 0 09 928992

[303] Guth, A. H., (1997), The Inflationary Universe, Jonathan Cape.

[304] Senovilla, J.M.M., (1998), Gen. Rel. and Gravitation, 29, 5, (1997).

[305] Wigner, E. P. (1960), Commun. Pure Appl. Math., 13, pp.1-14.

[306] Beneson, W., Harris, J. W., Stocker, H., Lutz, H., (2002), Handbook of
Physics, Springer-Verlag New York, Inc. (Also available in Indian Reprint
(2006) published by Springer (India) Private Limited. ISBN 81-8128-456-9),
ISBN 0-387-95269-1.

[307] Padmanabhan, T., (2010), Gravitation: Foundations and Frontiers,

Canbridge University Press, Cambridge, New York, ISBN-13 978-0-521-
17876-1.

[308] Burcham, W. E., Jobes, M., (1995), Nuclear and Particle Physics, Addison
Wesley Longman Limited, England, ISBN: 981-235-829-3.

388
[309] Aharony, O., Gubser, S., Maldacena, J., Ooguri, H., (2000), Physics
Reports, 323 : 183-386 ; arXiv:hep-th/9905111..

[310] Okui, T., (2006), Phys. Rev. D 73,

73 075012.

[311] Weinberg, S., Witten, E., (1980), Phys. Lett. B 96 (1-2): 59-62.

[312] van Dam, H., Veltman, M. G., (1970), Nucl. Phys. B 22,
22 397.

[313] Wikipedia: Lorentz Covariance.

[314] Rajantie, A., (2012), arXiv: 1204.3077 [hep-th].

[315] Milton, K.A. (2006), Rept. Prog. Phys. 69,

69 p.1637-1712.

[316] Wen, X., Witten, E., (1985), Nucl. Phys. B, 261,

261 p.651-677.

[317] Krauss, L., (2000), Quintessence, Perseus, New York.

[318] Hogan, J., (2007), Nature, 448-7151: 240-245.

[319] Carlip, S., (2009), Lect. Notes Phys., 769,

769 89-123.

[320] Susskind, L., (2008), The Black Hole War: My battle with Stephen Hawking
to make the world safer for quantum mechanics, Little, Brown, ISBN 0-316-
01640-3.

[321] < ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/March 03/Perlmutter

Perlmutter/Perl_refs.html>
Perlmutter

[322] < http://snap.lbl.gov/>; Wikipedia : SNAP.

[323] Knopp, R., et al. (2003), Astr. Phys. J., 598,

598 102-132.

[324] Tonry, J., et al. (2003), arXiv: astro-ph/0305008.

[325] Zhao, G., Crittenden, R.G., Pogasian, L., Zhang, X., (2012)., Phys. Rev.
Lett. 109.171301.

[326] Panek, R., (2011), The 4% Universe : Dark Matter, Dark Energy, and The
Race to Discover the Rest of Reality, Oneworld Publications, Oxford,
England, p. 242, ISBN 978-1-85168-896-8.

[327] Einstein, A., Podolsky, P., Rosen, N., (1935), Can quantum-mechanical
description of physical reality be considered complete?, in Quantum
Theory and Measurement (ed. Wheeler, J.A., and Zurek, W.H.), (1983),
Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersy; originally in Phys. Rev.
47,
47 777-780.

389
[328] Marianoff, D. (1930), Einstein and Tagore Plumb the truth : Scientist and
Poet Exchange Thoughts on the Possibility of its Existence without relation
to Humanity , published in New York Times, August 10, 1930. The
conversation took place on July 14, 1930.

[329] Thakur, Rabindranath., (1918), Geetabitan (in Bengali), [(transliteration) :

Shes nahi je, shes kotha ke bolbe? , the first line of song no. 606, ], Asia
Publishing Company, 1st Asia edition (2002), Kolkata, India. [The quoted
words in English in the paper are the rendered form by the present author.
Hopefully, the original is not lost in translation].

[330] `t Hooft, G., (2005), 50 Years of Yang-Mills Theory, World Scientific, ISBN
981-238-934-2.

[331] Arfken, G., (1985), Mathematical Methods for Physicists, Academic Press,
San Diego, California, 3rd edition, (Also available in Indian edition published
by Prism Books Pvt. Ltd.), ISBN 81-7286-024-2.

[332] Wesson, P. S., (1999), Space-Time-Matter, Modern Kaluza-Klein Theory,

World Scientific, Singapore, ISBN 981-02-3588-7.

[333] Witten, E., (1981), Nucl. Phys. B, 186,

186 pp. 412-428.

[334] Aitchison, I. J. R., (2005), arXiv: hep-ph/ 0505105v1

[335] Galapon, E., (2002), Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A, 458,

458 pp.451-472.

[336] Leon, J., Julve, J., Pitanga, P., de Urries, F. J., (2000), arXiv: quant-

ph/0002011.

[337] Ginnitrapani, R., (1997), Int. J. Theor. Phys. 36,

36 p.1575.

[338] Busch, P., Grabowski, M., Lahti, P., (1995), Ann. Phys. 237,
237 p.1.

[339] Busch, P., Grabowski, M., Lahti, P., (1994), Phys. Lett. A, 191,
191 p.357.

[340] Busch, P., Grabowski, M., Lahti, P., (1995), Operational Quantum Physics,
Springer, New York.

[341] Holevo, A.S., (1978), Rep. Math. Phys. 13,

13 p.379.

[342] Helstrom, C. W., (1970), Int. J. Theor. Phys., 11,

11 p.318.

[343] Helstrom, C. W., (1976), Quantum Detection and Estimation Theory,

Academic.

390
[344] Halliwell, J. J., Zafiris, E., (1998), Phys. Rev. D, 57,
57 pp. 3351-3364.

[345] Blanchard, Ph., Jadczyk, A., (1996), Helv. Phys. Acta, 69,
69 p. 613.

[346] Holland, P. R., (1993), The Quantum Theory of Motion, Press Syndicate,
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

[347] Rosenbaum, D. M., (1969), J. Math. Phys. 10,

10 p.1127.

[348] Srinivas, M. D., Vijaylakshmi, R., (1981), Pramana --- Journ. of Phys., 16,
16
p. 173.

[349] Peres, A., (1980), Am. J. Phys., 7, p. 552.

[350] Aharanov, Y., Bohm, D., (1969), Phys. Rev.10,

10, p. 1127.

[351] Muga, J. G., Palao, J., Sala, P., (1998), Superlatt. Microstruct., 24,
24 p. 23.

[352] Eisenberg, E., Horwitz, L. P., (1997), Adv. Chem. Phys., 99,
99 p.245.

[353] Grot, N., Rovelli, C., Tate, R. S., (1996), Phys. Rev. A, 54,
54 p. 4676.

[354] Galapon, E. A., (2002), Proc. Roy. Soc., A, 487,

487 p. 267.

[355] Pauli, W., (1933), Handbuch der Physik, (eds.) Geiger, H., Scheel, K.,)
Second edition, Vol. 24,
24 pp. 83-272.

[356] Galapon, E. A., (1999), arXiv: quant-ph/9908033v4.

[357] Cristopher, R., Caballar, F., Galapon, E.A., (2010), arXiv:1005.2870v1

[358] Krontz, T. M., Lupher, T. A., (2005), Int. J. Theor. Phys., 44,
44 No. 8, pp.
1239-1258.

[359] Summers, S. J. (1998), On the Stone-von Neumann Uniqueness Theorem

and its Ramifications

[360] Holevo, A. S., (1982), Probabilistic and Statistical Aspects of Quantum

Theory, North Holland Publishing company, Amsterdam.

[361] Geroch, R., (1985), Mathematical Physics, The University of Chicago

Press, Chicago.

[362] Mller, S., (2010), Stones Theorem and Applications, Bachelors Thesis,
Lunds Universtitet, Lund, Sweden.

391
[363] Petz, D., (1990), An Invitation to the Algebra of Canonical Commutation
Relations, Leuven University Press, Leuven, Belgium, ISBN 90-6186-360-0.

[364] Scholtz, F. G., Gouba, L., Hafver, A., Rohwer, C. M., (2008), arXiv:
0812.2803v1.

[365] Kostelecky, V. A., (1998), arXiv: hep-ph/9809521.

[366] Smolin, L., (2003), arXiv: hep-th/0303185.

[367] Amelino-Camelia, G., (2002), arXiv: hep-th/0211022.

[368] Feynman, R. P., (1965), The Character of Physical Law, The MIT Press,
Cambridge, MA, (Chapter 6: Probability and Uncertainty) ISBN 978-0-
26256-003-0.

[369] Nakanishi, H.,(1994) in Annual Reviews of Computational Physics, Vol. 1,

(ed.) Stauffer, D.,World Scientific, Singapore, p.220, ISBN 981-02-1881-8.

[370] Bohm, D., Hiley, B. J., (1993), Undivided Universe, Routledge, London.

[371] MathWorld : Derivative.

[372] Wikipedia : Taylor series.

[373] Hille, E., Phillips, R. S., (1957), Functional Analysis and Semi-groups, AMS
Colloquium Publications, 31, 31 American Mathematical Society, pp. 300-327.

[374] Scholten, M. C., (2007), Physics 798G.

798G

[375] Kostelecky, V. A., : < http: www.physics.indiana.edu/ kostelec/faq.html>

[376] Kostelecky, V. A. et al., (2006), Phys. Rev. D, 74,

74 105009.

[377] Maldacena, J., (2005), Scientific American, November, 2005, pp.57-58, 61.

[378] Needham, T., (1997), Visual Complex Analysis, Oxford University Press,
Oxford.

[379] Maggiore, M., (2005), A Modern Introduction to Quantum field Theory,

Oxford University Press, New York, ISBN 0 19 852074.

[380] James / James, (2007), Mathematics Dictionary, Fourth edition, CBS

Publishers & Distributors, New Delhi, ISBN 81 239 0913 6. (Originally
published by Van Nostrand Company, Inc., USA.

[381] Fukuda, Y. et al, (1998), Phys. Rev. Lett. 81 (6), pp.1158-1162., arXiv: hep-

392
 ex/9805021.

[382] Mohapatra, R. N. et al, (2007), Rep. Prog. in Physics, 70,

70 (11), p. 1757;
arXiv: hep-ph/0510213.

[383] Weinberg, S., (2000), The Quantum Theory of Fields, Vol. 1, and Vol.2,
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK., ISBN 0 521 58555 4.

[384] Grot, N., Rovelli, C., Tate, R. S., (1996), arXiv: quant-ph/9603021.

[385] < http;//www.superstringtheory.com >

[386] Pais, A., (1986), Inward Bound : Of Matter and Forces in the Physical
World, Oxford University Press, Oxford, ISBN 0 19 851997 4.

[387] Jaffe, A., Witten, E., Quantum Yang-Mills Theory in

< www.claymath.org/millennium/Yang-Mills_Theory/ >

[388] Douglas, M. R., (2004), Report on Status of the Yang-Mills Millennium

Prize Problem in < www.claymath.org/millennium/Yang-Mills Theory/ >

[389] Zee, A., (2005), Quantum Field Theory in a Nutshell, Universities Press
(India) Private Limited, Hyderabad, (Reprinted in arrangement with
Princeton University Press, U.S.A., published in 2003).

[390] Bin e truy, P., (2006), Supersymmetry: Theory, Experiment, and

Cosmology, Oxford University Press, Oxford, ISBN 0-19-850954-5.

[391] Baez, J., Bayesian Probability Theory and Quantum Mechanics in

< www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/bayes.html >

[392] Kreyszig, E., (1978), Introductory Functional Analysis with Applications,

John Wiley &Sons, New York.

[393] Daz, M. A., (2012), < www.hep.wisc.edu -sheaff/PASI

2012/lectures/Higgs.pdf >

[394] Peskin, M. E., Schrder, P. V., (1995), Introduction to Quantum Field

Theory, Westview Press, Reading, MA & Wokingham.

[395] Feynman, R. P., Hibbs, A., (1965), Quantum Mechanics and Path Integrals,
McGraw-Hill, New York.

[396] Bhatia, V. B., (1997), Classical Mechanics, Narosa Publishing House, New
Delhi, ISBN 81-7319-104-2.

[397] Goldstein, H, (1980), Classical Mechanics, Addison-Wesley, Reading,

393
 Mass, 2nd edition.

[398] Cushing, J. T., ((1994), Quantum Mechanics ------ Historical Contingency

and the Copenhagen Hegemony, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

[399] See p.582 of Ref.[5].

[400] Carroll, S., < blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2010/02/22/

energy-is-not-conserved/#.UTvPLtbDCqk>

[401] Baez, J.,Is Energy conserved in General Relativity in < math.ucr.edu/

Home/baez/physics/Relativity/energy_gr.html>

[402] Isham, C., (1992), arXiv: gr-qc/9210011.

[403] Flanagan, E., Hughes, S., (2005), arXiv: gr-qc/0501041.

[404] Hogan, C., (2007), arXiv:0709.0608v2. [astro-ph]

[405] Burgers, J., (2009), docs.google.com

[406] Lamon, R., Produit, N., Steiner, F., (2008), Gen. Relativity and Gravitation;
(2007), arXiv:gr-qc/07064039.

[407] Amelino-Camelia, G., (2001), gr-qc/0012051v2.

[408] Amelino-Camelia, G., Ellis, J., Mavromatos, N.E., Nanopoulos, N.D.,

(1996), arXiv: hep-th/9605211v1,

[409] Amelino-Camelia, G., Ellis, J., Mavromatos, N.E., Nanopoulos, N.D.,

Sarkar, S., (1997), arXiv: astro-ph/9712103v2; Nature, 393,
393 (1998).

[410] Carroll, S., (2003), Nature, 424,

424 p.1007.

[411] Amelino-Camelia, G., Smolin, L., (2003), arXiv: hep-th/0307085.

[412] Rovelli, C., (2002), arXiv: gr-qc/0205108.

[413] Wess, J., (2000), hep-th/0001203.

[414] Amelino-Camelia, G., (2003), arXiv: gr-qc/0306019.

[415] Smolin, L., (1999), Physics World, 12,

12 79.

[416] Kostelecky, V.A., (1998), arXiv: hep-ph/9809521.

[417] Ahluwalia, D.V., (2000), arXiv: gr-qc/0009033.

394
[418] Ahluwalia, D. V., (2002), arXiv: gr-qc/0202098.

[419] Thiemann, T., (2002), arXiv: gr-qc/0210094.

[420] Ashtekar, A., (2001), gr-qc/0112038.

[421] Albert, J., et al, MAGIC Collaboration, (2007), App. J. 669, 867.

[422] Aharnian, F., et al, HESS Collaboration, arXiv: 0801.3475v1.

[423] Mattingly, D., (2005), Living Reviews in Relativity, 8, 5.

[424] Gambini, R., Pullin, J., (1998), arXiv: gr-qc/9809038.

[425] Shao, L., Wex, N., (2012), arXiv: 1209.4503v1 [gr-qc].

[426] Brans, C., (2005), arXiv: gr-qc/0506063.

[427] Kane, G. L., Kolda, C., Wells, J.D., (1992), arXiv: hep-ph/9210242v1.

[428] Siegfried, T., (2012), Science News, 20 July, 2012.

[429] Kostelecky, V.A., Tasson, J. D., (2009), Phys. Rev. Lett. 102,
102 010402,
2009; arXiv: 0810.1459 [gr-qc].

[430] Wikipedia: Standard Model Extension (SME).

[431] Bear, D., Stoner, R. E., Walsworth, R. L., Kostelecky, V. A., Lane, C. D.,
(2000), arXiv: physics/0007049.

[432] Eddington, A. S., Davidson, C., (1920), Philos. Trans. Royal Soc. London,
220A,
20A pp. 291-333.

[433] Hawking, S., Ellis, G. F. R., (1973), The Large Scale Structure of Space-
Time, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, ISBN 0-521-09906-4.

[434] Hawking, S., (1994), arXiv:hep-th/9409195.

[435] Nata rio, J., (2006), arXiv:8math.DG/0603190 March 8.

[436] Schutz, B. F., (1985), A First Course in General Relativity, Cambridge

University Press, New Delhi, ISBN-13 978-0-521-13363-0.

[437] Stanley, R. P., (2005, 26 May), CERN DOCUMENT SERVER, cds.cern.ch,

Preprint, Report number: Math.CO/0501256.

395
[438] Bars, I., Terning, J., (2010), Extra Dimensions in Space and Time., Springer
Science + Business Media, LLC, ISBN 978-0-387-77637-8.

[439] Kostelecky, V.A., Lehnert, R., (2001), Phys. Rev. D, 63,

63 065008, 2001.

[440] Abraham, E. R. C., Townsend, P. K., (1991), Nucl. Phys. B351,

B351 313.

[441] Hawking, S. W., (1988), A Brief History of Time, Bantam, New York.

[442] Popov, V. S., (2005), Phys. of Atomic Nuclei, 68,

68 4, 2005.

[443] Hong, J., Vilenkin, A., Winitziki, S., (2002), arXiv: gr-qc/0210034.

[444] Vilenkin, A., (2006), Many Worlds in One, Hill and Wang.

[445] Saclioglu, C., (2010), Resonance, February, 2010, in

< http://www.ias.ac.in/resonance/Feb., 2010 >

[446] Zinn-Justin, J. (1996), Quantum Field Theory and Critical Phenomena,

Oxford University Press, Oxford.

[447] Gibbons, j., Perry, M. J., (1978), Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A358,
A358 pp.467-494.

[448] Hartle, J.B., Hawking, S. W., (1983), Phys. Rev. D 28,

28 2960.

[449] Wikipedia: Heat Equation.

[450] Weinberg, S., (1993), Dreams of a Final Theory, Vintage, ISBN 0 09

922391 0.

[451] Dummit, D. S., Foote, R. M., (2004), Abstract Algebra, 3rd edition, John
Wiley & Sons, (Authorized reprint by Wiley India P. Ltd.), ISBN : 978-81-
265-33228-5.

[452] Feldman, N. I., Nesterenko, Yu. V., (1998), Transcendental Numbers,

(translated from the Russian by Neal Koblitz), Springer-Verlag, Berlin,
ISBN : 3-540-61467-2.

[453] Milne, J. S., (2013), < www. Jmilne.org/math/ >, Algebraic Number Theory,
Version 3.05, March, 2013.

[454] Lang, S., (1994), Algebraic Number Theory, Springer, New York, ISBN :
0-387-94225-4.

[455] WolframMathWorld : Gelfond-Schneider theorem.

[456] Hazenwinkel, M. (ed.),(2002), Encyclopaedia of Mathematics, 10 volumes +

396
 Supplements, Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.

[457] Search for Mathematics topics in < http://eom.springer.de/ >

[458] Baker, A., (1975), Transcendental Number Theory, Cambridge University

Press, London.

[459] Gelfond, A. O., (2003), Transcendental and Algebraic Numbers, Dover

Publications, New York, ISBN : 0-486-49526-4.

[460] Terzo, G. (2008), Communications in Algebra, 36,

36 3, pp. 1171-1189.

[461] Wikipedia : Schanuels Conjecture.

[462] Serre, Jean-Pierre (1971), Travaux de Baker (Expoe 368), Lecture Notes
in Mathematics, 180,
180 Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp. 73-86.

[463] Wikipedia : Bakers theorem.

[464] Borel, E., (1898), Leons sur les fonctions discontinues, Gauthier-Villars.

[465] Greene, B., (2011), The Hidden Reality : Parallel Universes and the Deep
Laws of the Cosmos, Allen Lane (an imprint of Penguin Books), ISBN :
978-0-713-99978-5.

[466] Fraleigh, J. B. (2003), A First Course in Abstract Algebra, 7th edition,

Pearson Education, ISBN : 978-81-7758-900-9.

[467] WolframMathWorld.

[468] Gilbert, W. J., (2005), Modern Algebra with Applications, John Wiley &
Sons, (Authorized reprint by Wiley India (P.) Ltd.) ISBN : 978-81-265-1830-
2.

[469] Wikipedia : Exponentiation.

[470] Benson, D. C., (1999), The Moment of Proof : Mathematical Epiphanies,

Oxford University Press, New York, ISBN : 978-0-19-511721-9.

[471] Knuth, D. E., (1992), American Math. Monthly, 99,

99 no. 5, May, 992, pp.403-
422.; arXiv: math/9205211v1 [math.HO].

[472] Steiner, J., Clausen, T., Abel, NH, (1827), Journal fr die riene und
angewandte Mathematik 2 : pp. 286-287.

[473] Nielsen, M. A., Chuang, I. L., (2000), Quantum Computation and Quantum
Information, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA.

397
[474] Bousso, R., (2002), Rev. Of Mod. Phys. 74 (3), pp. 825-874; arXiv: gr-
qc/9310026.

[475] Bekenstein, J. D., (2003), Scientific American, 1 August, 2003.

[476] PlanetMath : Shannons entropy.

[477] Jones, A. Z., with Robbins, D., (2010), String Theory for Dummies, Wiley
Publishing, Indianapolis, ISBN : 978-0-470-46724-4.

[478] Libri, G., (1833), Journal fr die reine und angewandte Mathematik, 10,
10
(1833), pp.303-316.

[479] Mbius, A. F., (1834), Journal fr die reine und angewandte Mathematik,
12,
12 (1834), pp.134-136.

[480] Anonymous and S...., (1834), Journal fr die reine und angewandte
Mathematik, 12,
12 pp. 292-294.

[481] Wikibooks : Calculus/Limits/An Introduction to Limits.

[482] Soundararajan, K., (2011), Transcendental Number Theory, Math 249A,

Fall, 2010.; <www.math.stanford.edu/ ksound/Transnotes.pdf>

[483] Womack, T.O., (1995), Transcendence Overview : < www.math.niu.edu/

rusin/known-math/95/transcend>
[484] Marcja, A., Toffalori, C., (2003), A Guide to Classical and Modern Model
Theory, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, ISBN :
1-4020-1330-2.

[485] Nesterenko, Y. V., Philippon, P., (eds.), (2001), Introduction to Algebraic

Independence Theory, Springer, Berlin.

[486] < www.spd.dcu.ie/johnbeas/download/transcendental33html>

[487]

398
 ------------------------
___________________

399
400
401