Newton's gravity and quantum entangled systems

Just G. Waller

It is widely assumed that Newton's gravity requires
"action at a distance", and it was argued to favor
the more accurate general relativity theory. But, it
is still possible to become reconciled with Newton's
gravity, if we consider bodies in a gravitational
systems as quantum entangled.

Imagine gravitons propagate at speed of light in the
vacuum. So, two orbiting bodies can be continuously
entangling, by means of exchanging those carrier
particles. A graviton wouldn't need to carry complete
classical information, but quantum information. You can
encode, for instance, a constant distance d between two
orbiting bodies, by means of quantum information. It is
not necessary to duplicate that value d, with one copy
residing in each orbiting system. Both systems can share
the unique value d.

Suppose that constant orbiting distance d can be encoded
in 1 bit of classical information (of course, a distance
larger than Planck length would require more than 1 bit
of information to be suitably encoded). In that scenario,
two entangled systems sharing 1 bit of information, means
each one only needs to send 1/2 bit to the other at speed
of light in the vacuum for state updates, but they still
can be instantaneously aware of any perturbation of distance
d, because that distance d is quantum shared. The amazing
result is that, although the quantun information could be
constantly updated at speed of light, by means of graviton
exchanges, the response action to any perturbation could
start instantaneously.

And that would be the "mysterious action at a distance" that
Newton's gravity would require.

Jonathan Thornburg -- remove -animal to reply

Just G. Waller <wallermax@hotmail.com> wrote:
> It is widely assumed that Newton's gravity requires
> "action at a distance", and it was argued to favor
> the more accurate general relativity theory. But, it
> is still possible to become reconciled with Newton's
> gravity, if we consider bodies in a gravitational
> systems as quantum entangled.
>
> Imagine gravitons propagate at speed of light in the
> vacuum. So, two orbiting bodies can be continuously
> entangling, by means of exchanging those carrier
> particles.

Suppose we use this gravitation theory to analyse a binary system;
call the two orbiting bodies A and B. Then the gravitational force
on body A would point not at the current position of B, but rather
at where B was when the gravitons were emitted. This means the
force would point *behind* the instantaneous direction vector,
leading to an effective drag force proportional to v/c. Thus the
system would spiral together quite rapidly.

Observationally, this drag force isn't seen in the solar system,
where (for example) the Earth has orbited the sun at about the
same orbital radius for 4.5 Gyr or so.

[In general relativity the v/c drag force cancels out, as do the
the (v/c)^2, the (v/c)^3, and the (v/c)^4 terms. The leading-order
drag force is gravitational radiation emission, proportional to
(v/c)^5.]

ciao,

--
-- "Jonathan Thornburg -- remove -animal to reply" <jthorn@aei.mpg-zebra.de>
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Gravitationsphysik (Albert-Einstein-Institut),
Golm, Germany, "Old Europe" http://www.aei.mpg.de/~jthorn/home.html
"Washing one's hands of the conflict between the powerful and the
powerless means to side with the powerful, not to be neutral."
-- quote by Freire / poster by Oxfam

Just G. Waller

Jonathan Thornburg -- remove -animal to reply wrote:
> Suppose we use this gravitation theory to analyse a binary system;
> call the two orbiting bodies A and B. Then the gravitational force
> on body A would point not at the current position of B, but rather
> at where B was when the gravitons were emitted. This means the
> force would point *behind* the instantaneous direction vector,
> leading to an effective drag force proportional to v/c. Thus the
> system would spiral together quite rapidly.

That's right, a graviton always must reach a body in its current
position, the same for a photon, if you want an interaction to
occur. The question is, why are you assuming the geodesic of a
graviton, or a photon, must be always pointing at a past event
of the receiver body?. We can assume, there may be a relative
expansion of spacetime between both two bodies A and B, such
that a graviton emitted from A can reach B in its current position,
and symmetrically for a graviton emitted from B. We can think about
it as bodies A and B in that gravitational field do not exhibit
parallel time axes, but with a non zero angle between them, so a
photon or a graviton is forced to propagate on geodesics tangential
to the source-event. If we assume time axes of A and B form an angle,
we can easily compute the radius of a relative expanding 3-sphere.
where the future events of A and B, receiving graviton or photon,
must be located, if we want causality to be preserved. Of course,
you always have the reasonable argument it is not a model described
under general relativity theory. But notice, paradoxically,
gravitons can't be addressed, under general relativity, either.

> Observationally, this drag force isn't seen in the solar system,
> where (for example) the Earth has orbited the sun at about the
> same orbital radius for 4.5 Gyr or so.

> [In general relativity the v/c drag force cancels out, as do the
> the (v/c)^2, the (v/c)^3, and the (v/c)^4 terms. The leading-order
> drag force is gravitational radiation emission, proportional to
>(v/c)^5.]

This is one reason, among others, an accurate quantum gravity theory is
needed.

;), ciao
Just G. Waller <wallermax@hotmail.com>

Just G. Waller

Jonathan Thornburg -- remove -animal to reply wrote:
> Just G. Waller <wallermax@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > It is widely assumed that Newton's gravity requires
> > "action at a distance", and it was argued to favor
> > the more accurate general relativity theory. But, it
> > is still possible to become reconciled with Newton's
> > gravity, if we consider bodies in a gravitational
> > systems as quantum entangled.
> >
> > Imagine gravitons propagate at speed of light in the
> > vacuum. So, two orbiting bodies can be continuously
> > entangling, by means of exchanging those carrier
> > particles.
>
> Suppose we use this gravitation theory to analyse a binary system;
> call the two orbiting bodies A and B. Then the gravitational force
> on body A would point not at the current position of B, but rather
> at where B was when the gravitons were emitted. This means the
> force would point *behind* the instantaneous direction vector,
> leading to an effective drag force proportional to v/c. Thus the
> system would spiral together quite rapidly.
>

Why could a photon reach body B in its current position,
but a graviton could not?. I've only hypothetized that a graviton
might travel in null geodesics like any photon does, and
at the same constant speed c. Is it so bad to suspect a
graviton could be an "amazing" spin-1/2 boson?.

Just G. Waller

Jonathan Thornburg -- remove -animal to reply wrote:
> Suppose we use this gravitation theory to analyse a binary system;
> call the two orbiting bodies A and B. Then the gravitational force
> on body A would point not at the current position of B, but rather
> at where B was when the gravitons were emitted. This means the
> force would point *behind* the instantaneous direction vector,
> leading to an effective drag force proportional to v/c. Thus the
> system would spiral together quite rapidly.

That would be true if a graviton would carry the whole gravitational
force information, but recall, I speak about a "quantum gravitational
entangled system". We are dealing with quantum information. So, the
new gravitational force would not be effective until both gravitons,
one from A and the other from B, have been exchanged, producing a
correlation, a new entanglement. And that correlation would be
manifested in opposite gravitational attractive forces.