Is the Universe a Vacuum Fluctuation? EDWARD P. TRYON

The author proposes a big bang model in which our Universe is a fluctuation of the vacuum, in the sense of quantum field theory. The model predicts a Universe which is homogeneous, isotropic and closed, and consists equally of matter and anti-matter. All these predictions are supported by, or consistent with, present observations.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v246/n5433/pdf/246396a0.pdf

Due to quantum uncertainty, energy fluctuations such as an electron and its anti-particle, a positron, can arise spontaneously out of vacuum space, but must disappear rapidly. The lower the energy of the bubble, the longer it can exist. A gravitational field has negative energy. Matter has positive energy. The two values cancel out provided the universe is completely flat. In that case, the universe has zero energy and can theoretically last forever.

We can describe energy fluctuations of quantum vacuum without useing quantum uncertainty.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/208380871_Zero_Point_Energy_and_the_Dirac_Equation?ev=prf_pub

Shooting shot

I take a shot with mass m and shooting it with velocity v upward. Shot takes kinetic energy. The action of my hand on shot is applying force on it, only. In the other word, in during dt, n photons (as energy) leave my hand, convert to force and applies on shot, its momentum changes (Newton's second law). The photons enter into structure of shot and convert to energy again. So, shot takes kinetic energy equal 1/2 mv^2 to upward.

Generator

I do rotating the dynamo of a generator and produce electromagnetic energy. I apply force on dynamo and it rotates. The magnetic field of dynamo’s magnet does change. The electric charge of electrons in wires, those are around the dynamo doing opposite with changing the magnetic field. Then electromagnetic energy produces. How and why rotating dynamo produces electromagnetic energy?

My hand’s force does rotating the dynamo, only. In the other world, in during rotating dynamo my body’s energy changes to force, and force changes to mechanical energy. When the magnetic field changes, then electric field does change. Changing electric field does change the electron motion. But we know force is able to changing the motion of everything. So, electron takes gravitons (color-charges and magnetic color) and condenses them, and produces a quantum electromagnetic energy.

Is it possible we remove the force concept of physics?

Right side of Newton's second law is the rate of change of momentum per time, but left side refers to an invention concept that named force (which was inevitable at the time of Newton and classical mechanics). According to the above we can replace the force by changing the momentum of energy per time in the left side of Newton's second law equation.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/280626794_Unified_Force_Energy_and_Mass?ev=prf_pub

Article Zero Point Energy and the Dirac Equation

Article Unified Force, Energy and Mass

Dear Prof. Mohamed

"Dark energy works as a negative gravity." Yes. That's right.

A part of the radiations leaves the observable universe.

The escaping radiations carry energy that moves with the speed of light, so a part mass of observable universe leaves it.

According to the description of the debate, observable universe gets negative energy and its mass decreases.

Now the question arises: The reduction the mass of observable universe, does not reduce the gravity between objects?

One should be careful with quotations-what matters is the meaning of the words, not the exact quotations. There are many, only very roughly related, issues in the accompanying text. 

First of all energy can have any sign. The constraints on its sign come from the requirement that a matter configuration be stable under perturbations.  And the meaning of the sign is with respect to some reference. Such a reference doesn't exist in the absence of gravity. The only constraint  from stability then is that the energy of a physical system be bounded from below, i.e. possess a finite minimum  value. If it doesn't, then the system is unstable, with respect to the degrees of freedom used and new degrees of freedom must be found, that describe stable motion.

The ``ball falls'' can be described consistently by the statement that it follows a geodesic in the spacetime in question. If the spacetime is flat, then time translation invariance is a global symmetry and it's possible to define a quantity, called energy, that's conserved-it's the Noether charge of this symmetry of the equations of motion.  If the spacetime is curved, then time translation is a local symmetry and energy can only be defined at infinity, under assumptions.  

There isn't any such concept as (quasi) negative gravity. And it's misleading to consider ``dark energy'' as a ``repulsive force'', since it doesn't act on any object, but describes spacetime, one way being through the cosmological constant, whose sign does have physical meaning; but both signs describe physically meaningful situations. The positive sign of the cosmological constant describes an accelerated expansion of spacetime.  However the negative sign of the cosmological constant does not describe an accelerated contraction. 

These statements are all theorems in general relativity, no pontification required; cf. for instance, https://projecteuclid.org/download/pdf_1/euclid.cmp/1103908964

The Casimir energy between a pair of neutral conducting plates is an apparent example of negative energy

No, the Casimir energy  is an example of energy *fluctuations*: it represents the *difference* between two values of energy and the difference  could have either sign.  Its sign  can, however,  be explained, e.g. http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0611082

Since gravity-as described by general relativity-is a non-linear interaction, the sign of the energy is not as simple to understand as in the non-relativistic limit.

Dear Prof. Mohamed

"COULD YOU REPHRASE THE ENGLISH CAREFULLY ?"

As you know mass lost by the Sun by emitting radiation, so, observable universe lost mass by emitting radiation. Does this radiation effect on gravity force between bodies in observable universe?

Dear Stam

Hawking is not alone in this way, there is other physicists that believe the existence of negative and positive energy. I believe that is a good idea but needs more work.

I do not agree with negative and positive energy, in my theory there is negative and positive virtual photons.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/280113834_Graviton_Virtual_photon_and_Quantum_Chromodynamics?ev=prf_pub

Article Graviton: Virtual photon and Quantum Chromodynamics

Once more: there's no point arguing over the possible sign of energy, because energy can have both signs. Stability considerations imply, only,  that the total energy of a physical system is bounded from below-however, in the absence of gravity, there's nothing that prohibits the minimum value from being a negative number. What matters is that it's finite. (It can then be taken as the lowest value and all others are strictly greater, so the differences are positive.) 

When gravity is taken into account, it can be proved, as a mathematical statement, that the sign of the total energy of a physical system can't be arbitrary. 

Since, in the presence of gravity, energy, as the Noether charge of time translation invariance, is defined only at infinity and, then, under assumptions, the way to understand the sign of the energy is not the same as in the non-relativistic approximation. How it should be done is presented, these days,  in textbooks on general relativity. 

Dear Stam

Please forget the sign of energy and consider to redshif and escaping velocity.

Suppose a photon escape of a massive body (it is not a black hole), photon lost a part of its energy, two energies (energy that photon lost and energy that massive body gets) are equal with different direction. One is upward (relative the massive body) and other one is downward. For simplicity, can we call (the upward energy) positive energy and (the downward energy) negative energy?

The theory of ‘universe birth model from nothing’ by Hawking, Guth and Virenkin etc. can be explained by the fact that the gravitational potential energy offsets the mass energy.

However, Gravitational self-energy or Gravitational binding energy in case of uniform density is given by

Ugs = -(3/5)(GM2/R)

From Mass energy equivalence principle,

-(3/5)(GM2/R_gs) = -Mc2 

R_gs=(3/5)(GM/c2)

However, Schwarzschild black hole’s radius is given by R_b=2GM/c2

R_gs = 0.3R_b < R_b

If gravitational potential energy exactly balances the energy in matter, our universe has to be black hole. But, our universe is not black hole.

At present, the gravitational potential energy does not completely offset mass energy. And for the birth of the universe from “nothing or zero energy” and energy conservation at the birth of the universe, “negative mass”, which corresponds to “negative energy”, is of utmost necessity.

ET = 0 = (+E)+(-E)=(Σ+m+c^2) + (Σ-m_c^2)+(ΣU)=0 

The principle, which says “the state of low energy is stable”, is one of the fundamental principles of Physics, and it has its influences on across all the fields of Physics. In this article, we will reveal that this principle is an incomplete.

Fig01  

It is stable at a low energy state in the case of positive mass(energy), whereas, it is stable at a high energy state in the case of negative mass(energy). Due to this, “the problem of transition to minus infinite energy level" does not occur, therefore negative energy and positive energy can coexist.

Moreover, we will show that negative energy provides an explanation for dark matter and dark energy, which are the biggest issues posed to cosmology at the present.

Pair_Creation_Model_of_the_Universe_From_Positive_and_Negative_Energy

Research Pair Creation Model of the Universe From Positive and Negative Energy

Dear Hyoyoung

I studied your article, you have focused of negative and positive energies (relation 4, in your article). In my opinion its is a key point to solve the problems of modern physics. But it is a basic shapes that you have stopped on energy, I think we need to develop our understanding the nature of energy.

In my theory, energy is "dense field" and mass is "Intensive energy".

So, in fact a photon is made up of two perpendicular electric and magnetic fields, also every electric field is made up of color charges and magnetic field is made up of color magnetic.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/280626794_Unified_Force_Energy_and_Mass?ev=prf_pub

I generalize the Maxwell equations of electromagnetism to the gravitational field. I have used the pair production and decay to show that a charged particle acts like a generator, the generator input and output are gravitons and virtual photon. The negative charged particle produces positive virtual photon and positive charged particle produces negative virtual photon. A negative and a positive virtual photon combine with each other in the vicinity of a charged particle and cause the charged particle to accelerate. Although this approach to Quantum Field Theory (QFT) is presented, it has some differences. The mechanism of negative and positive virtual photons interaction is easier and more realistic than exchange particles of QFT, and it also has no ambiguities of QFT. After all, I explain the real photon and its structure by using the virtual photons.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/279288309_Graviton_and_virtual_photons?ev=prf_pub

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/208380871_Zero_Point_Energy_and_the_Dirac_Equation?ev=prf_pub

Article Unified Force, Energy and Mass

Article Graviton and virtual photons

Article Zero Point Energy and the Dirac Equation

Dear Thierry

I appreciate your feedback on my question, thank you so much.

You have written: " I wonder, is science ready for "The Theory of Everything" or "A Universe From Nothing" today, or is it just philosophy? " Its was (and also is) my problem too. I have tried to find its answer a long years.

As we know modern physics is based on relativity and quantum mechanics. But there are some unanswered questions or complex concepts in modern physics. The questions that modern physics does not have answers for, and the physicists believe that it is due to the inability of theories.

There are various theories in physics, but nature is unique. This is not nature's problem that we have various theories; nature obeys simple and unique law. So, we should improve our theories. Many researchers believe that physics will not be complete until it can explain not just the behavior of space and time, but where these entities come from.

http://www.nature.com/news/theoretical-physics-the-origins-of-space-and-time-1.13613

Let me repeat that where these entities come from? Where should we look for the origins of space and time? Where is the origin of space and time? The origin of space and time come of the grand cosmic scale? Come of the quantum level? Did come from before the Big Bang? In my theory, sum of observable and non-observable universe is eternal.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/279446746_Graviton_and_cosmology_equations_before_the_Big_Bang?ev=prf_pub

In my opinion we should redefine a physical existence in real time and space, review the physical properties of the quantum vacuum and finally develop the old theories by combining real and virtual space-time concepts.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/270339919_Interactions_Between_Real_and_Virtual_Spacetimes?ev=prf_pub

Article Graviton and cosmology equations, before the Big Bang

Article Interactions Between Real and Virtual Spacetimes

Dear Prof. Mohamed

Thank you for your useful description about "negative energy" and different between "negative energy" in classical mechanics and quantum mechanics.

Dear Hossein, you have formed a well documented question.

However the concept of 'time' needs to be considerated, since it is the cause of many 'paradoxes' or 'strange questions', see my first publication.

Another issue is our limited knowledge of cosmology. Personal I prefer to declare my ignorance, than infering, see my second publication.

As for the plus or minus, this doesn't help us!

Article A simple definition of Time

Article A new cosmological paradigm: universal locality

Dear Hossein,

Negative Energy: minus charge of electron, south-pole of magnetism; gravity vs. mass. The sign of the ‘negative’ is a minus-sign by definition.

I am quite aware about attempts to explain what gravity is, and how it fits to mass. All of those start with gravity and Earth and observe that gravity pulls down and energy (like a rocket) must be used to move up.

It is an accepted scientific method to identify and measure effects of otherwise unknown causes. The exploration and definition of gravity by Newton, and others before him (Galileo), is the related to falling of 'things'. Einstein’s relationship between the curvature (‘bending’) of the Earth-surface and its following by gravity is nothing new. Again, by starting with gravity, he cannot proof how it came to be.

In contrast, my modeling did not have gravity in the starting assumption. I saw that you read my first report which is about the formation of mass from the pre-BB energy singularity. No gravity there.

In the mass-forming process, Energy must be pulled from the energy singularity to form particles. This leaves an ‘energy-hole’ in the singularity which is attractive to the energy of the particles. Since the effect is a resulting energy hole which is trying to combine with the ‘lost’ energy in the singularity.  Its attraction of energy is equal to its attraction by energy can be expressed by plus and minus. Thus, if energy and its particles are considered plus, the energy-hole is negative. This is in full agreement with the ‘negative energy’ of gravity vs. positive energy used by the rocket rising up from the the Earth surface. 

All these have been observed ‘forever’. However the gravity observations never led to an independent derivation of its emergence and its properties. In the Universe, anti-energy (attractive) is observed between masses, and modeled by the information of Gravity. Conceptionally, positive and negative electric charges, and negative and positive magnetism are defined similarly.

Dear Demetris

I studied your article, I appreciate you effort to define "Time". Its a considerable view on "Time", but it is not a definition of time. Lets me be honest, I do not believe "Time" is definable. There is three description on the being and time.

* Time and Religion; Religion does not take kindly to time. For many people the impulse to religion is generated by a desire to escape from the tyranny of time: we seek a refuge from the changes and chances of this fleeting world, and hope to evade the inevitable mortality of our temporal existence, by moving to a higher plane of reality, where the limitations of temporality are transcended by the eternal verities of absolute existence.

http://users.ox.ac.uk/~jrlucas/time/religion.html

* Time and Phylosophy: The best work of being and time belongs to the German philosopher Martin Heidegger. Being and Time was originally intended to consist of two major parts, each part consisting of three divisions. Heidegger was forced to prepare the book for publication when he had completed only the first two divisions of part one. The remaining divisions planned for Being and Time (particularly the divisions on time and being, Immanuel Kant, and Aristotle) were never published, although in many respects they were addressed in one form or another in Heidegger's other works. In terms of structure, Being and Time remains as it was when it first appeared in print; it consists of the lengthy two-part introduction, followed by Division One, the "Preparatory Fundamental Analysis of Dasein," and Division Two, "Dasein and Temporality."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Being_and_Time

Usually our philosophical perception of time prevented us from knowing we'll physical time.

* The nature of time in physics is that when does time appear? Which physical existence does not experience time? Photon experiences time, because in Compton's effect and in gravitational blueshift (and redshift) photon's energy changes so it experiences time.

So, this question remains that which physical existence (particles) does not experience time? Are you know a physical being (or a particle) that does not experience time?

In classical mechanics, time is something that passes uniformly regardless of whatever happens in the world. Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity predicted that time does not flow at a fixed rate: moving clocks appear to tick more slowly relative to their stationary counterparts. Quantum mechanics does not neglect the time either. In standard model, photon does not experience time. Some new theories suggest that time does not exist at the quantum level. The study of the quantum universe shows us that time does not exist. It shows us that time is a function of relativity only and exists relative to some arbitrary point of reference.

http://wokenmind.com/quantum-theory-proves-that-time-does-not-exist/17/03/2013/

Whatever else may be said about time, one thing is certain, it defies definition. The best we can say is that we all know what time is, intuitively. The Seventh Edition of Webster's Collegiate Dictionary tells us that time is "the measured or measurable period during which an action, process, or condition exists or continues." Of course, what the lexicographer has done here is to tell us that time is defined by its measurement and that measurement is of a period during which something occurs. He has not told us what time really is.

http://users.wfu.edu/brehme/time.htm

In fact it is the definition of a clock. What is the nature of physical time, really? In this paper, I have tried to answer this question.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/279531060_Graviton_physical_time_and_thermodynamics?ev=prf_pub

Also see pages 60-65 of following;

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/273319021_Physics_Being_and_Time?ev=prf_pub

Article Graviton: physical time and thermodynamics

Article Physics: Being and Time

Dear Prof. Mohamed 

Thank you for link, but it is not available. 

Dear Ingo

"I am quite aware about attempts to explain what gravity is, and how it fits to mass.

All of those start with gravity and Earth and observe that gravity pulls down and energy (like a rocket) must be used to move up."

On the earth, our observes show an object accelerates toward the earth, that is describable by Newton's gravitational law. In my opinion, our problem is how we can describe acceleration by useing quantum mechanics concepts.

You have written: "gravity observations never led to an independent derivation of its emergence and its properties."

Yes, I agree with you, so our problem is to redefine the properties of gravity.

Motion is an intrinsic property of physical existence. But there is a problem about concept of acceleration in theoretical physics.

First of all, what we know about acceleration? And what is the definition of acceleration? In physics, acceleration is the rate at which the velocity of an object changes over time that in classical mechanics is given by Newton's second law with a=F/m. In special relativity an accelerating particle has a world-line which is not straight. This is not difficult to handle. The 4-vector acceleration can be defined as the derivative with respect to proper time of the 4-velocity. It is possible to solve the equations of motion for a particle in electric and magnetic fields, for example. Accelerating reference frames is a different matter. In general relativity the physical equations take the same form in any co-ordinate system. In special relativity they do not but it is still possible to use co-ordinate systems corresponding to accelerating or rotating frames of reference just as it is possible to solve ordinary mechanics problems in curvilinear co-ordinate systems. This is done by introducing a metric tensor.

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/acceleration.html

However, Newton and Einstein define the acceleration regardless of the structure of particles (in classical mechanics and relativity). This definition belongs to Newton era or macroscopic level era. It should be noted that the interaction between large objects (e.g. collision of two bodies) under the action of the quantum layer (in fact sub quantum level) has been done. Thus, according to quantum mechanics and mass–energy equivalence E=mc^2, we must redefine acceleration. It means we should review the relativistic Newton's second law.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/279185909_Graviton_and_Newton%27s_second_law?ev=prf_pub

Article Graviton and Newton's second law

Dear Hossein,

Thank you for your reference. I am intrigued by your discussion of acceleration. I never new that it caused trouble if moved between different approaches, e.g. Newton and Einstein. it will be interesting to follow how the two views will come together and flow from one to the other. Here, the preferred way is to set up fights, not to encourage cooperation. The aim of this is to elevate one's fame by lowering the status of the opponent. I feel, that as a scientist I should learn about different views and appreciate the efforts of the authors. The aim should be to better explain nature and its interactions and encourage widening our knowledge of our environment (Earth and Universe). 

I am hoping that you will show you efforts to smoothen the acceleration to move 'relativistic' and 'Newtonian'.

Wishing you much success and much enjoyment in the efforts.

Cheers, Ingo

Dear Ingo

When I saw your last comment, I was surprised and delighted, because it shows you are a honest scientist, thank you so much.

We are indebted to Newton and Einstein. But our problem is how human's understanding approaches nature laws.

We are not seeing the world out of it. We are a small part of the world that we live in. Also, no picture covers all the landscape, the physical events are not in our minds, and we will process our personal phenomena in mind that usually are far from the reality.

We describe a personal phenomenon, it will bring judgment and the others are compared with the phenomenon itself. In discussion, a common phenomenon will be created that is closer to reality. The history of science shows that even a common human phenomenon isn’t all reality. Physicists in order to make the joint phenomenon close together and prevent dispersion of votes and results used mathematical models.

Therefore physicists used mathematics to describe reality. Scientific theories (even Newton's laws and Einstein's theory of relativity) do not show the laws of nature, but are our understanding of physical phenomena to explain the nature and closeness of the common phenomena to the dominating rules of nature. So no theory is perfect, even if expressed with mathematical formulas.

For a long time, my basic problem was nature of acceleration and relativity mass, and I have focused on them more than 20 years. Result was reconsideration the relativistic Newton's second law.

You’re the best!

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/280491440_Reconsidering_relativistic_Newton%27s_second_law_and_its_results

Article Reconsidering relativistic Newton's second law and its results

Mass capacitor

I followed some ideas about mass decrease for bounded bodies (Yarman, Sobczyk) and commented their articles, but with no response.

Imagine two infinite parallel plates and according to Gauss law gravitational field is zero inside, but non-zero and homogeneous outside capacitor. For electrostatic field is situation just opposite.

Next, imagine that one plate is at rest, while the other accelerates and stops (just to eliminate kinetic energy from picture).

According to articles, there is rest mass decrease for both situations, but I do not see it. 

For electrostatic field there is a smaller region with field after moving, so, binding energy is due to field. There is no space for mass decrease.

For gravitational field is situation opposite: there is more space with field, and natural conclusion would be that negative binding energy is in gravitational field. 

But, there is another possibility. If there is no energy in gravitational field (it means that gravitational field is just some kind of space geometry) binding energy is due to rest mass decrease according to relativistic mass-energy relation. It is an interesting possibility, because law of energy conservation suffices to describe dynamics. For gravitational collapse it means that there is less mass but more gravitational field.

Arguments are the same for spherical masses, mathematics is more complicated. 

So, please, dear friends, give me some contra arguments!

I think in this discussion Negative Energy does not mean an energy carrying negative charge.  There are two types of Forces working in the Universe - Creator and Annihilator.  Creator may be termed as positive energy and Annihilator may be termed as negative energy. 

Dear Anirudh

In this issue, seems sign of energy depends to direction of transferring energy.

In my theory, creation and annihilation relate to structure of particles. For detail please see;

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/279288309_Graviton_and_virtual_photons?ev=prf_pub

Article Graviton and virtual photons

The greatest problem is: what quantum vacuum made up of? How we can describe the mechanis of zero point energy?

In cosmology, the vacuum energy is taken by many to be the origin of the cosmological constant. Experimentally, the zero-point energy of the vacuum leads directly to the Casimir effect1, and is directly observable in nanoscale devices.

One way to explain this is by means of the uncertainty principle of quantum physics, which implies that it is impossible to have a zero energy condition. In this article, an attempt has been made according to the concept of gravitational blue shift, to take the Mössbauer effect, Pound-Rebka experiments and the interaction between gravity and the photon into consideration from a Higgs field point of view.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/208380871_Zero_Point_Energy_and_the_Dirac_Equation?ev=prf_pub

And

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/270276224_Interactions_Between_Real_and_Virtual_Spacetimes?ev=prf_pub

Article Zero Point Energy and the Dirac Equation

Article Interactions Between Real and Virtual Spacetimes

Wignall in 2007 (see link below, unfortunately not open access) points out that de Broglie frequency is directly proportional to mass-energy, and it does have an absolute zero.  There is no positive or negative to a vibration.  A phase yes, and out of phase vibrations can cancel, but taken separately they appear the same, and with the delay of half a cycle they become the same.  So there may not be negative energy.

In most cases in physics, the absolute value of energy is indeterminate and cannot be found, only the energy difference.  It is for this reason that vacuum energy really isn't useful.  I suppose you could have a hole in the vacuum (just making this up on the fly) which would act like negative energy, though really it is only a negative difference from the vacuum state.

Since QM and gravitational estimates of the vacuum energy differ by 100 orders of magnitude, I don't have much confidence in it.

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0026-1394/44/3/N01/meta;jsessionid=E91721FBC8C51AA51AB79208E0859635.c2.iopscience.cld.iop.org

Dear Robert Shuler

Seems, negative and positive energies were complex concepts that they have invented. In my theory, there are two kinds virtual photons, negative virtual photon and positive virtual photon. They combine and become to a real photon.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/279288309_Graviton_and_virtual_photons?ev=prf_pub

Article Graviton and virtual photons

Dear Hossein,

The answer is very easy, for the free fall object under gravity, a part of the rest mass will change to energy equals to the gravitational potential at that point in space. In this case the measured relativistic escape velocity locally at that point in space   under the gravitational field is equals to v^2=2GM/r-G^2M^2/c^4r^2. Globally it must measured a slightly redshift depending of the quantum Lorentz factor (1-GM/c^2r) that is if the object localized at exact point in space in the gravitational field same as in the Pond and Rebka experiment in this case it is linear dispersion where the potential energy is not changed when the object is located at the same point in space, and thus the group velocity and the phase velocity are equal. But if the object continues in motion same as in case of light bending in gravity or Shiparo delay or Mercury precession. In this case the potential is changing at each point in space, in this case according to Heisenberg uncertainty principle the group velocity is not equal to the phase velocity, and thus the classical velocity is given according to the group velocity. From that according to Heisenberg uncertainty principle you get the light bending in gravity or Shiparo delay or Mercury precession and also the pioneer anomaly are solved according to the square of the quantum Lorentz factor (1-GM/c^2r)^2 and it approximated in case of weak gravitational field to (1-2GM/^2r) because G^2M^2/c^4r is much less than 2GM/c^2r.

From my relativistic escape velocity when the particle falls in the quantum Schwarzschild radius GM/c^2r you get v^2=c^2 locally, where all the rest mass of the object will change to photons. In this case locally, when the object located at infinity , the total energy of the object is m0c^2 and during the falling in the gravitational field, the total energy locally at any point in space in the gravitational field is m0c^2 which remains constan,t where the relativistic mass is always m0 at any point in space in the gravitational field, and also in the Schwarschild radius where all the rest mass will change to photons, the total energy is m0c^2. So if you want the object in the gravitational field to separate from the gravitational field any point in space at the gravitational field , you must give him an energy equals to the gravitational potential at that point in space and thus the object will move in the escape velocity.

Dear Azzam

Thank you for your interesting notes.

Suppose a particle reaches to escape velocity on the surface of a body (such as earth), it lost a part of its kinetic energy, question is: what happens for this kinetic energy?

DEAR HOSSEIN,

This is the redshift which is proved by Hubble's law, and observed in the Pioneer anomaly.  According to my transformation I discovered a subgroup of the conformal group, a subgroup called dilations.  dilation was used by a researcher named Hill in 1946 I believe in a proposal to explain the Hubble redshift. This proposal is long dead of course (in part because the microwave background is a pretty strong indication that the early universe was hot and dense, so the expansion is real!!!! why observed as real?). Now I repeat this model again, and I understood what is the problem here. The problem is in objectivity in the Lorentz transformation. Reinterpretation of the Lorentz transformation according to Copenhagen school and the death of objectivity will resulted Heisenberg uncertainty and the wave-particle duality govern the motion in micro and macro world.  In fact the problem can be solved exactly by considering there is no space-time continuum and it is only time and space is invariant. That will lead and interpret the entanglement completely in case negative vacuum energy.

Dear Azzam

You are right. There is some considerable notes in your comment, thank you.

I think there is an deeply result in this phenomena.

In my theory, when object lost its kinetic energy, energy converts to gravitons.

For detail see following link, I hope see your opinion.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/280626794_Unified_Force_Energy_and_Mass?ev=prf_pub

Article Unified Force, Energy and Mass

Dear Hossein,

I read your paper. It is really very interesting. I and you discuss the same problem, but we are different in how to solve this problem. According to your paper you adopt the principle of objectivity which is adopted in classical physics. For me I refuse this principle...why? 

Dear Hossein,

If t' not equal to t according to Lorentz transformation, do think that if the observer on the ground sees the flying plane is on Paris now, then, do you think at this moment the pilot of the moving plane sees his plane now on Paris. If not, then objectivity is not existed in physics. In Galilean transformation objectivity is true because t'=t, but in Lorentz transformation since t' not equal to t, then there is something wrong in physics, because SRT fixes data to keep on objectivity while objectivity is an illusion.

if objectivity does not exist, then continuity is not true as in classical physics, because of that in quantum theory there is an entanglement which is seen and proved experimentally. So I hope to discuss in this point in physics "Is objectivity exist really?"

Dear Azzam

I appreciate your attention and notes on my paper.

It is generally asserted that the "principle of objectivity" is valid for constitutive equations but not valid for general field equations.

http://www.emis.de/journals/HOA/IJMMS/Volume2_1/141.pdf

Non objectivity of physical properties enters physics with the standard interpretation of quantum mechanics (QM), and a number of paradoxes of this theory follow from it.

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023%2FA%3A1026466120178

Consider that in my theory, real spacetime has linked to virtual spacetime. I also have tried to built virtual spacetime on foundation of real spacetime. So, discuss on objectivity is not interesting for me.