arXiv:1909.09133v16 [physics.gen-ph] 1 Oct 2020 .Introduction 1. 04.50.Kd,04.60.-m,03.65-w number: PACS Keywords: double- the in pattern interference the of origin entropic an conjenctu gests ‘‘ER=EPR” Planckian proves of interpretation series quantum a new the through qua Also, travels a level, that o fundamental possibility basis the the at and the force cle, as entropic the used of be role the also Mechanic consider Quantum will of interpretation theory spa and gravity of formulation new geometric description new the The in foam scale. quantum Planck a at of at notion der apply to Wheeler’s be postulated will uses is It and that way. theory gravity different conformal a new in a from here derived be will Mechanics Quantum Abstract iiyt awl’ lcrmgei edter.Wy eivdta th that Genera believed unify Weyl to theory. parameter attempt field his electromagnetic in Maxwell’s 1920s to in tivity Weyl confo by first The proposed Tensor. was Weyl theory the t of ‘‘Weyl-squared” square involves as Lagrangian called its also are theories tr gravity Weyl alternative the Such as known transformation conformal a under invariant rpitsbitdt Elsevier to submitted Preprint ofra rvt satr ie o n lentv rvt theor gravity alternative any for given term a is Gravity Conformal nrpcGoerdnmc fQatmParticles Quantum of Entropic ω unu rvt,QatmFraimadIntepretation and Formalism , Quantum nacnomltransformation, conformal a in omlg n srpyisUi,NwEaUniversity Era New Unit, Astrophysics and o9CnrlAe,uznCt,10 Philippines 1107 City, Ave.,Quezon Central No.9 eateto topei n pc Sciences Space and Atmospheric of Department eryA .Abanto Q. A. Jeffrey g µν → e 2 ω g µν srltdt electro- to related is , ltexperiment. slit ansformation. mlgravity rmal lnkscale Planck tmparti- ntum . ue6 2021 6, June eadsug- and re hr we where s ere as heories htis that y Rela- l scale e cetime ived a f magnetism via the gauge transformation involving the 4-vector potential, i.e., Aµ Aµ + ∂ ω. Weyl’s theory failed, but it spurred a considerable amount of → x research in gravitational theories based on conformal invariance. In late 1920s, Weyl, London and others successfully resurrected Weyl’s idea when they ap- plied it to although the gauge transformation is no longer with the metric tensor but with the . A comprehensive history and review of Weyl Geometry and its application on various topics such as Quantum Gravity and Foundations of Quantum Mechanics can be found in the work of Scholz[1] and references therein. Also of great interests are the works of J.T. Wheeler [2], Wood and Papini [3], Mannheim[4], Castro[5], Shojai et.al.[6], Faria[7] and the work of Maldacena[8] on . All are very much rooted to the work initiated by Weyl in 1918. When Weyl evaluate the changes to Reimannian Geometry of his confor- mal transformation, he found out that the affine connection is modified where a pseudo-vector must be introduced. In order for the affine connection to be invari- ant, the pseudo-vector φ must undergo a gauge transformation: φ˜ = φ d log ω. − The introduction of the pseudo-vector leads to the non-metricity condition where the covariant derivative of metric tensor is non-vanishing. The geometry that was later developed is now called Weyl Geometry where the corresponding Weyl curvature tensor (in 4 dimensions),

1 1 W λ = Rλ + (δλR δλR + g Rλ g Rλ )+ (δλg δλg )R ναβ ναβ 2 β να − α νβ να β − νβ α 6 α βν − β αν is also invariant under Weyl transformation. It is now known to be important in describing compression and tidal deformation. From this tensor, a unique Lagrangian can be derived which is now called as the Weyl Lagrangian

1 L = √ gW W µναβ = √ g(R Rµναβ 2R Rµν + R2) w − µναβ − µναβ − µν 3 which is also invariant under Weyl’s conformal transformation. It is useful, nowadays, in formulating an alternative gravity theory at macroscopic scale. Despite of all the successes of Weyl’s original theory, the idea that it can be used in unifying gravity with Quantum Mechanics is not currently considered

2 by many physicists. In this paper, we wanted to show that conformal invariance can still be used to unify gravity and Quantum Mechanics at Planck scale. To do this, we suggest a modification to Weyl transformation and a new descrip- tion of gravity at Planck scale that goes beyond Differential Geometry. Here, we suggest the use of a new mathematical tool in Differential Topology called Hyperbolic Geometric Flow, a second order Ricci Flow, to describe gravity at Planck scale. Then we apply a modified Weyl transformation which involves a complex exponential function as the conformal factor. These modifications to General Relativity and Weyl transformation serve as the basis of the underlying postulates of the new theory of gravity that we proposed here. These postulates are stated as follows:

1. Weyl Transformation, g Ω2g , is a fundamental symmetry in na- µν → µν ture, where the conformal term Ω2 is a complex function. 2. Ricci Flow is a statistical system that can be used to describe the fluctuation and curvature at Planck Scale.

In Postulate 1, the demand for Weyl transformation to be a fundamental sym- metry in , means that it should also be applicable at quantum and Planck scale and not just at macroscopic scale. At macroscopic scale, the particular type of conformal transformation used by Weyl was successful in adding additional degree of freedom in General Relativity and explains compression and tidal forces. It failed in electromagnetism because Weyl was working on a classical and incomplete theory of electromagnetism. However, applying it to Quantum Electrodyanamics would also becomes problematic as there is still no accepted geometric theory of Quantum Mechanics. Furthermore, the metric tensor gµν does not have a fundamental role in the mathematical formalism of Quantum Mechanics. Another possible reason why Weyl transformation failed in Quan- tum Mechanics is perhaps Weyl’s original conformal transformation needs to be modified in order to be integrated in the mathematical formalism of Quan- tum Mechanics. Historically, the success of Weyl transformation in modifying General Relativity, motivated London, Fock and Weyl to use a similar transfor-

3 mation in Quantum Mechanics[9]. They turned Weyl’s conformal (or ‘‘gauge”) transformation into a local phase transformation by changing the conformal (or scale) factor from a real function into a complex function eiα and applying it to the wave function ψ instead of the metric tensor,i.e.,

′ ψ ψ = eiαψ (1) → for some scalar function α. For our theory, we also change the conformal factor into a complex function, but we retain the metric tensor, i.e.,

g g˜ = ϕ2g (2) µν → µν µν for some complex function ϕ = ei2πχ written in terms of a scalar function χ. In applying Weyl transformation at Planck scale, it is important first to have the necessary Physics at Planck scale. Particularly, we wanted to know the Physics of spacetime at Planck scale. At present, it is safe to say that no one knows the Physics in such region. Though, in recent years, there are many theories that had been put forward that attempt to describe what happens at Planck scale, most of them are phenomenological that only enumerates what are the possible scenario at Planck scale and what data can be derived from an experiment at low-energy approximation. At present, a complete description of the Physics at the Planck scale still remains elusive. Thus, in this paper, we will consider all the assumptions about the Planck scale that had been proposed in the past. See for example [10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18] and references therein. In Postulate 2, the significant role of the second-order Ricci Flow would be in the formulation of a new mathematical formalism of Quantum Mechan- ics. Our approach is basically to use a normalized and conformally invariant second–order Ricci Flow to derive a new mathematical formalism of Quantum Mechanics. By postulating a complex form of Weyl transformation as a funda- mental symmetry in nature, it introduces the use of a conformal function ϕ to modify the metric tensor gµν . In contrast, the conventional quantum formalism (CQF) postulates the use of a wave function or a probability amplitude ψ as a fundamental function, but no where it uses the metric tensor in a fundamental

4 way. The main reason why the metric tensor is usually excluded in CQF, is because the role of gravity was always considered negligible at the microscopic world. Here, we suggest that the metric tensor must also have a fundamental role for a complete description of a quantum system as any quantum system will always have an inherent energy fluctuations that will lead for spacetime to fluctuate. Also, CQF postulates an evolution equation for ψ in the form of Schr¨odinger Equation or . Here, we also postulates an evolution equation, but it is an evolution equation of the metric tensor that represents the spacetime fluctuation at quantum scale. The paper is organized as follows: In Section 2, a link between the quantum probability amplitude and the conformal function will be established where a modified Quantum Mechanics at Planck scale will be put forward. In Section 3, the Ricci Flow approach to quantum formalism will be elaborated where a gen- eralized form of Dirac Equation and Einstein Field Equation will be derived and unified. In Section 4, a new quantum interpretation and proof of ‘‘ER=EPR” conjencture will be presented. The section also presents a new explanation for the origin of interference pattern in the double slit experiment and the proba- bilistic nature of Quantum Mechanics.

2. Modified Quantum Mechanics

In this section, we wanted to evaluate the conformal function ϕ in Eq.(2) and show how it can be linked to Quantum Mechanics. To do this, it is first necessary to establish the connection of Quantum Mechanics with what we called as the ‘‘Physics at the Planck Scale”. By this we mean, we will be using some of the well-known assumptions about the Planck Scale that are currently being considered by so many authors [19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28] such as: the existence of minimum energy and length scale, variation of fundamental constants, spacetime fluctuation and modification of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. Applying now Weyl transformation given by Eq.(2) on energy dispersion

5 relation, it gives us

g pµpν ϕ2g pµpν = g E˜2 g p˜ip˜j (3) µν → µν 00 − ij where E˜ = ϕE,p ˜i = ϕpi andp ˜j = ϕpj are complex energy and momenta. Evaluating the complex energy and momentum, we use i2πϕ = ∂ϕ , E = ∂S , ∂χ − ∂t p1 = ∂S = p and inserting the imaginary number i = √ 1, we have ∂x x − i i ∂ϕ ∂S ϕE = (i2πϕ)E = −2π −2π  ∂χ  − ∂t  i ∂ϕ 1 ∂S = (4) 2π  ∂t  f ∂t  i i ∂ϕ ∂S ϕp = (i2πϕ)p = x −2π x −2π  ∂χ  ∂x  i ∂ϕ ∂S = λ (5) −2π  ∂x   ∂x  where S is the classical action and the following variables were defined:

1 ∂t ∂x = and λ = (6) f ∂χ ∂χ

Simplifying further, we define the variable,

1 ∂S ∂S ∂S h˜ = = λ = (7) f ∂t ∂x ∂χ such that from (4) and (5), we yield the following equations;

ϕE = i~˜∂ ϕ ϕp = i~˜∂ ϕ (8) t x − x where ∂x and ∂t are partial derivatives in space and time, respectively, and ~˜ h˜ = 2π . Since ϕ commutes with E and px, we have the following eigenvalue equations,

Eϕ = Eϕˆ pxϕ =pϕ ˆ (9) which gives us an operator correspondence,

E i~˜∂ = Eˆ p i~˜∂ =p ˆ (10) ≡ t x ≡− x

6 similar to Quantum Mechanics. Lastly, we use Eq. (7) and set S = S(χ). Then integrating and setting the variable h˜ equal to a constant h˜c, it will yield us

χ = S/h˜c + k (11) for some integration constant k. This will transform ϕ as follows:

~˜ ϕ ϕ = AeiS/ (12) → c which is similar to quantum probability amplitude where ~˜ = h˜c/2π and A is a constant. All of these results are equivalent to Quantum Mechanics if and only if the energy-dependent variable h˜ becomes constant and equal to the Planck constant. Note that the idea of a varying Planck’s ‘‘constant” is not something new. A varying and energy-dependent Planck ‘‘constant” was also derived by Smolin and Magueijo[29] in their work on Deformed at Planck Scale. Others [30] consider it to be a time-dependent variable at Planck scale. If it is true that the Planck constant is varying at Planck Scale, it would therefore modify all known quantum-mechanical laws. Such modification may also allow for Relativity to be applicable at Planck Scale at a certain extent although it must be different compare with the usual Relativity at macroscopic scale. It is suggested here that the simple modification of quantum-mechanical equations above applies at Planck scale. Consequently, the variables f and λ will be interpreted here as quantities that describe the fundamental fluctuation of space and time at Planck scale in terms of the new variable χ. We may also call f and λ as the ‘‘frequency” and ‘‘wavelength”, respectively, of a wave that describes the spacetime fluctuation at Planck Scale. On the other hand, the variable h˜, represents the fundamental energy fluctuation at Planck scale in terms of χ. We can relate it to f and λ by using Eq.(7) to derive a modified de Broglie-Planck equations which can be expressed as follows:

h˜ E = hf˜ p = (13) λ Take note that the energy E is the total energy of the system. What we wanted also is to define a minimum energy scale at Planck scale. For a constant total

7 energy, Eq. (11) becomes,

Et E E χ = S/h˜c + k = = = (14) h˜c h˜cfm Ep where we set the integration contants to cancel each other, Ep = h˜cfm and fm =1/t. If we define Ep as the minimum energy, we can now define the total energy E in terms of Ep,

E = χEp (15)

Now if at Planck scale, the region in space (in one-dimension) that can be occupied by a quantum particle is in N units of minimum length, Lp, i.e.,

x = NLp (16) then by Eq.(6), we have,

∂N ∂L 1 ∂N L ∂L N λ = L + N p = p + p (17) ∂χ p ∂χ f ∂χ v ∂χ v

∂x where v = ∂t . If Lp is fundamentally invariant at Planck scale and N is changing, we have, ∂N 1 ∂N L λ = L = p (18) ∂χ p f ∂χ v The partial derivative in the equations is related to the energy density ρ,

E χEp χ ρ = = = ρp (19) x NLp N where ρp = Ep/Lp is the minimum energy density. Thus,

∂ ρ ρ λ = χ p + p L (20)  ∂χ  ρ  ρ  p − ∂ ρ ρ 1 v f = χ p + p (21)  ∂χ  ρ  ρ  Lp

If, on the average, the energy density ratio is constant, we have,

ρp ρ v λ = Lp f = (22) ρ ρp Lp

We note of the fact that the value of the energy density ratio is inherently depen- dent on the measurement process as any measurement process will unavoidably

8 add an energy into the system. If the energy density ratio is in the 1020 order −33 and Lp is in the order of (10 cm), then λ would be in the order of Compton Scale (10−12cm) which is called as the de Broglie wavelength. At present, the way by which we do our measurement process is only at low energy resolution such that anything at Planck scale can only be observed in the order of Compton scale. If we have enough energy to increase the resolution of our measurement, such that we can send a single fundamental unit of energy Ep to observe a single unit of fundamental length Lp, then N =1= χ, ρ = ρp, and

v λ = Lp f = (23) Lp

Combining these results with equation Eq.(13), we have,

v h˜ E = h˜ p = (24) Lp Lp as the Planck scale equivalent of de Broglie-Planck equations which consider an invariant minimum length and a varying energy-dependent Planck ‘‘constant”. All of these results will be used and explained later in the formulation of a new quantum interpretation. To end this section, we note the advantage of using Weyl transformation where the conformal factor is a complex function. It allows the possibility of linking Weyl transformation to Quantum Mechanics by showing that the complex conformal term can be written as the quantum probability amplitude. Hence, we can have a piece-wise definition of a generalized conformal transfor- mation in terms of the nature of the conformal factor, Ω2, i.e.,

2 ϕ g (Planck/Quantum Scale) 2 µν gµν Ω gµν =  →  2 Y gµν (Classical/Macroscopic Scale)  where ϕ = ϕ(χ)= ei2πχ is a complex function in terms of the variable χ while Y = Y (ω) = eω is a real function in terms of scalar function ω. The former is postulated to be the metric tensor of the spacetime at Planck and quantum scale while the latter is the metric tensor at macroscopic scale. The conformal

9 metric tensor

2 g¯µν = ψ gµν (25) is suggested here as the low-energy approximation of the metric tensorg ˜µν = 2 ϕ gµν at Planck scale where its conformal function ϕ becomes the quantum probability amplitude ψ or the wave function. This is in line with the work of Dzhunushaliev [31] where he suggested that the metric tensor can be considered as a microscopical state in a statistical system and by Isidro et.al.[32] that the State Vector or the wave function is related to the conformal term of the metric tensor. In the end, the implication of the results given here, give us one of the ways by which to describe the Planck scale, i.e., via a modified form of Quantum Mechanics. Another way to describe the Planck scale is by modifying Generel Relativity and formulating a new gravity theory to describe the spacetime fluc- tuation that is happening at Planck scale. This will be discussed in the next section.

3. Ricci Flow Formalism

In the first two decades of the 21st century, tools in Differential Topology like the Ricci Flow started to be used in theories that attempt to describe the spacetime at Planck Scale[33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38]. One of such theories is the work of Dzhunushaliev[31] where he suggested that the Ricci Flow is a statistical system that can be use to describe the topology change at Planck Scale. In fact, Isidro et.al. [32, 39] showed that Schro¨dinger Equation can be derived from a conformally flat metric under Ricci Flow. A similar approach will be used here but a generalized form of Dirac Equation will be derived upon consideration of the invariance of the Ricci Flow under Weyl transformation. Also, instead of the usual Ricci Flow, a second-order version of the Ricci Flow will be postulated to describe the topology change at quantum scale. This is to account for the wave nature of a quantum particle and relating it to the wave nature of spacetime curvatures.

10 3.1. Normalized Ricci Flow Ricci Flow (R.F.) is a first order partial differential equation formulated by Hamilton[40] in 1982 to be used as an analytical tool to solve topological problems. In 2003, it was used by Perelman[41, 42] to prove Poincare’s conjen- ture and Thurston’s Geometrization conjencture[43]. It is usually expressed as follows, ∂g ij = 2R (26) ∂t − ij

It is a mean to stretching the metric tensor gij from negative curvature to positive curvature or to smooth out an arbitrary Reimannian manifold to make it look more symmetric. This is from the point of view of mathematicians. For it to have a physical meaning, we relate it here to General Relativity which is possible since Einstein Field Equation in case is derivable from a normalized Ricci Flow. For our purpose, the partial derivative in Eq.(26) is considered here to be in terms of the real physical time t and Rij is the Ricci Tensor which has a physical significance in General Relativity as it measures the spacetime curvature.

Consider the following evolution equations for the Ricci tensor(Rij ) and

Weyl tensor(Wijkl) under R.F.[44, 45], ∂R ij = 2R +2gprgqsR R 2gpqR R (27) ∂t ∇ ij piqj rs − pi qj ∂W ijkl = 2W + 2(D D + D D ) ∂t ∇ ijkl ijkl − ijlk ikjl − iljk gpq(R W + R W + R W + R W ) (28) − ip qjkl jp iqkl kp ijql lp ijkq 1 + gpq(R R g R R g + R R g R R g ) 2 ip qk jl − ip ql jk jp ql ik − jp qk il R (R g R g + R g R g )+ R R − 2 ik jl − il jk jl ik − jk il ik jl R2 Ric 2 R R + − | | (g g g g ) − jk il 2 ik jl − il jk pq rs where Dijkl = g g Wpijr Wslkq and ∂2 ∂ 2 = gij = gij Γk (29) ∇ ∇i∇j ∂xi∂xj − ij ∂xk  is the Laplacian with respect to the evolving metric with the ordinary affine connection Γ in Reimannian geometry. These equations describe the evolution

11 of the curvatures. However, what is also important for our purpose is the preservation of the volume structure and not just the evolution of spacetime curvatures. The evolution of the volume element dv = (det gij )dx of the p spacetime M is given by [40],

∂ 1 ij ∂ log (det gij )dx = g gij = r R (30) ∂t q 2 ∂t − R Rdv where r = M is the average scalar curvature and serves to normalize the RM dv R.F., so that the volume is constant. If the volume is not constant and fluctu- ating in time, to prevent the solution of Eq. (30) from shrinking to a point or expanding to , we must consider the Normalized Ricci Flow (NRF)[40]: ∞ ∂g 2 ij = rg 2R (31) ∂t n ij − ij such that, ∂ log (det gij )=0 (32) ∂t q where n is the number of dimension. However, a general case would be to consider the non-linear NRF by getting the second derivative of Eq.(31) and using Eq.(27),

∂2g 2 ∂g ij r ij +2 2R +4gprgqsR R 4gpqR R =0 ∂t2 − n ∂t ∇g ij piqj rs − pi qj for constant r. If we consider the manifold to be an Einstein manifold where R = 1 kg for some constant k, we have the following wave equation, ij − 2 ij ∂2g ij k 2g + F = 0 (33) ∂t2 − ∇g ij

∂gij where F = F ∂t ,gij is a damping term which is a function of gij and its first   order derivative. However, a more natural starting point would be to consider a non-linear form of Ricci Flow expressed by a wave equation of the metric tensor,

∂2g ij = 2R (34) ∂t2 − ij known as the Hyperbolic Geometric Flow (HGF). It is an equation first intro- duced by De-Xing Kong and Kefeng Lui in 2006. We postulate that it is an

12 equation that describe the inherent fundamental spacetime fluctuation at the Planck Scale (using Postulate 2) while a quantum field can also be represented by such spacetime fluctuation but is held together by the gravitational attraction of its own field energy in a confined region with volume that is invariant. This idea is similar to John Wheeler’s classical notion of geons[46] but we will show later how it can be integrated to Quantum Mechanics by conformal symmetry (using Postulate 1). For an invariant volume that is equal to a unit volume, Kong and Lui in [47] derived a normalized form of HGF,

a ∂2g + b ∂ g + c g = 2R (35) ij t ij ij t ij ij ij − ij where ∂t is the partial derative in time, while aij ,bij and cij are certain smooth functions in M. Similar to Eq.(33), the normalized HGF can also be written into a wave equation with a damping term. To show this explicitly, an approximation for the Ricci Tensor Rij in terms of the metric tensor [48] can also be used, i.e.,

1 R 2g (36) ij ≈−2∇ ij which will then transform the normalized Hyperbolic Geometric Flow (nHGF) as follows:

˜ gµν = 0 (37) where ˜ = a ∂2 2 + b ∂ + c is a modified d’ Alembert operator and all µν t − ∇ µν t µν Latin indices were replaced to Greek indices for 4-dimensional consideration.

3.2. Modified General Relativity

The connection of nHGF to General Relativity is the case when aµν = bµν =

0 and cµν = c, where c is constant which gives us the vacuum case for Einstein Field Equation (EFE),

1 R = cg (38) µν 2 µν

13 We can add in nHGF an external energy source given by an energy tensor Tµν to have a modified EFE,

Gµν = kTµν + W (39) where Gµν is the Einstein Tensor, k is a constant and

W = (a ∂2g + b ∂ g ) (40) − µν t µν µν t µν is an extra term that modify EFE. This result will later be used in the formu- lation of a new quantum interpretation in Section 4 .

3.3. Generalized Dirac Equation

To describe the spacetime fluctuation in Quantum Mechanics, we apply now Weyl transformation on nHGF. It transforms nHGF as follows,

˜ g ˜ g¯ =2g ψ˜ ψ + ψ2˜ g (41) µν → µν µν µν where we consider the Weyl transformation given by Eq.(25). In order for nHGF to be invariant under Weyl transformation, the first term in Eq.(41) must vanish which gives us the following equation,

˜ ψ = a ∂2ψ 2ψ + b ∂ ψ c ψ = 0 (42) µν t − ∇ µν t − µν

Notice that by setting the values of aµν , bµν and cµν as follows:

2 im c2β m c2α a = 1, b =2 0 , c = i 0 µν µν  ~  µν  ~ 

0 σ where 1 is the identity matrix, α =   is written in terms of Pauli matrices σ 0   1 0 σ and β =  , Eq.(42) will yield us the following equation: 0 1  −  im c2β m c2α 2 1∂2ψ 2ψ +2 0 ∂ ψ 0 ψ = 0 (43) t − ∇  ~  t −  ~ 

14 which is an equation that was derived by Arbab et. al. [49, 50] using a quaterion formalism of Quantum Mechanics. He called it as the ‘‘Unified Quantum Wave Equation’’ (UQWE) as he was able to show that Dirac Equation, Klein-Gordon Equation, Schr¨odinger Equation and Quantum Heat Transport Equation can all be derived from such single equation[51]. In fact, it is just a second order version of Dirac equation. From Eq.(43), it yields us a second-order operator im c2β m c2 2 (α )2 = 1∂2 +2 0 ∂ 0 (44) · ∇ t  ~  t −  ~  where α2 = β2 = 12 = 1. Factoring and getting the square root will give us the following linear operator; im c2β α = 1∂ + 0 (45) · ∇ t ~ Arranging and putting back the function ψ, it will give us im c2β 1∂ ψ α ψ + 0 ψ = 0 (46) t − · ∇ ~ which is the Dirac Equation [52]. Though this is definitely not an exact deriva- tion of Dirac Equation as values of aµν , bµν and cµν were arbitrarily given, the derivation of a generalized UQWE in geometric terms is enough for our goal in this paper. More importantly, a unifying link between UQWE (a generalized and modified Dirac Equation) and nHGF (a generalized and modified Einstein Field Equation) was established as expressed by Eq.(41) to describe the space- time fluctuation at Planck scale in the presence of a quantum system. This connection will be used later for a fundamental description of a quantum parti- cle at Planck scale.

3.4. Other Quantum Equations Consider now a charge in a quantum system which modifies the space in the vicinity as it gives additional energy into the system. In the presence of an electric charge q, it yields us a phase transformation in ψ since the action S will transform as follows:

S = T qAµ dt (47) Z { − }

15 where T is the kinetic energy, Aµ = (A, φ) is the electromagnetic 4-potential and we use the convention ~ = c = 1. Using Eq.(41), we yield another wave equation,

˜ Aµ = 0 (48) since ˜ ψ = i(˜ S)ψ = i[ (˜ T q˜ Aµ)dt]ψ = 0. Expanding the equation, we − have R

˜ µ  µ µ 2 µ A = A + bµν ∂0A + m0A = 0 (49) where we can set b =2im β = 0 and µν 0 6 µ µ ν bµν ∂0A = ∂ (∂ν A ) (50) such that ∂ Aν = 0 and we get ν 6  µ µ ν 2 µ A + ∂ (∂ν A )+ m0A = 0 (51) which is the Proca equation[53]. Similar to Eq.(39) where an energy stress tensor

Tµν was added, we can add an external source-charge by adding the 4-current density J µ = (J, ρ),

 µ µ ν 2 µ µ A + ∂ (∂ν A )+ m0A = J (52) which becomes the inhomogenous Maxwell equation if m0 = 0 and the Lorenz gauge condition is preserved. We take note of the fact that the generalization of the Lorenz gauge as expressed in Eq.(50) is naturally integrated in the theory in order to derive Proca Equation. Furthemore, if we consider the Kinetic Energy T as the average kinetic energy of the quantum system, then it is related to the 1 temperature TH of the system via the equipartition rule: T = 2 kbTH , which gives us the following equation:

˜ T = a ∂2T 2T + b ∂ T + c T = 0 (53) H µν t H − ∇ H µν t H µν H The equation above is known as the Quantum Hyperbolic Heat Transport equa- tion [54] in its most generalized form. This implies that a quantum particle also serves as a carrier of heat and by itself can be considered as a thermodynamic system.

16 4. Worm Hole Interpretation

In this section, a new quantum interpretation will be put forward by an- alyzing the metric solution of the nHGF. However, it is not intended here to come up with a fully developed quantum interpretation. The section is meant to be a starting point for a new approach in solving the foundational prob- lems in Quantum mechanics. Survey of other quantum interpretations will not be done except for a very short review of Copenhagen Interpretation for com- parison. Topics such as entanglement, and double slit experiment among others will be discussed and explained within the context of a new quantum interpretation which we formally called here as Worm Hole Interpretation(WHI). The focus would be on the fundamental nature of a quan- tum particle and a possible proof of Susskind and Maldacena’s ‘‘ER=EPR” conjecture on . In retrospect, the root cause of all the confusion surrounding the interpre- tational problem of Quantum Mechanics is due to the fact that no one really knows what is the true nature of the so-called ‘‘quantum wave”. It all started with the double-slit experiment which seems to suggest that a quantum particle is behaving like a wave, but no one is really sure if the electron is the wave itself or the electron is just riding or moving along with a ‘‘guiding wave”. Feyn- man called the problem of explaining the double-slit experiment as ‘‘the central mystery”[55]. Without the full grasp of the physical nature of the wave that is associated with a quantum particle, Bohr and others resort to suggest that there is really no physical wave that existed or being propagated that corresponds to a quantum particle. The wave function is said to be just a mathematical tool that encapsulates all the things that can be known to a quantum system. This pragmatic approach of Copenhagen Interpretation (CI) became the favored in- terpretation among physicists nowadays. For CI, the wave function ψ and its corresponding wave equation, should not be postulated to describe a ‘‘quantum wave” that physically exists as what de Broglie and Bohm suggested [56, 57]. The Wave Function for CI is just a mathematical tool to describe a quantum

17 state or to predict the possible outcome of an experiment. Here, a new inter- pretation as an alternative to CI will be put forward based on the new quantum formalism presented in the previous section.

4.1. The Quantum Wave

The so-called quantum field is suggested here to be an ensemble of waves or fluctuations that physically exist in a quantum system. As discussed in the previous section, for an electrically charged lepton like an electron, there are three types of wave which are described by the following wave equations:

µ ˜ T =0, ˜ A =0, ˜ gµν =0. (54)

All can be unified under a single equation

µ µν 2 (˜ T q˜ A )dt + g ˜ gµν ψ = 0 (55) Z −  using Eq.(41) and Eq.(47). The first type of wave is an ‘‘energy wave’’ and described by the wave equation,

˜ T = a ∂2T 2T + b ∂ T + c T = 0 (56) µν t − ∇ µν t µν It is a wave equation that describe the energy fluctuation of a quantum system. 1 If the kinetic energy T is under the equipartition rule T = 2 χkbTH where the quantum system is composed of χ number of fundamental units of energy, then the equation becomes the Quantum Hyperbolic Heat Transport Equation

˜ T = a ∂2T 2T + b ∂ T + c T = 0 (57) H µν t H − ∇ H µν t H µν H in its most generalized form which implies the thermodynamical nature of a quantum system as carrier of heat. For the second type of wave, it involves the fluctuation of electromagnetic vector and scalar potential. It is a fluctuation that generate the electromagnetic field. The fluctuation is described by the equation below

˜ Aµ = a ∂2Aµ 2Aµ + b ∂ Aµ + c Aµ = 0 (58) µν t − ∇ µν t µν

18 which is a general case of Proca Equation in the vacuum case. In the famous Aharonov-Bohm Experiment (ABE), it is very much established that electro- magnetic potentials are ‘‘physical” and not just a convenient mathematical tool for calculating force fields. Its influence in the surrounding space is that it gives additional energy into the system. Thus, the presence of a charge (not necessar- ily an electric charge), adds to the energy fluctuations that is associated with a quantum field. The consequence of such energy fluctuations is for the spacetime to fluctuate. The corresponding spacetime fluctuation that is associated with a quantum field must be confine within a given volume of space. In fact, the corresponding wave associated with it, is soliton in nature and described by the third wave equation which is the nHGF:

˜ g = a ∂2g 2g + b ∂ g + c g =0. µν µν t µν − ∇ µν µν t µν µν µν

By rearranging the terms in nHGF, we can express it into a wave equation with a damping term, Φ,

˜ gµν = gµν +Φ=0 (59) where  = a ∂2 2 and the damping term Φ is given by µν t − ∇

Φ= bµν ∂tgµν + cµν gµν (60)

It accounts to the confinement or localization of the spacetime fluctuation. It also accounts to the particle-like behavior of a quantum field. Further proof of this will be elaborated in the succeeding section by analyzing the metric solution of nHGF.

4.2. Nature

In their paper on nHGF, Shu and Shen were able to show that nHGF satisfies Birkhoff’s Theorem and were able to solve an exact metric solution of it which turns out to be a black hole solution[58]. The metric was shown to be,

2m Λ 2m Λ ds2 = u(r) 1 r2 c2dt2 1 r2 dr2 + r2dΩ2 (61)  − r − 3  −  − r − 3 

19 σa σb σc Λri where u(r) = (r ra) (r rb) (r rc) , σi = , κi corresponds to the surface − − − κi gravity of the black hole, while r , r and r are three roots of 1 2m Λ r2 =0 a b c − r − 3 which depends on the value of decoupled constant Λ. For Λ = 0, the solution gives a Schwarzschild metric which is well-known to have a solution that was first derived by Einstein and Rosen in their 1935 paper[59], i.e., ǫ2 ds2 = c2dt2 4(ǫ2 +2m)du2 (ǫ2 +2m)2dΩ2 ǫ2 +2m − − by setting ǫ2 = r 2m such that the metric describes two regions of space (or − sheets) for ǫ< 0 and ǫ> 0 that is joined at the hyperplane r =2m. For Λ = 0, 6 Shu and Shen derived a black hole solution that comes in two types. The first type is the case for 1 9 r2, where r = 2m is the Schwarzchild radius. This Λ ≥ 4 g g type has two horizons with radii rb and rc since ra < 0 and rc > rb > 0. It was assumed that between the two horizons, with radii rc and rb, the true event horizon is the outermost horizon with radius rc. The second type is for the case 1 9 2 Λ < 4 rg . For this case, Shu and Shen considered only one event horizon as the ∗ solution involves three radii in which two of them are complex (rb = rc ) while 3 2 the other one is real (ra). Note however that if we set Λ = 2 q , for an electric charge q, we get the following Schwarzschild static and spherically symmetric solution for the combined field, gravity and electricity, that Einstein and Rosen also derived in their 1935 paper, 2m q2 2m q2 ds2 = u(r) 1 c2dt2 1 dr2 + r2dΩ2 (62)  − r − 2r2  −  − r − 2r2 

2 which by setting ǫ = r2 q to eliminate singularities and m = 0, the metric − 2 becomes 2ǫ2 q2 ds2 = dt2 du2 ǫ2 + dΩ2 (63) 2ǫ2 + q2  − −  2  which, again, exhibits a wormhole solution. However, in 1962, and Robert W. Fuller published a paper [60] showing that the type of wormhole that was derived by Einstein and Rosen, is unstable. If it connects two parts of the same universe, it will pinch off too quickly for light (or any particle moving slower than light) that falls in from one exterior region to make

20 it to the other exterior region. May that be the case, what is clear at this point is that the theory presented here suggests that there must be an associated sub- microscopic black hole in every quantum field. The idea that quantum fields/particles are associated with black holes at the fundamental level is not something new as it was already explored by others [61, 62] since the pioneering work of Carter[63]. Carter considered quantum par- ticles as black holes with naked singularity. Here, a quantum field is considered to be a spactime fluctuation that is held together by its own energy and charge field within a sub-microscopic black hole. It is mathematically described by Eq.(41) where the confined energy fluctuation is described by ˜ ψ = 0 while the sub-microscopic black hole is described by ˜ gµν = 0. This black hole configura- tion of a quantum field is suggested here to act like a kind of mechanism which gives the quantum field the appearance of a point-like particle at low-energy approximation.

4.3. Entropic Traversable Wormholes

In this section, we discuss the way by which a quantum field interacts with its surrounding empty space such that its associated sub-microscopic black hole turns into a traversable wormhole. Instead of using the metric solution of Shu and Shen, we can use the black hole solution of the modified EFE that we derived in Section 3.2, i.e.,

Gµν = kTµν + W (64) where the term W = (a ∂2g +b ∂ g ), is considered here to be associated − µν t µν µν t µν with the inherent (negative) energy of empty space due to quantum fluctuations. A similar modification of EFE was also done by Novikov [64] which also involves additional terms that contain second and first order derivative of the metric tensor gµν with particular values for aµν and bµν . He called it as ‘‘Quantum Modification of General Relativity” as the extra terms added in EFE represent the quantum effects of the production of matter/energy by the vacuum or empty

21 space. Another approach is to include an exotic matter content in the energy tensor Tµν which can be expressed as an anisotropic fluid,

T = (ρ + p )u u p g + (p p )x x (65) µν t µ ν − t µν r − t µ ν where ρ is the energy density, pr and pt are the radial and tangential pres- sure, respectively, while uµ and xµ are the 4-vector velocities along the traverse and tangential directions which satisfy the relations u uµ = 1 and x xµ = 1. µ − µ These types of wormhole is what we called here as ‘‘Planckian wormholes” where quantum consideration will allow enough time for it to be traversable upon in- teraction with the negative energy generated by the surrounding empty space. In the past, different models of traversable wormhole had been put forward that consider the role of quantum fluctuations. Most prominent of these mod- els can be found in the work of Morris and Thorne [65] where they proposed traversable wormholes as solutions of Einstein’s Field Equation that contain ex- otic matter with negative energy density. The stability of the wormhole depends on the exotic matter content. Classically, it is not possible to have enough neg- ative energy sources as it violates the Average Null Energy Condition (ANEC). Consequently, there are also many attempts to have a model of traversable wormhole which not necessarily needed an exotic matter or negative energy sources like the wormhole models of Visser[66]. All of this however is at the macroscopic level. At Planck scale, one must consider quantum effect and the only known pure quantum effect to produce negative energy is the so-called Casimir effect. Casimir effect is a phenomenon predicted in 1948 and later observed in an experiment which involves the existence of an attractive force Fc between pair of neutral and parallel conducting plates. The Casimir force is given by[67],

π2 F = A (66) c −240d4 c where d is the distance of separation between the plates and Ac is the surface area of the plates. This force exists because of the negative energy density

22 between the plates[68], π2 1 ρ = (67) c −720 d4 which is associated with the zero point energy of vacuum. The pressure can be derived by renormalizing the negative energy, 2 Fc π 1 pc = = 4 (68) Ac −240 d Results similar to this can be achieved if fundamentally we treat a quantum particle as an energy and charge field that is confined within a sub-microscopic black hole. We can use some of the well-known theorems in Black Hole Physics. One of which is the idea that all black holes are thermodynamic systems that obey the 1st Law of Thermodynamics,

F dx = TH dSE (69) from which we can define an entropic force F by using the Bekenstein Formula[69],

mc dSE = kb ~ dA (70) where SE is the entropy of the black hole, kb is the Boltzmann’s constant, m is the mass of a test particle and dx is its distance from the black hole which has a horizon area A. The entropic force is therefore given by, dS mc dA F = E T = k T (71) dx H b ~ H dx Now, the heat generated is brought about by the motion of the quantum field. As the quantum field moves in empty space, it gains mass by interacting with the Higgs field and virtual particles. However, the interaction with virtual particles will also cause for the quantum field to change its direction randomly and therefore accelerates. The acceleration brought about by absorption of virtual particles with negative energies will cause for the quantum field (as a sub-microscopic black hole) to generate heat. It is a phenomenon known as the Hawking-Unruh effect where the corresponding temperature can be expressed in terms of the particle’s acceleration[70], ~ TH = a (72) 2πckb

23 where ~ is the reduced Planck constant, a is the acceleration, and c is the . The interaction of the quantum field with empty space leads to an increase on energy, entropy and the horizon area of the corresponding black hole. However, as soon as the corresponding heat is emitted in the form of dA Hawking-Unruh radiation, the horizon area decreases ( dx < 0) and the black dA hole returns to its initial horizon area A0. If we set dx = k0A0, i.e., the change in the horizon area is proportional to the initial horizon area for some constant of proportionality k0. This will yield us an expression for the entropic force given by mc ma F = k k T A = k A (73) − 0 b ~ H 0 − 0 2π 0 where we substitute the value of TH from Eq.(72). Thus, the corresponding pressure is given by, F ma p = = k0 (74) A0 − 2π We note the striking similarity in nature of the derived entropic force and the so-called Casimir force. With this result, we ought to suggest that the type of traversable wormhole that can be associated to a quantum field, would be those considered as a Casimir type of wormhole similar to those described by Garattini [71]. This is due to the unique interaction of the corresponding sub-microscopic black hole that represents a quantum field, to its surrounding empty space. We can picture the surface of the sub-microscopic black hole that we associated with a quantum field, to be a place where there is always a build up of negative energy. Such build up of negative energy triggers the opening of a traversable wormhole for a brief period of time. In retrospect, the corresponding field of entropic force reminds us of Bohm’s idea of ‘‘quantum potential”[56] or de Broglie’s concept of ‘‘pilot wave” [72, 57] as the quantum particle interacts with its own field of entropic force generated by its own heat. It is suggested here to be the root cause of the probabilistic nature of quantum particle’s motion. The motion is suggested here to be similar with Brownian motion but under the influence of field of entropic force that act like a kind of a ‘‘sub-quantum medium” as inferred by others [73, 74]. However,

24 as we have shown here, the probabilistic nature of Quantum Mechanics is not just thermodynamic in nature but also ‘‘geometrodynamic”. By this we mean that the structure of spacetime or its curvature and fluctuation also affects the ‘‘motion” of a quantum field. Following the suggestion of Wheeler, the structure of spacetime at Planck scale must be ‘‘foam-like” in nature due to quantum fluctuation. The background spacetime of a quantum particle as observe at Planck scale is a dynamical place where there is a continuous generation of sub-microscopic wormholes[75]. This is very much consistent to what we have arrived here. As the sub-microscopic black hole associated with a quantum field continuously turns into a traversable wormhole, it will allow for the energy and charge field within it to travel from one point in space to another by passing through a series of sub-microscopic wormholes (See Figure 1.). The passage within each wormhole must be within a given period of time. Such period of time must be within the limit set by Heisenberg . However, at Planck scale, as already suggested in Section 2, one must consider the inclusion of a minimum length and energy scale that will generalized the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. In fact, this is currently being explored by people who are working on traversable Casimir wormhole. One example of it, is the very recent work of Jusufi et.al. [76] by which they construct a traversable Casimir wormhole that uses a generalized uncertainty principle that is modified by the inclusion of a minimum length scale in the order of Planck length. In this paper, we will not go into details on what would be the suitable wormhole solution for our theory as it will disgress too much on the current topic of this paper. At this point, it is enough to say that a traversable Casimir wormhole that obeys a modified Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is what we suggest to be the type of Planckian wormhole that can be associated with a quantum field. The modification of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle by inclusion of a minimum length and energy scale will be the topic of the next subsection.

25 Figure 1: Entropic Geometrodynamics in 1-Dimension. In (a), a quantum particle/field with an initial acceleration a1 generates heat. When it releases the heat in the form of Hawking-Unruh radiation, the corresponding entropic force F1 builds up a negative energy that turns the associated sub-microscopic black hole of the quantum field into a wormhole. The process repeats itself since the quantum field is continously interacting with its surrounding empty space such that the quantum field with its energy and charge field ‘‘travels” by passage through a series of wormholes. As the quantum field emerges from one wormhole to another, the minimum length it can be observed is in the order of Planck length Lp. In (b), the Planck length will be observed at Compton scale in the order of de broglie wavelength λ as a low-energy approximation at the microscopic level . At one end or mouth of the wormhole (represented by the white circle) the quantum particle enters which to appear again at another point in space (represented by the black circle) as it emerges from the other end of the wormhole.

4.4. Modified Uncertainty Principle

At present, almost all quantum interpretations have always considered Heisen- berg Uncertainty Principle (HUP) to be a fundamental principle. In the original formulation of Heisenberg, his line of thought is that the nature of the measur- ing process by which an observer measure the properties of a quantum system is simply fundamentally limited. It was later realized that the origin of the uncertainties in Quantum Mechanics is not just the limitation of the observer and the measurement process that an observer uses but Nature itself. However, the reason or the mechanism why HUP is inherent in Nature was never really given an explanation, particularly in Copenhagen Interpretation of HUP. Here, we suggest that the origin of the uncertainties is brought about by the funda- mental nature of spacetime at Planck scale in the presence of a quantum field where the spacetime is no longer smooth and continuous but has ‘‘holes”. Each hole is like a tiny rip in a smooth fabric of spacetime which is essentially the mouth of a sub-microscopic wormhole generated by the presence of a quantum field. This consideration will greatly affect the very description of the quan-

26 tum field which an observer perceived to be a particle at quantum scale. As already pointed out in the previous subsection, the black hole associated with a quantum field can become a wormhole as it interacts with its surrounding empty space. Since there can never be a scenario, in fact it is paradoxical, that a quantum field can be isolated and separated away from an empty space, a quantum field therefore will always be in contact with empty space which is a rich source of negative energy. Hence, there is always a high probability that the sub-microscopic black hole associated with a quantum field will always turn into a traversable wormhole. In such situation, it is but natural for a quantum field to move from one point in space to another through a series of wormholes. It is as if the quantum field is in a state of continuous quantum tunneling in space without any potential barrier. As it enters from one wormhole to another, the total distance travelled x from one wormhole to another is given by Eq.(16) and has a corresponding uncertainty,

δx = NδLp (75) where δLp is the uncertainty in measuring Lp. The uncertainty in measuring

Lp is brought about by the fact that the current nature of our measurement process will never have enough energy for it to have a resolution within the Planck scale. Substituting now Eq.(75) to Eq.(24), it yields us

v Nv h˜ Nh˜ δE = h˜ = h˜ , δp = = (76) δLp δx δLp δx For N > 0, we get a modified Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle,

δE δt> h˜ δpδx> h˜ (77) where δx and δt = δx/v are the uncertainties in position and time, respectively, while δE and δp are the uncertainties in energy and momentum, respectively. At low-energy approximation where h˜ h, it yields us the familiar Heisenberg → Uncertainty Principle. In one sense, this is similar to Bohr’s Correspondence Principle. However, instead of the behavior of systems described by Quan- tum Mechanics reproducing Classical Physics, it is the behaviour of systems at

27 Planck scale that is reproducing quantum-mechanical phenomena.

In addition, the fundamental minimum length Lp is not only interpreted here as a fundamental unit of spacetime but also as the distance between two mouths of a Planckian wormhole. Comparing this to other quantum gravity the- ories such as , it does not consider the notion of loops[77], spins[78] and [79, 80] as the fundamental building blocks of a quan- tized spacetime. Here we have ‘‘holes” and ‘‘handles” which correspond to the ‘‘mouths” and ‘‘throats” of the Planckian wormholes. Thus, one of the main advantages of the present theory is that, in principle, one can formally describe the whole theory using Differential Topology. In terms of Quantum Informa- tion, the theory is very much consistent with the idea of .

4.5. Born’s Conjencture

Born’s Conjecture, which is also called by various names such as Born Pos- tulate, and Born Principle, is the foundation upon which the prob- abilistic formalism of Quantum Mechanics rested upon. In its basic form, it states that the square of the absolute value of probability amplitude ψ is equal to the probability P of finding the quantum particle at a given point in space. Consequently, the value of ψ 2 must be normalized to have a value between | | zero and one, i.e., 0 ψ 2 1 (78) ≤ | | ≤ Born Principle is closely connected with the Measurement Problem since the act of measurement causes the collapse of the value of ψ 2 to unity. To prove | | Born’s conjecture within the context of WHI, we consider the fact that in any measurement process, there are always particles that interact with one another, i.e., the particle being observed and the particle within a measuring device that is used in the measurement process. In , interaction between two particles is via an exchange of mediating particles. It is similar to WHI but the interaction is between two sub-microscopic black holes. If the interaction is attractive, the black holes tend to merge into a single black hole. However,

28 what keeps the two black holes from merging into a single black hole are other properties of the black holes such as its charges, spins and velocities. In these interactions, there will be an energy transfer that will lead to an increase in the entropy and volume of the black holes. As the observed sub-microscopic black hole emit a , though minimal, it will lead to compression or

‘‘collapse” of the black hole into a smaller volume Vf from the initial volume

Vi. The probability P of finding χ number of fundamental unit of energy in a smaller volume is given by, V χ P = f (79)  Vi  while 1 P is the probability of finding the particles outside V . Rearranging, − f the equation will give us,

− V χ = ln 1 f ln P (80)  Vi 

Now, if there is no energy transfer, the energy remains constant. For such case, we can use an energy-dependent conformal function ψ = ei2πχ = ei2πEt/h to represent the observed particle with constant energy E. The natural logarithm of ψ will give us, i Et E E ln ψ = = = = χ (81) −2π h hf Eq where f = 1/t and Eq = hf as the minimum energy in the order of Compton scale which is the energy scale of any measurement processes at the quantum i ∗ scale. Combining the conjugate χ = 2π ln ψ with Eq.(81), we have, i ψ 2 χ = ln | | (82) 4π  ψ2 

−1 Comparing this with Eq.(80), we have ln (Vf /Vi)= i/4π, which implies Vf =

Vi or the volume remains constant, and

ψ 2 P = | | (83) ψ2

Now, since 0 P 1, then 0 P ψ2 ψ2 and ≤ ≤ ≤ ≤

0 ψ 2 ψ2 (84) ≤ | | ≤

29 Since the value of ψ 2 is always real, then the value for ψ2 must be set to always | | have a real value. The only way for it to be real is for χ to have integral values in order to eliminate the imaginary part of ψ which will make ψ2 = 1. It gives us the normalization condition,

0 ψ 2 1 (85) ≤ | | ≤ and the expression P = ψ 2 (86) | | which therefore proves Born’s conjecture. Historically, it should be realized that Born simply hypothesized that the quantity ψ 2 is equal to the probability of observing a particle at a given point | | in space and therefore need to be normalized. Here, we suggest that Born’s con- jencture should not be taken as a fundamental principle. It can be derived from the consideration that quantum particles are fundamentally sub-microscopic black holes which have entropies that change as they interact and transfer en- ergies with one another. It is a principle that was amazingly hypothesized by Born, not of course by sheer luck but by impressive physical intuition on how the mathematics can be related to the interaction that is happening between a physical system and a measurement process. In comparison with , the interaction of two particles in a mea- surement process is similar to the interaction of two closed strings, but instead of 1-dimensional strings, a 3-dimensional sub-microscopic black holes are involve. In contrast, our theory need not to postulate an extra dimensions as required in String Theory. In fact, the description of a black hole can be thought of as encoded on a lower-dimensional boundary of the black hole’s region if one is to uphold the so-called [81] in Black Hole Physics.

4.6. The ‘‘ER=EPR” Conjecture

Historically, quantum entanglement was realized as a fundamental quantum property upon resolution of the famous Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen(EPR) paradox

30 by a series of experimental confirmation in the 1980s of the violation of Bell’s Inequality. One of the recently proposed ideas to explain quantum entanglement is the so-called ‘‘ER=EPR” conjencture of Susskind and Maldacena[82]. The conjencture posit the idea that quantum particles are entangled because it is physically connected via an Einstein-Rosen (ER) bridges or wormholes. To prove it here in the context of WHI, we use Hawking’s Area Theorem which states that the horizon area of a black hole never decreases. It implies an inequality between the initial and final horizon area of the black hole, say for two merging black holes with Horizon Area A1 and A2, we have

A1 + A2 < Atot (87) where Atot is the resulting horizon area. If the Holographic Principle holds, then the number of bits (units of information) on the horizon area is given by

c3 χ = A (88) G~ where each bit corresponds to a unit of energy such that by equipartition rule the total energy E is given by

1 E = k χT (89) 2 b H

Thus, for two black holes merging,

E1 + E2 < Etot (90) where E1 and E2 are the corresponding initial energies of the two black holes and Etot is the final energy. Since the conformal function ψ = ψ(E) is a function of energy, ψ1 + ψ2 < ψtot, which implies an inequality of conformal factors,

2 2 2 ψ1 + ψ2 < ψtot (91)

The inequality requires an additional term m(A , A ) 0 such that 1 2 ≥

2 2 2 ψtot = ψ1 + ψ2 + m(A1, A2) (92)

31 Now, using Eq.(83), we therefore have,

2 2 2 ψtot ψ1 ψ2 | | = | | + | | + m(A1, A2) (93) Ptot P1 P2

If we let Ptot = P1 = P2 = 1, we can write Eq.( 93) in a more compact form,

ψ 2 = ψ 2 + ψ 2 + m(A , A )= ψ + ψ 2 (94) | tot| | 1| | 2| 1 2 | 1 2| which is the familiar equation for by setting m(A1, A2) as the quantum interference term. This implies that two conformal functions can be represented by a single conformal function, i.e.,

ψtot = ψ1 + ψ2 (95)

In addition, by multiplying Eq.(92) with gµν , a conformal metric tensor can be defined as a linear combination of three conformal metric tensors,

(tot) (1) (2) m g¯µν =¯gµν +¯gµν +¯gµν (96)

(1) 2 (2) 2 m whereg ¯µν = ψ1gµν ,g ¯µν = ψ2gµν , andg ¯µν = m(A1, A2)gµν . This gives us a corresponding metric tensor fluctuation,

˜ (tot) ˜ (1) ˜ (2) ˜ m g¯µν = g¯µν + g¯µν + g¯µν = 0 (97)

In WHI, the equation above can be interpreted as two quantum particles, rep- (1) (2) resented by ˜ g¯µν = 0, and ˜ g¯µν = 0, that are connected by a wormhole rep- ˜ m resented by g¯µν = 0. This is actually what ‘‘ER=EPR” conjecture suggests as the mechanism that makes the properties of entangled quantum particles connected. The energy and charge field within the throat of the connecting wormhole are what keeping the properties of two quantum particles connected across the two mouths of the wormhole even if the points in space where the mouths are located are separated by a spacelike interval.

4.7. The Interference Pattern

As mentioned in the previous subsections, a quantum particle/field in motion will appear to emerge from one point in space to another corresponding to every

32 mouth of the wormhole it enters. This would easily explain the phenomenon of ‘‘quantum tunneling” where particle seems to emerge beyond a potential barrier. Similarly, the famous double slit experiment can also be explained where a quantum particle seems to pass thru both the slits, when in fact, it is also possible that it does not pass through at all in any of the slits. In WHI, the quantum particle simply emerges from one point in space to another since the two regions or points in space, before and beyond the slits, are connected by a wormhole. The number of points in space or mouths of the wormholes, where the quantum field enters and emerges is given by 2N where N is the number of minimum length Lp or the number of wormholes it enters. In Eq.(19), the variable N was shown to be proportional to χ or the number of fundamental unit of energy, i.e., ρ N = p χ (98)  ρ  where, on the average, the ratio of energy densities, ρp/ρ is constant if the quantum system remains isolated from any external energy source such as a measuring device, a barrier like the edge of a slit and a detector like a simple scintillation screen. For the case of a quantum particle in motion, the variable

N changes in time. The total distance x it travelled is given by N units of Lp while its velocity v is proportional to the time derivative of N,

∂x ∂N v = = L (99) ∂t p ∂t

This is not the usual classical motion as it is dictated by the time derivative of

N which can also be expressed in terms of the entropy SE of the system,

∂N ρ ∂χ T ρ ∂S = p = H p E (100) ∂t  ρ  ∂t  Q ρ  ∂t since the number of fundamental unit of energy χ is related to the entropy SE of the system,i.e., EH Q SE = = χ (101) TH TH where EH is the total heat of the system which is equal to χ units of heat Q that is associated to each unit of fundamental energy. Since by Second Law of

33 ∂SE Thermodynamics, ∂t > 0, hence, ∂N > 0 (102) ∂t Consequently, as N increases in time, it limits the possible points in space where the particle will emerge. This limitation dictates the path of the particle and could form a pattern. If a quantum particle is a free particle without any external force or condition that is directing it to a particular direction, it will simply randomly go anywhere in all direction like in a Brownmian motion. Its motion is not dictated by some ‘‘guiding wave” but by the Second Law of Thermodynamics as it travels through a series of sub-microscopic wormholes in the background spacetime. The probability of finding a quantum particle in a particular state that is define by a particular N number of minimum length or χ number of fundamental energy, is given by ψ 2 which is similar to the | | conventional quantum formalism. In the double-slit experiment, the pattern that can emerge is very much similar with the interference pattern that we see in the phenomenon of (See Figure 1.). Such pattern can also be seen even for a single slit, but becomes apparent in the case of the double slits. The difference is due to the fact that one must also consider the case where the particle interacts with the slits. A single slit can have an effect on the trajectory of the particle where it tends to focus the path of the particle towards the center of detecting screen. At a given angle of interaction at the edge of the slit, the particles will bound to go towards the center of the screen. Adding a second slit will add to such ”focusing effect” of the slits. The outermost edges of the slits guide the particle towards the center of the screen similar with having a single slit. However, the interaction of the particle with the innermost edges of the slits at a certain angle guides the particle toward the outer most part of the screen. Since it will take a much longer time to reach that part of the screen, the particle will interact more with its surrounding empty space and the probability of the particle going towards the center (through a series of wormholes), increases, instead of being equal to the probability of the particle going towards the outermost part of the screen (See Figure 3.).

34 Figure 2: A 2-dimensional representation of the double-slit experiment in top view. From the particle source, S, a quantum particle does not necessarily pass through the double slits, DS. It can simply emerge beyond the slits through a wormhole. Then it travels from one womhole to another and emerge at every mouth (represented by the black dots) of the wormholes that it enters. The distance travelled by the quantum particle from the slits towards the scintillation screen, SS, is given by the N number of minimum length between the mouths of the wormhole. It also measures the number of possible points (or mouths of the wormholes) where the quantum particle will come out. The colored lines are all the possible path that the quantum particle can take, as N increases in time. The probability that the particle will be found to emerge at the mouth of the wormhole corresponding to Ni units of minimum length 2 is given by |ψi| where ψi = ψi(Ni). For simplicity of the diagram, the black dots represent only the mouths where the quantum particle will emerge and the mouths were it enters are not included. Also, possible effects on the resulting pattern of those particles that interact with the slits are not considered. One of these effects is focusing the path of most of the particles towards the center of the scintillation screen (See Figure 3.)

35 Figure 3: Focusing Effect of the Particle’s Interaction with the Slits. When a particle interacts with the two outermost edges of the slits at a certain angle, its path bends toward the center of the detecting screen. The possible paths for such case are represented by the red lines. On the other hand, when the particle interacts with the innermost edges of the slits, at a certain angle the path bends toward the outermost part of the screen. However since it takes longer time to reach such part of the screen, the probability of the particle going to the center of screen increases. The possible paths for such scenario are represented by the green lines.

36 5. Summary and Recommendation

An entropic and conformal gravity theory at Plack scale was presented based on the idea that at Planck Scale, the spacetime is inherently quantized and fluctuating where the Laws of Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity are modified. The quantized nature of the spacetime is described via an inclusion of a minimum length and energy scale. On the other hand, the inherent spacetime fluctuation at Planck scale was suggested to be described by a second-order version of the Ricci Flow and the transformation of the metric tensor via a Weyl transformation. One of the advantages of the theory, is it offers a new approach to the resolution of the foundational problems of Quantum Mechanics. Hence, a new quantum formalism and interpretation was also put forward. The new quantum formalism suggests that, everything that can possibly known in a quantum system are encapsulated not in the wave function ψ but in a con- 2 formal metric tensor,g ¯µν = ψ gµν , which take into consideration the spacetime fluctuation that is happening also at the quantum scale. On the other hand, the new quantum interpretation presented here suggests that a quantum field can be considered as a spacetime fluctuation at Planck Scale that is held together by its own energy and charge field such that it confines itself in a very very small region and formed into a sub-microscopic black hole. Since it interacts to its surrounding empty space that generates negative energy, the corresponding sub-microscopic black hole that is associated to a quantum field can turn into a wormhole. Consequently, the probabilistic nature and ‘‘non-classical” proper- ties of Quantum Mechanics were explained using some of the theorems in Black Hole Physics. In particular, quantum entanglement was attributed to a physi- cal connection of particles by a wormhole between them while the interference pattern in the double slit experiment was attributed to the passage of quantum particle through a series of wormholes and by Second Law of Thermodynamics. Lastly, Einstein-Planck equations and Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle were generalized at Planck scale by inclusion of a minimum length scale and a vary- ing Planck ‘‘constant”.

37 It is recommended that a full-blown quantum formalism should be developed via a more rigorous presentation using Differential Topology. Also, a possible link and implication of the theory to Standard Model, Loop Quantum Gravity, String Theory and Quantum Teleportation can be considered. Lastly, possi- ble application of the theory to the origin of inertia, proton radius puzzle and cosmological problems can also be explored.

Acknowledgments

I am very much grateful to the NEU Board of Trustees and Administra- tion, Office of the Vice President for Research, NEU-TECH and the University Research Center. Also to my loving wife who supported me in this time of pandemic.

References

[1] E. Scholz, Beyond Einstein 2018, Chapter 30:The Unexpected Resurgence of Weyl Geometry in the Late 20th Century, Springer New York, 2018.

[2] J. T. Wheeler, Quantum Measurement and Geometry, Phys. Rev. D 41 (1990) 431–441. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.41.431.

[3] W. R. Wood, G. Papini, A Geometric Approach to the Quantum Me- chanics of de Broglie and Vigier,The Present Status of the Quantum Theory of Light, Fundamental Theories of Physics 80 (1997) 247–258. arXiv:arXiv:gr-qc/9612042.

[4] P. D. Mannheim, Making the case for conformal gravity, Foundations of Physics 42. doi:10.1007/s10701-011-9608-6. URL https://doi.org/10.1007/s10701-011-9608-6

[5] C. Castro, On Weyl Geometry, Random Processes, and Geomet- ric Quantum Mechanics, Foundation of Physics 22 (1992) 569. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00732924.

38 [6] F. Shojai, A. Shojai, On the Relation of Weyl Geometry and Bohmian Quantum Mechanics, Gravitation and Cosmology.

[7] F. Faria, Conformal , arXiv:1903.04893v3 (March 2019).

[8] J. Maldacena, The large-n limit of superconformal field theories and , International Journal of 38. doi:10.1023/A:1026654312961. URL https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026654312961

[9] J. M. Charap, W. Tait, A gauge theory of the weyl group, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A, Mathematical and Physical Sciences 340 (1622) (1974) 249–262. URL http://www.jstor.org/stable/78634

[10] C. Heuson, Quantisation of deformed special relativity, arXiv:gr- qc/0606124v1 (2006).

[11] G. Amelino-Camelia, Doubly-Special Relativity: Facts, Myths and Some Key Open Issues, Symmetry 2 (1) (2010) 230–271. doi:10.3390/sym2010230.

[12] C. Frederick, Stochastic space-time and quantum theory, Phys. Rev. D 13 (1976) 3183–3191.

[13] J. Kowalski-Glikman, Introduction to doubly special relativity, in: G. Kowalski-Glikman J., Amelino-Camelia (Ed.), Planck Scale Effects in Astrophysics and Cosmology. Lecture Notes in Physics, Vol. 669, Springer- Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, 2005.

[14] S. Judes, M. Visser, Conservation laws in “doubly special relativity”, Phys. Rev. D 68 (2003) 045001. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.68.045001.

[15] H.-T. Elze, Does Quantum Mechanics Tell an Atomistic Space- time?, Journal of Physics: Conference Series 174 (2009) 012009. doi:10.1088/1742-6596/174/1/012009.

39 [16] M.-T. Jaekel, S. Reynaud, Gravitational Quantum Limit for Length Measurements, Physics Letters A 185 (2) (1994) 143 – 148. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/0375-9601(94)90838-9.

[17] A. Camacho, Generalized Uncertainty Principle and Quantum Electrody- namics, Gen. Rel. Grav. 35 (2003) 319. doi:10.1023/A:1024437522212.

[18] E. Goklu, C. Lammerzahl, Metric Fluctuations and the Weak Equiva- lence Principle, Classical and Quantum Gravity 25 (10) (2008) 105012. doi:10.1088/0264-9381/25/10/105012.

[19] W. Power, L. Percival, Decoherence of Quantum Wave Packets due to Interaction with Conformal Spacetime Fluctuation, Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A 456 (2000) 955–968. doi:https://doi.org/10.1098/rspa.2000.0544.

[20] C. H.-T. Wang, R. Bingham, J. T. Mendon¸ca, Quantum Gravitational Decoherence of Matter Waves, Classical and Quantum Gravity 23 (18) (2006) L59–L65. doi:10.1088/0264-9381/23/18/l01.

[21] P. M. Bonifacio, C. H.-T. Wang, J. T. Mendon¸ca, R. Bingham, Dephas- ing of a non-relativistic quantum particle due to a conformally fluctu- ating spacetime, Classical and Quantum Gravity 26 (14) (2009) 145013. doi:10.1088/0264-9381/26/14/145013.

[22] L. H. Ford, Stochastic Spacetime and Brownian Motion of Test Parti- cles, Int. J. Theor. Phys. 44 (2005) 1753–1768. arXiv:gr-qc/0501081, doi:10.1007/s10773-005-8893-z.

[23] S. Bernadotte, F. R. Klinkhamer, Bounds on Length Scales of Clas- sical Spacetime Foam Models, Phys. Rev. D 75 (2007) 024028. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.75.024028.

[24] P. M. Bonifacio, C. H.-T. Wang, J. T. Mendon¸ca, R. Bingham, Dephas- ing of a non-relativistic quantum particle due to a conformally fluctu- ating spacetime, Classical and Quantum Gravity 26 (14) (2009) 145013. doi:10.1088/0264-9381/26/14/145013.

40 [25] G. Amelino-Camelia, Doubly-Special Relativity: Facts, Myths and Some Key Open Issues, Symmetry 2 (1) (2010) 230–271.

[26] A. A. Deriglazov, B. F. Rizzuti, Position Space Versions of the Magueijo-Smolin Doubly Special Relativity Proposal and the Problem of Total Momentum, Phys. Rev. D 71 (2005) 123515. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.71.123515.

[27] A. Deriglazov, Doubly Special Relativity in Position Space starting from the Conformal Group, Physics Letters B 603 (3) (2004) 124–129. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2004.10.024.

[28] M. Maziashvili, Quantum Fluctuations of Space-time, hep-ph/0605146v2 (2006).

[29] J. Magueijo, L. Smolin, Lorentz Invariance with an In- variant Energy Scale, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88 (2002) 190403. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.88.190403.

[30] G. Mangano, F. Lizzi, A. Porzio, Inconstant plancks constant, In- ternational Journal of Modern Physics A 30 (34) (2015) 1550209. doi:10.1142/S0217751X15502097.

[31] V. Dzhunushaliev, Quantum wormhole as a ricci flow, Inter- national Journal of Geometric Methods in Modern Physics 06. doi:10.1142/S0219887809003898.

[32] J. M. Isidro, J. L. G. Santander, P. F. De Cordoba, A note on the quantum- mechanical ricci flow, International Journal of Modern Physics A 24 (27) (2009) 4999–5006. doi:10.1142/S0217751X09046345.

[33] R. Carroll, Ricci Flow and Quantum Theory, Progress in Physics 1 (2008) 21–23.

[34] J. M. Isidro, J. L. G. Santander, P. Fernandez de Cordoba, Ricci Flow, Quantum Mechanics and Gravity, International Journal

41 of Geometric Methods in Modern Physics 06 (03) (2009) 505–512. doi:10.1142/S0219887809003643.

[35] R. Caroll, Fluctuation, Information,Gravity, and the Quantum Potential, Vol. 148, Springer, Netherlands, 2006.

[36] R. Carroll, Some Remarks on Ricci Flow and the Quantum Potential, Progress in Physics 3.

[37] J. M. Isidro, J. L. G. Santander, P. F. de C´ordoba, On the ricci flow and emergent quantum mechanics, Journal of Physics: Conference Series 174 (2009) 012033. doi:10.1088/1742-6596/174/1/012033.

[38] R. Carroll, Ricci Flow and Quantum Theory, Progress in Physics 1.

[39] L. S. J.M. Isidro, F. de Cordoba, Ricci Flow, Quantum Mechanics, and Gravity, arXiv:0808.2351 (2008).

[40] R. S. Hamilton, Three-Manifolds with Positive Ricci Curvature, J. Differ- ential Geom. 17 (2) (1982) 255–306. doi:10.4310/jdg/1214436922.

[41] G. Perelman, Ricci Flow with Surgery on Three-Manifolds, arXiv: math. DG/0303109 (2003).

[42] G. Perelman, The Entropy Formula for the Ricci Flow and its Geometric Applications, arXiv: math. DG/0211159 (2002).

[43] W. P. Thurston, Three-dimensional manifolds, kleinian groups and hyper- bolic geometry, Bulletin (New Series) of the American Mathematical Soci- ety 6 (3). doi:10.1090/S0273-0979-1982-15003-0.

[44] G. Catino, C. Mantegazza, The evolution of the weyl tensor under the ricci flow, Annales de l’Institut Fourier 61 (4) (2011) 1407–1435. doi:10.5802/aif.2644. URL aif.centre-mersenne.org/item/AIF_2011__61_4_1407_0/

42 [45] S. K. Bahuguna, K. Petwal, Evolution of Weyls Gauge Invariant Geometry under Ricci Flow, Proyecciones of Mathematics 30 (3).

[46] J. A. Wheeler, Geons, Phys. Rev. 97 (1955) 511–536. doi:10.1103/PhysRev.97.511. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRev.97.511

[47] D.-X. Kong, K. Liu, Wave Character of Metrics and Hyperbolic Geomet- ric Flow, Journal of Mathematical Physics 48 (10) (2007) 103508–103508. doi:10.1063/1.2795839.

[48] B. Chow, D. Knopf, The Ricci flow : an introduction, American Mathe- matical Society, 2004.

[49] A. Arbab, The Quaterionic Quantum Mechanics, Applied Physics Research 3 (2) (2012) 163–169. doi:10.5539/apr.v3n2p160.

[50] A. Arbab, F. Yassein, A New Formulation of Quantum Mechanics, Journal of Modern Physics 3 (2) (2011) 160–170. doi:10.4236/jmp.2012.32022.

[51] A. I. Arbab, Derivation of Dirac, Klein-Gordon, Schr¨odinger, Diffu- sion and Quantum Heat Transport Equations from a Universal Quan- tum Wave Equation, EPL (Europhysics Letters) 92 (4) (2010) 40001. doi:10.1209/0295-5075/92/40001.

[52] J. D. Bjorken, S. D. Drell, Relativistic Quantum Mechanics, International Series In Pure and Applied Physics, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1965.

[53] D. Poenaru, Alexandru Proca (1897-1955) The Great Physicist, arxiv:physics/0508195v1 (2005).

[54] M. Kozlowski, J. Marciak-Kozlowska, Thermal Processes Using Attosecond Laser Pulses: When Time Matters, Springer Series in Optical Sciences, Springer New York, 2006. URL https://books.google.com.ph/books?id=W_e6BQAAQBAJ

[55] R. P. Feynman, R. B. Leighton, M. Sands, The Feynman Lectures on Physics; Vol. I, Vol. 33, 1965. doi:10.1119/1.1972241.

43 [56] D. Bohm, A Suggested Interpretation of the Quantum Theory in Terms of ”Hidden” Variables. i, Phys. Rev. 85 (1952) 166–179. doi:10.1103/PhysRev.85.166.

[57] J. S. Bell, De Broglie-Bohm, Delayed-Choice, Double-Slit Experiment, and , International Journal of 18 (S14) (1980) 155–159. doi:10.1002/qua.560180819.

[58] F. W. Shu, Y. G. Shen, Geometric Flows and Black Holes, arXiv:gr- qc/0610030v2, unpublished (2006).

[59] A. Einstein, N. Rosen, The particle problem in the general theory of rela- tivity, Phys. Rev. 48 (1935) 73–77. doi:10.1103/PhysRev.48.73.

[60] R. W. Fuller, J. A. Wheeler, Causality and multiply connected space-time, Phys. Rev. 128 (1962) 919–929. doi:10.1103/PhysRev.128.919.

[61] C. Sivaram, K. P. Sinha, Strong Gravity, Black Holes, and Hadrons, Phys- ical Review D 16 (1977) 1975–1978. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.16.1975.

[62] C. F. Holzhey, F. Wilczek, Black Holes as Elemen- tary Particles, Nuclear Physics B 380 (3) (1992) 447–477. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/0550-3213(92)90254-9.

[63] B. Carter, Global structure of the kerr family of gravitational fields, Phys. Rev. 174 (1968) 1559–1571. doi:10.1103/PhysRev.174.1559.

[64] E. A. Novikov, Quantum Modification of General Relativity, Electron. J. Theor. Phys. 13 (35) (2016) 79–90.

[65] M. S. Morris, K. S. Thorne, Wormholes in spacetime and their use for interstellar travel: A tool for teaching general relativity, American Journal of Physics 56 (5) (1988) 395–412. arXiv:https://doi.org/10.1119/1.15620, doi:10.1119/1.15620. URL https://doi.org/10.1119/1.15620

[66] M. Visser, Lorentzian Wormholes: From Einstein to Hawking, American Institute of Physics, Woodbury,New York, 1995.

44 [67] P. Milonni, U. Mohideen, Casimir Effect, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2009. doi:10.1007/978-3-540-70626-7_26.

[68] M. Krech, The Casimir Effect in Critical Systems, World Scientific Pub- lishing Co, 1994. doi:10.1142/2434.

[69] E. Verlinde, On the origin of gravity and the laws of newton, Journal of High Energy Physicsdoi:10.1007/JHEP04(2011)029. URL https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP04(2011)029

[70] E. Frodden, N. Valds, Unruh effect: Introductory notes to quantum ef- fects for accelerated observers, International Journal of Modern Physics A 33 (27) (2018) 1830026. doi:10.1142/S0217751X18300260.

[71] R. Garattini, Casimir wormholes, The European Physical Journal C 79. doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-019-7468-y. URL https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-019-7468-y

[72] J. Bell, On the Impossible Pilot Wave, Foundations of Physics 12 (1982) 989–999. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01889272.

[73] D. Bohm, J. P. Vigier, Model of the Causal Interpretation of Quantum Theory in Terms of a Fluid with Irregular Fluctuations, Phys. Rev. 96 (1954) 208–216. doi:10.1103/PhysRev.96.208.

[74] P. Marquet, On the Physical Nature of the Wave Function:A New Approach through EGR Theory, The Abraham Zelmanov J. 2 (2009) 196–207.

[75] C. W. Misner, J. A. Wheeler, Classical Physics as Geometry: Grav- itation, Electromagnetism, Unquantized Charge, and Mass as Prop- erties of Curved Empty Space, Annals Phys. 2 (1957) 525–603. doi:10.1016/0003-4916(57)90049-0.

[76] K. Jusufi, P. Channuie, M. Jamil, Traversable wormholes supported by gup corrected casimir energy, The European Physical Journal C 80.

45 doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-020-7690-7. URL https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-020-7690-7

[77] A. Corichi, Loop : a primer, Journal of Physics: Con- ference Series 24 (2005) 1–22. doi:10.1088/1742-6596/24/1/001.

[78] S. A. Major, A spin network primer, American Journal of Physics 67 (11) (1999) 972–980. doi:10.1119/1.19175.

[79] D. D. Reid, Discrete quantum gravity and causal sets, Canadian Journal of Physics 79 (1) (2001) 1–16. doi:10.1139/p01-032.

[80] L. Bombelli, J. Lee, D. Meyer, R. D. Sorkin, Space-time as a Causal Set, Phys. Rev. Lett. 59 (1987) 521–524. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.59.521.

[81] L. Susskind, The world as a hologram, Journal of Mathematical Physics 36 (11) (1995) 6377–6396. doi:10.1063/1.531249.

[82] L. Susskind, J. Maldacena, Cool Horizon for Entagled Black Holes, Progress in Physics 61 (2013) 781–811. doi:0.1002/prop.201300020.

46