Authors: James Conor O'Brien
John A. Wheeler proposed a universe where a single electron travels along a myriad of worldlines back and forth over the history of spacetime, repeatedly bouncing off the initial and final boundaries; this follows from the Feynman-Stückelberg Interpretation where an antiparticle of positive energy moves backward in time. The problem with Wheeler' s grand idea is the lack of observable positrons; it requires an equal number of antiparticles moving backwards in time from the end of the universe, and obviously this isn't the case or the universe would be exploding all the time. A solution might be found if all the positrons are converted into electrons at the moment of the big bang, and only electrons, or fermionic matter in general and not antimatter, evolve from the big bang, and it also requires there is no final boundary. It is this modified version that this paper addresses. As I attempt to show, Wheeler' s grand idea, the Hartle-Hawking no boundary proposal, and Berry's Geometric Phase are all directly related. It is proposed in accordance with the Feynman-Stückelberg Interpretation that out of the quantum vacuum the anti - particles of virtual pairs travel backwards along the axis of Time to reflect off the boundaries of a quantum potential of a scalar field at the start of the universe. It is proposed, via a mechanism that has its foundation in the Wick Rotation, the virtual particles undergo a quantal adiabatic, geometric phase reflection; and as a consequence of the Pauli Exclusion principle this shift in phase nonholonomically conflates virtual particles under Lorentz Invariance into real particles. It is proposed that this model is consistent with the Hartle - Hawking state; leads directly to Guth's Inflationary model; and finally the results are shown consistent with the Sakharov conditions for the Big Bang.
Comments: 71 Pages.
[v1] 2014-07-16 21:27:40
Unique-IP document downloads: 36 times
Add your own feedback and questions here:
You are equally welcome to be positive or negative about any paper but please be polite. If you are being critical you must mention at least one specific error, otherwise your comment will be deleted as unhelpful.