format: text

text:
# 1 *

USM-TH-97

CPT-2000/P.4045

Helicity and Transversity Distributions

of Nucleon and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-Hyperon from $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ Fragmentation

Bo-Qiang Ma***e-mail: mabq@phy.pku.edu.cna, Ivan Schmidte-mail: ischmidt@fis.utfsm.clb, Jacques Soffere-mail: Jacques.Soffer@cpt.univ-mrs.frc, Jian-Jun Yang§§§e-mail: jjyang@fis.utfsm.clb,d

aDepartment of Physics, Peking University, Beijing 100871, China,

CCAST (World Laboratory), P.O. Box 8730, Beijing 100080, China,

and Institute of Theoretical Physics, Academia Sinica, Beijing 100080, China

bDepartamento de Física, Universidad Técnica Federico Santa María,

Casilla 110-V, Valparaíso, Chile

cCentre de Physique Th$`\stackrel{´}{\mathrm{e}}`$orique, CNRS, Luminy Case 907,

F-13288 Marseille Cedex 9, France

dDepartment of Physics, Nanjing Normal University,

Nanjing 210097, China

Abstract

It is shown that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-hyperon fragmentation in charged lepton deep inelastic scattering (DIS) on a polarized nucleon target can provide sensitive information concerning the quark helicity and transversity distributions for both nucleon and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-hyperon at large $`x`$. Numerical predictions are given for the spin transfers of the produced $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, when the target nucleon is polarized either longitudinally or transversely, and with the nucleon and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ quark distributions evaluated both in an SU(6) quark-spectator-diquark model and in a perturbative QCD (pQCD) based model. It is also shown that the predicted spin transfers have different behaviors for proton and neutron targets, and this can provide sensitive tests of different predictions for the quark helicity and transversity distributions of the $`d`$ valence quark of the proton at large $`x`$.

PACS numbers: 14.20.-c, 13.85.Ni, 13.87.Fh, 13.88.+e

Published in Phys. Rev. D 64, 014017 (2001).

Trying to understand the spin content of hadrons is a very challenging research direction of high energy physics, and so far many unexpected discoveries have been found in contrast to naive theoretical considerations. The quark helicity distributions of the proton $`\mathrm{\Delta }q(x)`$ have been extensively explored in recent years and our knowledge of them has been considerably enriched. However, there are still some uncertainties concerning the flavor decomposition of the quark helicity distributions, especially for the less dominant $`d`$ valence quark of the proton. For example, there are different theoretical predictions for the ratio $`\mathrm{\Delta }d(x)/d(x)`$ at $`x1`$: the pQCD based counting rule analysis  predicts $`\mathrm{\Delta }d(x)/d(x)1`$, whereas the SU(6) quark-spectator-diquark model  predicts $`\mathrm{\Delta }d(x)/d(x)1/3`$. Available experimental data is not yet accurate enough to provide a decisive test of the above two different predictions. On the other hand, our knowledge of the quark transversity distributions $`\delta q(x)`$ is very poor, since it is difficult to measure such quantities experimentally, although there have been attempts in this direction recently . Among some proposals for measuring the quark transversity distributions, Artru and Mekhfi , and later Jaffe , have noticed that the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-hyperon transverse polarization, in the current fragmentation region of charged lepton deep inelastic scattering (DIS) on the transversely polarized nucleon target, can provide information of the quark transversity distribution of the target. However, such a measurement needs the fragmentation functions of the transversely polarized quark to transversely polarized $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. In the absence of any theoretical estimate of such quantity, one possible analysis is to use positivity bounds , but here we will make more specific assumptions.

There has been a suggestion  for measuring the nucleon strange polarizations by the longitudinal $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ polarization in the current fragmentation region of charged lepton DIS on a longitudinally polarized nucleon target. Such process, as pointed out by Jaffe , should be most suitable for extracting both the quark helicity distributions of the target and the fragmentation functions of the longitudinally polarized quark to longitudinally polarized $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. Thus it is possible to make a systematic study of the quark helicity and transversity distributions of nucleons, and of the polarized quark to polarized $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ fragmentations, by using the available facilities, such as COMPASS, HERMES and SMC, on $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ fragmentation in charged lepton DIS on both longitudinally and transversely polarized nucleon targets. The target nucleon can be chosen to be a proton or a neutron (experimentally through 2H and 3He targets) respectively, and this can add additional information for a clear distinction of different predictions.

We now look at the quark to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ fragmentation functions $`D_q^\mathrm{\Lambda }(z)`$. Recently there has been progress in understanding the quark to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ fragmentations  by using the Gribov-Lipatov (GL) relation

$$D_q^h(z)zq_h(z)$$
(1)
in order to connect the fragmentation functions with the distribution functions. This relation, where $`D_q^h(z)`$ is the fragmentation function for a quark $`q`$ splitting into a hadron $`h`$ with longitudinal momentum fraction $`z`$, and $`q_h(z)`$ is the quark distribution of finding the quark $`q`$ inside the hadron $`h`$ carrying a momentum fraction $`x=z`$, is only known to be valid near $`z1`$ on an energy scale $`Q_0^2`$ in leading order approximation . However, predictions of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ polarizations  based on quark distributions of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ in the SU(6) quark-spectator-diquark model and in the pQCD based counting rule analysis, have been found to be supported by all available data from longitudinally polarized $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ fragmentations in $`e^+e^{}`$-annihilation , polarized charged lepton DIS process , and most recently, neutrino (antineutrino) DIS process . Thus it is natural to extend the same kind of analysis from longitudinally to transversely polarized cases, and then check the validity of the method by comparing theoretical predictions with experimental data. Such an analysis can also serve as a theoretical guidance to design future experiments.

The SU(6) quark-spectator-diquark model  starts from the three quark SU(6) quark model wavefunction of the baryon, and if anyone of the quarks is probed, one reorganizes the other two quarks in terms of two quark wavefunctions with spin 0 or 1 (scalar and vector diquarks), i.e., the diquark serves as an effective particle, called the spectator. Some non-perturbative effects such as gluon exchanges between the two spectator quarks or other non-perturbative gluon effects in the hadronic debris can be effectively taken into account by the mass of the diquark spectator. The mass difference between the scalar and vector diquarks has been shown to be important for producing consistency with experimental observations of the ratio $`F_2^n(x)/F_2^p(x)=1/4`$ at $`x1`$ found in the early experiments , and also for the proton and neutron polarized spin dependent structure functions at large $`x`$ . The light-cone SU(6) quark-spectator-diquark model  is an extended version of this framework, taking into account the Melosh-Wigner rotation effects , in order to built up the quark helicity and transversity distributions of the nucleon. A detailed discussion of quark helicity and transversity distributions in the light-cone SU(6) quark-diquark model can be found in Ref. . It has been also shown recently  that the predicted $`x`$-dependent transversity distributions are compatible with the available HERMES data for the azimuthal asymmetry . The application of the model for discussing the quark helicity distributions of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ can be found in Refs. , where it is shown that the u and d quarks inside the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ should be positively polarized at large $`x`$, although their net spin contributions to the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ polarization might be zero or negative, and such a prediction was found  to be in good agreement with the experimental data. The extension of this framework to the quark transversity distributions is straightforward, since one only needs to replace the Melosh-Wigner rotation factor for helicity by that for transversity . We found similar qualitative features between the helicity and transversity distributions for each quark flavor, as can be seen from Figs. 1 and 2, where the ratios $`\mathrm{\Delta }q(x)/q(x)`$ and $`\delta q(x)/q(x)`$ for the valence quarks of both proton (Fig. 1) and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ (Fig. 2) are presented.

We notice that the $`d`$ quark in the proton is predicted to have a negative quark helicity distribution at $`x1`$, and this feature is different from the pQCD counting rule prediction of “helicity retention”, which means that the helicity of a valence quark will match that of the parent hadron at large $`x`$. Explicitly, the quark helicity distributions of a hadron $`h`$ have been shown to satisfy the counting rule ,

$$q_h(x)(1x)^p,$$
(2)
where

$$p=2n1+2\mathrm{\Delta }S_z.$$
(3)
Here $`n`$ is the minimal number of the spectator quarks, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }S_z=|S_z^qS_z^h|=0`$ or $`1`$ for parallel or anti-parallel quark and hadron helicities, respectively . Therefore the anti-parallel helicity quark distributions are suppressed by a relative factor $`(1x)^2`$, and consequently $`\mathrm{\Delta }q(x)/q(x)1`$ as $`x1`$. Taking only the leading term, we can write the quark helicity distributions of the valence quarks as

$$\begin{array}{cccc}& q_i^{}(x)=\frac{\stackrel{~}{A}_{q_i}}{B_3}x^{\frac{1}{2}}(1x)^3;\hfill & & \\ & q_i^{}(x)=\frac{\stackrel{~}{C}_{q_i}}{B_5}x^{\frac{1}{2}}(1x)^5,\hfill & & \end{array}$$
(4)
where $`\stackrel{~}{A}_q+\stackrel{~}{C}_q=N_q`$ is the valence quark number for quark $`q`$, $`B_n=B(1/2,n+1)`$ is the $`\beta `$-function defined by $`B(1\alpha ,n+1)=_0^1x^\alpha (1x)^ndx`$ for $`\alpha =1/2`$, and $`B_3=32/35`$ and $`B_5=512/693`$. The application of the pQCD counting rule analysis to discuss the unpolarized and polarized structure functions of nucleons can be found in Ref. , and the extension to the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ can be found in Refs. . The $`u`$ and $`d`$ quarks inside the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ are also predicted to be positively polarized at large $`x`$ , just as in the quark-diquark model prediction. It is interesting that the predictions based on the pQCD based counting rule analysis are also found  to be in agreement with the experimental data, after some adjustment to the parameters with higher order terms included.

The quark transversity distributions are closely related to the quark helicity distributions. A useful inequality has been obtained , which constrains the quark transversity distributions by the quark unpolarized and polarized distributions, and there also exists an approximate relation  which connects the quark transversity distributions with the quark helicity and spin distributions. Two sum rules , connecting the integrated quark transversities with some measured quantities and two model correction factors with limited uncertainties, have been also recently obtained. For example, if we assume the saturation of the inequality

$$2|\delta q(x)|q(x)+\mathrm{\Delta }q(x),$$
(5)
then we obtain $`\delta q=\frac{1}{2}\left[q(x)+\mathrm{\Delta }q(x)\right]=q^{}(x)`$, and this suggests that in general we may express $`\delta q(x)`$ in terms of $`q^{}(x)`$ and $`q^{}(x)`$. All these considerations indicate that it is convenient to parameterize the valence quark transversity distributions in a similar form as the helicity distributions. Therefore we use as a second model

$$\delta q(x)=\frac{\widehat{A}_q}{B_3}x^{\frac{1}{2}}(1x)^3\frac{\widehat{C}_q}{B_5}x^{\frac{1}{2}}(1x)^5,$$
(6)
which clearly satisfies the inequality (5). These quark transversity distributions are constrained by $`\delta Q=_0^1\delta q(x)dx`$ from the two sum rules in Ref. . We also take $`\widehat{A}_q+\widehat{C}_q=N_q`$ as in the case of the helicity distributions, in order to reduce the number of uncertain parameters. Besides, all quark distributions for the valence quarks of nucleons and the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ are assumed to be connected between each other by the SU(3) symmetry relation

$$\begin{array}{cccc}u^p=d^n=\frac{2}{3}u^\mathrm{\Lambda }+\frac{4}{3}s^\mathrm{\Lambda };\hfill & & & \\ d^p=u^n=\frac{4}{3}u^\mathrm{\Lambda }\frac{1}{3}s^\mathrm{\Lambda }.\hfill & & & \end{array}$$
(7)
With the inputs of the quark helicity sum $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=\mathrm{\Delta }U+\mathrm{\Delta }D+\mathrm{\Delta }S0.3`$, the Bjorken sum rule $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^p\mathrm{\Gamma }^n=\frac{1}{6}(\mathrm{\Delta }U\mathrm{\Delta }D)=\frac{1}{6}g_A/g_V0.2`$, both obtained in charged lepton DIS experiments , and taking the two model correction factors both to be equal to 1 for the two sum rules of quark transversities , we obtain $`\mathrm{\Delta }U=0.75`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }D=0.45`$, $`\delta U=1.04`$, and $`\delta D=0.39`$ for the proton, assuming $`\mathrm{\Delta }S=0`$. Such a scenario should be able to reflect the bulk features of the valence quarks for the octet baryons, although it might be too rough for their sea content. The $`\delta U`$ and $`\delta D`$ so obtained are compatible with those from a chiral soliton model . We may readjust the values when experimental constraints become available, or if we believe other models are more reasonable . It is encouraging that the obtained transversity distributions for the nucleons have been found to give consistent descriptions  of the available HERMES data for the azimuthal asymmetry. The parameters for the nucleons and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ quark distributions can be found in Table 1. The ratios $`\mathrm{\Delta }q(x)/q(x)`$ and $`\delta q(x)/q(x)`$ for the valence quarks of the proton and the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ in the pQCD based model are also presented in Figs. 1 and 2, respectively. Notice that the helicity and transversity distributions are close to each other at large $`x`$. This comes from the fact that the Wigner-Melosh rotation factors reduce to 1 at the limit $`x1`$.

Table 1 The parameters for quark distributions of the nucleon and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ in the pQCD based model

| Baryon | $`q_1`$ | $`q_2`$ | $`\stackrel{~}{A}_{q_1}`$ | $`\stackrel{~}{C}_{q_1}`$ | $`\stackrel{~}{A}_{q_2}`$ | $`\stackrel{~}{C}_{q_2}`$ | $`\widehat{A}_{q_1}`$ | $`\widehat{C}_{q_1}`$ | $`\widehat{A}_{q_2}`$ | $`\widehat{C}_{q_2}`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| p | u | d | 1.375 | 0.625 | 0.275 | 0.725 | 1.52 | 0.48 | 0.305 | 0.695 |
| n | d | u | 1.375 | 0.625 | 0.275 | 0.725 | 1.52 | 0.48 | 0.305 | 0.695 |
| $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ | s | u(d) | 0.825 | 0.175 | 0.4125 | 0.5875 | 0.912 | 0.088 | 0.457 | 0.543 |

For $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ production in the current fragmentation region along the virtual photon direction, the spin transfer to the longitudinal polarized $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is written as

$$A^\mathrm{\Lambda }(x,z)=\frac{\underset{q}{}e_q^2\mathrm{\Delta }q^N(x,Q^2)\mathrm{\Delta }D_q^\mathrm{\Lambda }(z,Q^2)}{\underset{q}{}e_q^2q^N(x,Q^2)D_q^\mathrm{\Lambda }(z,Q^2)}$$
(8)
for charged lepton DIS on a longitudinally polarized nucleon $`N`$ target, and that to the transversely polarized $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is written as

$$\widehat{A}^\mathrm{\Lambda }(x,z)=\frac{\underset{q}{}e_q^2\delta q^N(x,Q^2)\delta D_q^\mathrm{\Lambda }(z,Q^2)}{\underset{q}{}e_q^2q^N(x,Q^2)D_q^\mathrm{\Lambda }(z,Q^2)}$$
(9)
for charged lepton DIS on a transversely polarized nucleon $`N`$ target. Now we have the quark distributions $`q(x)`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }q(x)`$, and $`\delta q(x)`$ for the valence quarks of nucleons and the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ in both the SU(6) quark-diquark model and the pQCD inspired analysis. For the quark to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ fragmentation functions $`D_q^\mathrm{\Lambda }(z)`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }D_q^\mathrm{\Lambda }(z)`$, and $`\delta D_q^\mathrm{\Lambda }(z)`$, we use the Gribov-Lipatov relation Eq. (1), in order to connect them with the corresponding quark distributions of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ in the two models. Therefore we have the necessary inputs for a first numerical evaluation of the two spin transfers Eqs. (8) and (9) in the large $`x`$ and $`z`$ regions, where the valence quarks are dominant inside the baryons. Extension to the small $`x`$ region requires the knowledge of quark helicity and transversity distributions of the target in this region, where we may use theoretical estimations or parametrizations from other kinds of experiments as inputs. Similarly, we can also use other experiments or theoretical considerations to constrain the various quark to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ fragmentation functions, and extend our knowledge from the large $`z`$ region to the small $`z`$ region. From the previous successful predictions  of longitudinal $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ polarizations, supported by all available data, we expect that our results will have some predictive power even in the small $`z`$ region. Furthermore, by using the measured spin transfers for both $`A^\mathrm{\Lambda }(x,z)`$ and $`\widehat{A}^\mathrm{\Lambda }(x,z)`$, we can double check our predictions from different models, and get a deeper insight into the spin structure of both nucleons and the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$.

In the nucleon target, there are only $`u`$ and $`d`$ valence quarks, therefore the dominant contribution to the two spin transfers $`A^\mathrm{\Lambda }(x,z)`$ and $`\widehat{A}^\mathrm{\Lambda }(x,z)`$ should come from the $`u`$ and $`d`$ quark contributions in the large $`x`$ and $`z`$ regions. In the specific case of the proton target, the $`u`$ quarks are dominant inside the target, its squared charges is 4/9, larger than 1/4 of the $`d`$ quark, and also the ratios $`\mathrm{\Delta }u(x)/u(x)`$ and $`\delta u(x)/u(x)`$ are positive values close to 1, which causes the dominance of $`u`$ quark contributions inside the target. Therefore the main features of the two spin transfers $`A^\mathrm{\Lambda }(x,z)`$ and $`\widehat{A}^\mathrm{\Lambda }(x,z)`$ are mainly determined by the ratios $`\mathrm{\Delta }D_u^\mathrm{\Lambda }(z)/D_u^\mathrm{\Lambda }(z)`$ and $`\delta D_u^\mathrm{\Lambda }(z)/D_u^\mathrm{\Lambda }(z)`$, as can be seen from Fig. 3. Thus we can check the predicted $`\mathrm{\Delta }D_u^\mathrm{\Lambda }(z)/D_u^\mathrm{\Lambda }(z)`$ and $`\delta D_u^\mathrm{\Lambda }(z)/D_u^\mathrm{\Lambda }(z)`$ by the measured spin transfers $`A^\mathrm{\Lambda }(x,z)`$ and $`\widehat{A}^\mathrm{\Lambda }(x,z)`$ from a proton target.

The two models have qualitatively similar features for the ratios $`\mathrm{\Delta }u(x)/u(x)`$ and $`\delta u(x)/u(x)`$ for the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, and consequently, we have qualitatively similar $`\mathrm{\Delta }D_q^\mathrm{\Lambda }(z)/D_q^\mathrm{\Lambda }(z)`$ and $`\delta D_q^\mathrm{\Lambda }(z)/D_q^\mathrm{\Lambda }(z)`$ for the inputs to Eqs. (8) and (9), as can be seen from Fig. 2. In the non-relativistic model, the helicity and transversity distributions are the same as the quark spin distributions in the quark model. Therefore the difference between the helicity and transversity distributions reflects the quark relativistic motion inside the nucleon. As we mentioned before, the helicity and transversity distributions are close to each other at large $`x`$, because the Wigner-Melosh rotation factors reduces to 1 at the limit $`x1`$. As a consequence we find no much difference between $`A`$ and $`\widehat{A}`$. However, at small and medium $`x`$ when the sea quark contribution cannot be neglected, the different chiral properties between the helicity and transversity distributions will show up, and their difference is ideal in order to study the chiral properties of the nucleon.

Also we have $`ud`$ symmetry for the quark to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ fragmentation functions. This implies that any big qualitative difference of our predictions between the proton and neutron targets are not mainly produced by the different inputs of various quark to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ fragmentation functions in the two models, but by the $`u`$ and $`d`$ difference in the quark helicity and transversity distributions of the targets. Therefore the different trends between the predictions of the spin transfers for the proton and neutron targets, as can be seen in Fig. 3, come mainly from the difference of the quark helicity and transversity distributions for nucleons in the two models. This can be easily understood because the weights of squared charges are different for $`u`$ and $`d`$ quarks, and in the neutron target the less dominant $`u`$ valence quark has more weight, therefore $`\mathrm{\Delta }u^n(x)/u^n(x)1/3`$ (which is $`\mathrm{\Delta }d^p(x)/d^p(x)`$ from isospin symmetry) provides a bigger contribution than for the proton target. This indicates that the predicted spin transfers for the neutron target are more suppressed in the quark-diquark model, whereas they are less suppressed in the pQCD based model, as can be confirmed by Fig. 3. Thus we conclude that the spin transfers $`A^\mathrm{\Lambda }(x,z)`$ and $`\widehat{A}^\mathrm{\Lambda }(x,z)`$ measured in both large $`x`$ and large $`z`$ regions for the proton and neutron targets can provide a check of the two different predictions of the quark helicity and transversity distributions for the less dominant $`d`$ valence quark in the proton. They can also be used to test the prediction of positively polarized $`u`$ and $`d`$ quarks inside the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ at large $`x`$ for both models.

There have be available data of the spin transfer to the longitudinal polarized $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ in charged lepton proton DIS scattering by E665  and HERMES  collaborations respectively, and we can compare the data with our predictions as shown in Fig. 3 (a). The precision of the data is still rough and the data are compatible with both model predictions at medium to large $`z`$ range. High precision experiments are needed in order to make clear distinction between different predictions and we notice that the physics of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ polarization is strongly emphasize in the forthcoming COMPASS experiment . We also present the spin transfers integrated over $`z`$ in Fig. 4, and find that the $`x`$ dependence is not strong for the proton target, especially for the quark-diquark model in which the $`x`$ dependence of the ratios $`\mathrm{\Delta }q(x)/q(x)`$ and $`\delta q(x)/q(x)`$ is not strong. Therefore we can use a wide integrated $`x`$ range to increase the statistics of the data. We should stress that our predictions should be considered to be valid more qualitatively than quantitatively, especially for the pQCD based model. In this case there is still freedom to include higher order terms and to adjust the parameters of the pQCD based model from the constraints of the data. Varying $`x`$ and $`z`$ in different regions can provide us more information concerning the quark helicity and transversity distributions of the target, as well as the quark to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ fragmentation functions. We would like to mention that similar analysis can be also made for the spin transfers of other members of the octet baryons. The analysis and main conclusion for the spin transfers of the octet baryons fragmentation, when the target nucleon is polarized either longitudinally or transversely, should be similar to those found in hadron longitudinal polarizations of the octet baryons in polarized charged lepton DIS processes .

In conclusion, we showed in this paper that the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-hyperon fragmentation in charged lepton DIS on the polarized nucleon target can provide sensitive information concerning the quark helicity and transversity distributions for both nucleons and the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-hyperon at large $`x`$. We calculated the spin transfers of the produced $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ when the target nucleon is polarized either longitudinally or transversely, with the nucleon and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ quark distributions evaluated both in the SU(6) quark-spectator-diquark model and in a pQCD based model. We found that the predicted spin transfers have quite different behaviors for the proton and neutron targets in the two models, and this can provide a sensitive test of different predictions for the quark helicity and transversity distributions for the $`d`$ valence quark of the proton at large $`x`$.

Acknowledgments:  This work is partially supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China under Grant Numbers 10025523, 19975052, and 19875024, by Fondecyt (Chile) postdoctoral fellowship 3990048, by the cooperation programmes Ecos-Conicyt and CNRS- Conicyt between France and Chile, by Fondecyt (Chile) grants 1990806 and 8000017, and by a Cátedra Presidencial (Chile).

Erratum:

Published in Phys. Rev. D 64, 099901 (2001)

Helicity and transversity distributions of the nucleon and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ hyperon from $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ fragmentation

\[Phys. Rev. D 64, 014017 (2001)\]

Bo-Qiang Ma, Ivan Schmidt, Jacques Soffer, and Jian-Jun Yang

PACS number(s): 14.20.-c, 13.85.Ni, 13.87.Fh, 13.88.+e

The HERMES and E665 data in Fig.3 and the related discussions should be removed. The reason is that the spin transfer discussed in the paper is for unpolarized charged lepton DIS process on a longitudinally polarized target, whereas the HERMES and E665 data are for polarized lepton DIS process on an unpolarized target. Therefore the theoretical predictions presented in this paper have not been measured yet. The predictions and conclusions of the paper remain unchanged.


text:
# Vacuum charges within a teleparallel weyl tensor: a new apporach to quantum gravity

## 1 Introduction

There are currently two viable models for the gravitational field, being the classical and the relativistic gravitational field. Of course this refers to the law of universal gravitation proposed by Newton and General Relativity (GR) by Einstein. The two theories are certainly correlated and attempt to describe the same phenomena, however mathematically they are treated quite different from one another. It thus becomes natural for the sake of coherence to give a unified structure of the two theories, even if only ad hock. What is peculiar, or even far more obvious is that both theories of gravitation are subtle variations of the second law of motion.

The development of this work was made possible through studying the relationship between classical and relativistic gravitational fields where a weak connection can be shown to electromagnetism. In previous works it has been shown that the cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ can be represented by a covariant electromagnetic field , . It has also been suggested that the cosmological constant can be derived from the quantum vacuum , . Using an analog of quantum theory and electromagnetism an empirical unification with gravitation is quickly realized with the classical Kaluza-Klien (KK) theory . From an empirical KK geometry a connection with gravitation and Newton’s second law of motion can be explained by means of the Weyl tensor within the GR formalism. The general conclusion that can be arrived from this analysis is that GR is not a complete theory of gravitation when only considering Ricci curvature of the Riemannian manifold.

The organization of this work is given rather straight forward in §1.1 the Newtonian theory for gravitation is explained through the second law of motion. In §1.2 Newton’s view of the world is briefly discussed, where as in §1.3 Einstein’s ‘world view’ is given, where the two are related within §1.4. In §1.5 G is reformulated through the second law, where a relation is shown to electrostatics in §1.6, which is shown to be a superposition field within §2. In §2.1 empirical equations of this field are given, which is resembles a KK space which is discussed in §3. A gauge field is considered for gravitation in §4, which suggest a correlation to the vacuum energy explored in §5. In §6 the GR analog is discussed with the Weyl tensor. In §6.1 first order Lagrangians are presented, which leads to teleparallel Weyl tensor in §6.2. In §7 a relationship between vacuum energy and the gravitational constant are given. A standing wave is shown in §7.1 which gives an allusion of the classical KK space. The explanation for the Vacuum charges in the title is seen in the Appendices. Appendix A describes the relation between the gravitational constant and the Compton wavelength, as well as explaining superluminal velocities observed in astrophysics. Appendix B gives an alternative origin for mass increase, Appendix C briefly discusses other theoretical values for G. Finally in Appendix D there is shown a need to modify the definition of the planck length under this work.

### 1.1 Newton-Einstein Gravity

It is obvious to start such a modeling with the widely known Newton-Einstein action:

$$\frac{d^2x_\mu }{dt^2}=\frac{\kappa c^2}{8\pi }\frac{}{x_\mu }\frac{\sigma dV_0}{t}$$
(1)
Where the left term is defined by the second law of motion:

$$m\left\{\frac{d^2x^\mu }{dt^2}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\beta y}^\alpha \frac{dx^\beta }{dt}\frac{dx^y}{dt}\right\}=F^\alpha $$
(2)
Here another generalization of the second law can be given with the equation $`\stackrel{}{F}=m\frac{d^2\stackrel{}{r}}{dt^2}`$. When taking the convection $`\stackrel{}{r}=(x,y,z)`$ a gravitational acceleration is derived by:

$$m\frac{d^2\stackrel{}{r}}{dt^2}=\frac{GMm}{\left|\stackrel{}{r}\stackrel{}{R}^{}\right|^2}\stackrel{}{e}(\stackrel{}{r},\stackrel{}{R})$$
(3)
The gravitational field is then defined through $`\phi =GM/R`$, thus a gravitational field is produced through poisson’s equation through $`\phi =4\pi G_\rho `$. Where for simplicity sake we receive the standard deviation for Newton’s gravitational field:

$$\stackrel{}{F}_g=G\frac{m_1m_2}{d\stackrel{}{r}^2}$$
(4)
It is quite clear that Newton’s formulation of gravitation is formed through the his second law of motion. Which is explained as an external force mechanism which causes masses to accelerate one another.

### 1.2 the absolute spacetime

Newton considered space and time as separate and finite invariant dimensions. We can see this definition early on in Book I of Princpa by means of Scholium I:

> absolute, true, and mathematical time, of itself, and from its own nature flows equably without regard to anything external, and by another name is called duration: relative, apparent, and common time is some sensible and external (whether accurate or unequalable) measure of duration by the means of motion, which is commonly used instead of true time; such as an hour, a day, a month, a year.”

A conclusion that is drawn from the roots of Euclidean geometry which can be expressed in the form

$$ds=\sqrt{dx^2+dy^2+dz^2}$$
(5)
where the following spatial identities arise by means of an infinitesimal rotation:

$$F^x=F^xcos\theta +F^ysin\theta ,F^y=F^xsin\theta +F^ycos\theta ,F^z^{}=F^z$$
(6)
again we see how the spatial definition directly relates to the second law of motion.

### 1.3 Special Relativity

With a suggestion from Minkowski Einstein transformed the cherished absolute description of space and time to a relative space-time of the form:

$$ds^2=dct^2dx^2dy^2dz^2$$
(7)
with the invention of a ‘spacetime’ continuum, one can notice subtle changes with an infinitesimal rotation:

$$ct^{}=cosh\theta ctsinh\theta x,x^{}=sinh\theta ct+coshx,y^{}=y,z^{}=z$$
(8)
With Einstein’s fundamental postulate acceleration in such a frame would be limited to the speed of light, lending the beta function:

$$\gamma =\gamma (v)=\frac{1}{\left(1\frac{v^2}{c^2}\right)^{1/2}}$$
(9)
working backwards now we can see that kinetic energy of a body in this frame is given in the form

$$KE=\underset{0}{\overset{u}{}}m\gamma ^3u𝑑u=mc^2(\gamma 1)$$
(10)
Thus at this point we see that these two different formulations of space will produce very different forms of acceleration. In classical terms mass is defined as a focused point of force, while in relativistic terms it is defined as ‘stress-energy’ within an arbitrary manifold.

### 1.4 forces to fields

Taking a new look at Newton-Einstein gravity one may make a second order generalization of the field by:

$$T_j^i\left\{\frac{d^2x_\mu }{dt^2}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\beta y}^\alpha \frac{dx^\beta }{dt}\frac{dx^y}{dt}\right\}=\frac{kc^2}{8\pi }g_j^i\frac{}{x_\mu }$$
(11)
Notice how this equation describes gravitation not as a force but as a manifold. Furthermore mass is no longer an intrinsic property but a local field in the geometry, i.e. the change results in going from a point particle theory (mass) to a field theory (tensors). This force is taken equivalent to a manifold of the form $`\frac{f}{x^\mu }=\frac{}{x^\mu }`$, assuming a Riemannian manifold and lines of calculations one results in the Einstein-Field-Equation (EFE)

$$R_j^i\frac{1}{2}g_j^iR=\frac{kc^2}{8\pi }T_J^i.$$
(12)
Thus it can naturally be seen that the roots of GR can be originated through the second law of motion. In a larger since, the “gravitational force” is in reality a consequence of the second law of motion, expressed differently only in the terms of mathematical dimensions. Therefore one may wish to explain the gravitational force as a two dimensional acceleration of the form $`F_g^{}=a(E/c^2)(E/c^2)/dr^2=4\pi a_\rho =\phi `$. Of course for a gravitational field a is replaced by Newton’s Gravitational constant G.

### 1.5 dimensional analysis of the gravitational constant

One can not deny the similarity between a classical gravitational field and the Coloumb Law $`F_{col}=kQ_1Q_2/r^2`$. Suggesting classically what Kaluza, Klein, Weyl, and others have proposed, a unification with the electromagnetic force. In GR the flat or massless gravitational field is given with $`R_j^i\frac{1}{2}g_j^iR=0.`$ This is not entirely correct because the kappa term does not entirely vanish leading to $`R_j^i\frac{1}{2}g_j^iR=8\pi k_e\mathrm{}`$. It is seen that the interpretation of a geometrical manifold neglects gravitational acceleration. If it is a property of the electromagnetic field however, the second law of motion and the vacuum field equations still hold true.

To elaborate more on the gravitational constant333Modern values given the gravitational constant as : $`G=(6.74215\pm 0.000092)\times 10^{11}m^3kg^1s^2`$. one must be familiar with its roots, where one begins with Kepler’s third law of motion:

$$T=2\pi \sqrt{\frac{a^3}{M}}.$$
(13)
In keeping with the relationship between the gravitation and the second law of motion this must be rewritten in the form $`T^2=kr^3`$, which is analogous to pendulum motion $`T^2=4\pi ^2l/g`$ where

$$k\sqrt{G}=\frac{2\pi }{T}\sqrt{\frac{a^3}{M}}.$$
(14)
Through dimensional analysis we can reduce this in a form which relates to the Coloumb law:

$`F=m\times {\displaystyle \frac{(2\pi r/T)^2}{r}}=m\times {\displaystyle \frac{4\pi ^2mr}{T^2}}=m\times {\displaystyle \frac{(2\pi r)^4/kr^3}{r}}`$ (15)
$`=m\times {\displaystyle \frac{16\pi r/k}{r}}=m\times {\displaystyle \frac{16\pi mr}{kr^3}}=m\times {\displaystyle \frac{16\pi m}{kr^2}}=G.`$
Once again we see the relevance of the second law of motion, perhaps more relevently with Kepler’s Laws. Furthermore the gravitational constant G can be represented by $`k\sqrt{kr^2}`$ such that Newton’s Law of universal gravitation becomes:

$$F=\sqrt{km_1m_2r}$$
(16)
### 1.6 electrostatics

In more simpler language the force of gravitation can be derived through the gaussian gravitational constant $`k`$ of a line charge by means of a Coloumb field.

$$\delta L𝑑s_{col}=(kQ_1Q_2\stackrel{}{r})^{1/2}$$
(17)
Where an electric field is propagated perpendicularly by:

$$E_{}=\lambda s\underset{L/2}{\overset{+L/2}{}}(z^2+s^2)^{3/2}𝑑z=\lambda s\frac{1}{s^2}\frac{L}{\left(\frac{L^2}{4}+s^2\right)^{1/2}}$$
(18)
or simply

$$E_{}=\frac{2\lambda L}{s}(L^2=4s^2)^{1/2}$$
(19)
with poisson’s equation a general electrostatic potential is given by $`^2\varphi =4\pi \rho (\stackrel{}{r})`$ whence by the fundamental theorem of vector fields we have an inverse square relationship

$$\varphi =𝑑V\frac{\rho }{R}=\frac{\rho }{R}dxdydz=\frac{\lambda dz}{R}$$
(20)
for simplicity we will look at a charge configuration of the form $`E_r=\frac{\varphi }{r}\stackrel{}{r}`$. We now notice a direct relationship between an electrostatic field line and gravitational acceleration by $`\stackrel{}{g}=\frac{\phi }{r}\widehat{r}`$. Empirically the combination of the two fields would represent a force of the first order

$$\stackrel{}{F}_g=\frac{\varphi }{r}\stackrel{}{r}+\frac{\phi }{r}\widehat{r}=\frac{^2\varphi ^2}{^2r^2}\widehat{r}^2=_{\mathrm{}}^r\frac{Gm_1+m_2r}{r^2}=\sqrt{kQ_1Q_2(\stackrel{}{r}).}$$
(21)
From here it can bee seen that a (neutral) static charge configuration can yield gravitational acceleration.

$$g_{ij}=\frac{^2\varphi ^2}{^2x_{ij}}=\varphi _{ij}$$
(22)
Such that it is now seen that relative acceleration of two particles can be given in pseudo Levi-Civta coordinates

$$\frac{d^4x^{ij}}{dt^4}=\mathrm{\Delta }g_{ij}=\varphi _{ijkl}\eta ^{kl}.$$
(23)
Where a generalized pseudo Riemannian field is produced

$$R_{abcd}^{}\frac{1}{2}g_{cd}^{pq}R_{pgra}=8\pi GT_{abcd}$$
(24)
which reduces to directly to the Einstein Field Equation (12).

## 2 superposition

Equation (22) can be represented by an operator of the form $`i\mathrm{}`$ such that

$$\varphi _{ij}=\frac{h}{i}\frac{^2\varphi ^2}{^2x_{ij}}+H\psi $$
(25)
with Schrödinger’s equation one has

$$i\mathrm{}=\frac{\psi }{t}=\frac{h^2}{2m}\left(\frac{^2\varphi }{x_{ij}}+\frac{^2\phi }{x_{ij}}\right)$$
(26)
from the Laplacian $`^2a`$ we note this represents the original field, and which yields two gradients in spherical coordinates of the form

$$\stackrel{}{}a=\frac{a}{r}\widehat{r}+\frac{1}{r}\frac{a}{\theta }\widehat{\theta }+\frac{1}{rsin\theta }\frac{a}{\varphi }\widehat{\varphi }$$

Which gives rise to electrostatic configurations and gravitational acceleration. Which naturally lends itself to the Schwartzschild solution when the fields are given in the first order approximation in the classical field

$$ds^2=(12\phi )dt^2\frac{dr^2}{(12\phi )}r^2d\theta ^2r^2sin^2\theta d\varphi ^2.$$
(27)
The gravitational and electrical fields in equation (26) can be related more clearly through superposition. This also means that the field equations (22-26) are really superposition fields.

A superposition of electric and gravitational fields can be given through $`\psi (x)=\psi _\varphi (x_s)+\psi _\phi (x_s)`$, with Huygens principle yields:

$$\psi (x)_\varphi \frac{\mathrm{exp}[2\pi i(xx_s)/\lambda ]}{\left|xx_s\right|}\psi _\varphi (x_s)𝑑x_s+_\phi \frac{\mathrm{exp}[2\pi i(xx_s)/\lambda ]}{\left|xx_s\right|}\psi _\phi (x_s)𝑑x_s.$$
(28)
Where through quantum mechanics an interference between the two fields arises from the probability

$$P(x)=\left|\psi _\varphi (x)\psi _\phi (x)\right|^2=P_\varphi (x)+P_\phi (x)+\psi _\varphi ^{}(x)\psi _\phi (x)+\psi _\phi ^{}(x)\psi _\varphi (x)$$
(29)
thus equation (22) may be reevaluated in the form:

$$g_i=\frac{\psi (x)}{x_i}=\psi (x)_i$$
(30)
lending

$$\frac{d^2x^i}{dt^2}=\mathrm{\Delta }g_i=\psi (x)_{ij}\eta ^j$$
(31)
### 2.1 empirical equations

From the above the empirical gravitational field that translates is

$$R^{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{2}\delta ^{\mu \nu }R=\frac{8\pi G}{c^4}T_M^{\mu \nu }+\frac{8\pi k_e}{c^4}\frac{a}{m}T_{CC}^{\mu \nu }$$
(32)
or

$$R^{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{2}\delta ^{\mu \nu }R=\frac{8\pi G}{c^4}T_{\psi (x)}^{\mu \nu }$$
(33)
Since this field describes a quantum superposition, imaginary coordinates are required lending:

$${}_{}{}^{}R_{abcd}^{}\frac{1}{4}ϵ_{ab}^{pg}ϵ_{cd}^{ra}R_{pgra}=i\left\{\frac{8\pi G}{c^4}[T_M^{abcd}+T_{EM}^{abcd}(Q_1)+T_{EM}^{abcd}(Q_2)]\right\}\mathrm{}$$
(34)
Of course this would correspond to a complex spacetime

$$\varphi (x,y,z,t)=_\pi ^\pi F(xcos\theta +ysin\theta +iz,y+izsin\theta +cos\theta ,\theta )𝑑\theta $$
(35)
Maintaining the Minkowski metric, the background manifold $``$ one has

$$(\omega ,z^2)=\omega ct^2(\omega )z_1^2(\omega )z_2^2(\omega )z_3^2$$
(36)
Without the superposition of the mass-energy tensor, the vacuum field equation becomes:

$$R_\mu ^\nu \frac{1}{2}g_\mu ^\nu R=\frac{8\pi k_e}{c^2}T_{EM}^{\mu \nu }(Q_1)+T_{EM}^{\mu \nu }(Q_2).$$
(37)
From equation (25) it is seen that a quantum interpretation must be given to G. With electrodynamics in mind one might consider a form which pertains to the fine structure constant

$$\alpha _e=\frac{2\pi e^2}{\mathrm{}c}\alpha _g=\frac{1}{2}\frac{4\pi Gm^2}{\mathrm{}c}.$$
(38)
This interpretation can be made when one takes the Weyl tensor, and compares it to the mechanical properties of an electromagnetic field:

$$\frac{T_i^\alpha }{k}\frac{1}{2}\frac{g_{\alpha \beta }}{x_i}T^{\alpha \beta }=0.$$
(39)
As suggested in the beginning of this work the above field is implicitly implied by the second law of motion.

## 3 expanding KK-space

On taking Klien’s method of compactification one begins with a tensor of order :

$$g_{IJ}^{(5)}=\left(\begin{array}{cccccccccccccccccccc}g_{_{\mu \nu }}^{(4)}& +A_\mu A_\nu & A_\nu & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & \\ & A_\mu & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & \end{array}\right)$$
(40)
From equation (36) and with an earlier work , I choose to write a Minkowski metric of form:

$`|(\omega ,z)|^2=(\varphi )cz_1\omega z_2^2\omega z_3^2\omega z_4^2(\varphi )cz_5`$ (41)
$`(ct)^2i(x)^2j(x)^2k(x)^2`$ (42)
which is representative of a fractal spacetime of the form $`4\varphi ^2`$. In tensorial terms leads to

$$\widehat{}=\left(\begin{array}{cccccccccccccccccccc}i& 0& 0& 1& & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & \\ 0& i& 1& 0& & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & \\ 0& i& i& 0& & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & \\ i& 0& 0& i& & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & \end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cccccccccccccccccccc}1& 1& 1& 1& & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & \\ 1& 1& 1& 1& & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & \\ 1& 1& 1& 1& & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & \\ 1& 1& 1& 1& & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & \end{array}\right)$$
(43)
such that the interpretation then transverses to:

$$^{diag}=\left(\begin{array}{cccccccccccccccccccc}2& 0& 0& 0& & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & \\ 0& 2& 0& 0& & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & \\ 0& 0& 2i& 0& & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & \\ 0& 0& 0& 2i& & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & \end{array}\right)\stackrel{~}{}^{(4)}\left(\begin{array}{cccccccccccccccccccc}2& 0& 0& 0& & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & \\ 0& 2& 0& 0& & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & \\ 0& 0& 2i& 0& & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & \\ 0& 0& 0& 2i& & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & \end{array}\right)$$
(44)
Here the time dimension is given statute through quaternion rotations in C\* space. The superposition of electromagnetism and gravitation can be seen within a relativistic frame in a accordance with $`\widehat{\eta }_{IK}=diag(2,2,2i,2i)`$, in the fifth coordinate this corresponds to $`\eta _{IK}^{(5)}=diag(1,1,1,1,1)`$. In essence (44) is a combination of two metrics, a similar metric was inferred in Ref.  in relation to quantum gravity:

$$d\tau ^2=\frac{a}{r}dt^2+\frac{a}{r}dr^2dx_1^2dx_2^2$$
(45)
Through some work made by Weyl  one can write a solution to EFE which corresponds to

$$R_i^k\frac{1}{2}\delta _i^kR=\frac{1}{2}\psi _i^k\mathrm{}$$
(46)
which can be reduced for convenience as $`\frac{1}{2}\psi _i^k=T_i^k`$. Furthermore this action can be represented with advanced and retarded potentials. When one conveniently exchanges the $`\psi `$ term from equation (28), one is left with the potentials

$$\psi _i^k(x)_{}=\frac{T_i^k(tr)}{2\pi r}𝑑V\mathrm{and},\psi _i^k(x)_+=\frac{T_i^k(t+r)}{2\pi r}𝑑V$$
(47)
Therefore meaning that the superposition of the field is made possible through an advanced wave. Thus one has the compactification of a Fouier series of form

$$g_{IK}=\underset{n}{}g_{IK}^{(n)}(x^\mu )e^{inx^5/\lambda _5}.$$
(48)
Which under compactification yields

$$\psi (x,x^5)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{l_p}}\underset{n2}{}\psi _n(,x)e^{inx^5/R_5}$$
(49)
where $``$ represents quarternions. The advanced Fouier sine wave is:

$$\psi (x,x^5)=\sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi }}_0^{\mathrm{}}f(,x)sin𝑑xt𝑑t$$
(50)
which undergoes the quantum transform

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(,k,t)=\frac{1}{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{\Phi }(,k,t)e^{ik\omega }dkand,\mathrm{\Phi }(,k,t)=\frac{1}{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{\Psi }(,k,t)e^{ik\omega }dk.$$
(51)
This action creates a cascade motion within the fifth coordinate and resulting in torsion within four-dimensional spacetime. Torsion would appear to be in form of gravitational waves through the action

$$\left(D^\mu D_\mu \frac{n^2}{R_5^2}\right)\psi _n=0.$$
(52)
Thus it is seen that an observation will only occur in a quantum system if two anti-symmetric $`\eta _{IJ}^{(5)}`$ tensors come in contact (which one might expect from the Weyl tensor). This wave equation suggest KK-space expands into four-dimensions, resulting in self interaction. Furthermore when one compares the charge $`q_n=n(k/R_5)`$ with the planck length, one sees the relation with the fine structure constant.

$$R_5=\frac{2}{\sqrt{\alpha }}l_p$$
(53)
From equation (38), from this it may be seen that the second law produces fine structure which in turn yields the planck length.

## 4 gauge backgrounds

The gravitational force is a collection of interacting forces connected in some form by the second law (e.g. the fine structure constant). When one separates the properties of a given force from the Einstein equations, its fundamental principle break resulting in only a weak equivalence principles (which can be interpreted as a gravitational pressure). Thus lending a manifold whos properties depend on the pressures applied to it by external factors. By the methods implied thus far it makes sense to make use of the semi-classical approach to gravitation $`G_{\mu \nu }(\gamma )=<\psi |T_{\mu \nu }(g,\widehat{\varphi })|\psi >`$. To begin let us apply a gauge field of form

$$k(F_\nu ^{\mu ;\psi }\frac{1}{2}\delta _{;\psi (x)}^{\mu \nu }+A_\mu ^{\alpha \nu }F_{;\psi })0$$
(54)
which resembles a convection made seventy year ago by Einstein :

$$G_{;\alpha }^{\mu \alpha }F_{;\nu }^{\mu \nu }+\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mu ^\sigma {}_{\tau }{}^{}F_{\sigma \tau }^{}0.$$
(55)
Thus it may be viewed that the above equation is the solution for flat spacetime which implies that the canonical approach $`\gamma _{\alpha \beta }(x)=\eta _{\alpha \beta }+kh_{\alpha \beta }(x)`$ should be utilized. Such that the gauge field equation becomes:

$$k(F_\nu ^{\mu ;\psi }\frac{1}{2}\delta _{\mu \nu }^{;\psi (x)}+A_{\alpha \nu }^\mu F^{;\psi })i\mathrm{}\frac{\psi }{t}\left\{\frac{8\pi }{\sqrt{\stackrel{~}{g}}}𝒯_\nu ^{\mu ;\psi (x)}(x)\right\}$$
(56)
where

$$i\mathrm{}\frac{\psi }{t}=[\frac{1}{2m}(\widehat{p}eA)^2+eV]\psi .$$
(57)
From this it is seen that the right of the equation is governed by the laws of quantum mechanics giving a pseudo unification through means of a complex gauge field. Meaning that the fifth coordinate is false, however through complex fields, torsion becomes an integral part of both sides of the gauge inequality. The stress-energy tensor can have torsion along with electromagnetic field through the classical connection

$$T_{\mu \nu }=(Qc^2+p)u_\mu u_\nu +pg_{\mu \nu }+\frac{1}{c^2}(F_{\mu \alpha }F_\nu ^\alpha +\frac{1}{4}g_{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }F_{\mu \nu }).$$
(58)
Where torsion is given through $`S_{\mu \nu \sigma }=\psi _{[\mu \nu \sigma ]}`$, implying the inequality has torsion in flat spacetime; where one may utilize the action principle :

$$\delta \sqrt{g}d^4x\left(\frac{R}{k}+L\right)=0.$$
(59)
Therefore a pseudo superposition can take place within flat spacetime, explaining the relationship between Newtonian gravitation and electrostatic potentials in previous sections.

## 5 vacuum energy and geodesics

From the Dirac field $`i\mathrm{}\frac{\psi }{t}`$, matter would act as a void within the QED vacuum. This would thus cause the virtual energy $`\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{}\omega `$ of the quantum vacuum, to adapt a negative energy term. This process would then act to collapse the space around it, in the presence of $`n1`$ ‘false vacuum’ mass acts on the fields to adopt a negative energy requirement, which violates the weak energy condition (WEC) $`T_{\mu \nu }V^\mu V^\nu 0`$. Here we take this to mean a cosmological constant, such that the gauge inequality (56) becomes:

$$k(F_\nu ^{\mu ;\psi }\frac{1}{2}\delta _{\mu \nu }^{;\psi (x)}+A_{\alpha \nu }^\mu F^{;\psi })+\lambda i\mathrm{}\frac{\psi }{t}\left\{\frac{8\pi }{\sqrt{\stackrel{~}{g}}}𝒯_\nu ^{\mu ;\psi (x)}(x)\right\}$$
(60)
The cosmological constant can be given through $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=\frac{1}{16\pi }F^{\mu \nu }F_{\mu \nu }`$, so that the inequality suggest that $`\mathrm{\Delta }x^\mu \mathrm{\Delta }x^\nu \frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Lambda }g^{\mu \nu }`$. From this we may conclude that there exist an uncertainty within the field. This is impart because the vacuum can be described through:

$$R_{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{2}g_{\mu \nu }R=\mathrm{\Lambda }g_{\mu \nu }$$
(61)
we can also see that this formalism closely resembles (46), i.e. Weyl’s definition. Which suggest electrostatic energy is lost through the uncertainty which exist through the pseudo geometry and vacuum. With

$$F^{\mu \nu }=\frac{A^\nu }{x_\mu }\frac{A^\mu }{x_\nu },$$
(62)
the geodesic for the vacuum becomes

$$\frac{^2A^\nu }{S^2}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu ^\nu \left(\frac{x^\mu }{S}\right)\left(\frac{x_\nu }{S}\right)=\frac{e}{mc^2}A_\mu x^\mu $$
(63)
we note that under this pseudo connection the Gamma term appears to be under torsion, through an action of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_a^b=d\mathrm{\Lambda }_a^b+\mathrm{\Lambda }_a^c\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^b`$. Thus (62) would appear to take the form:

$$F_\mu ^\nu =\frac{A^\nu }{x_\mu }\frac{A_\mu }{x_\nu }$$
(64)
such a geodesic path is remarkably similar to a sphere geodesic of an electron traveling through gravitational and magnetic fields

$$\frac{d^2x^\mu }{ds^2}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_\alpha ^\mu \frac{dx^\alpha }{ds}\frac{dx^\beta }{ds}=\frac{q}{mc^2}F_\alpha ^\mu \frac{dx^\alpha }{ds}.$$
(65)
However, the accepted geodesic for an electromagnetic field is that of

$$mc\left(\frac{u^i}{S}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{kl}^iu^ku^l\right)=\frac{e}{c}F^{ik}u_k$$
(66)
From the above equation, it can be seen that at least empirically the vacuum electrostatic potential (the true vacuum) is responsible for curvature of spacetime. If one were to block the vacuum energy as in the case of the Casimir effect, it will create an inequality within the pseudo geometry resulting in a gravitational pressure. Therefore so to speak, a matter Lagrangian (false vacuum) shields (true) vacuum (zero-point-field) energy, thus resulting in negative energy, which may be interpreted through the Weyl tensor as torsion. Specifically the interaction in time produced by the pseudo Kaluza-Klien space produces the relationship between the vacuum states by :

$$\varphi _{out}(k,\eta )=\alpha \varphi _k^++\beta \varphi _k^{}$$
(67)
thus acting as the advanced and retarded Fouier series seen in section (2.1). Therefore the Riemannian tensor $`R_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }`$ contracts via the Levi-Civita connection to conserve the vacuum term, resulting in symmetric Ricci spacetime curvature, along with an antisymmetric Weyl torsion.

## 6 EM vacuum and the Weyl tensor

If one takes the coefficients of the Cosmological Constant and the Weyl tensor one has the antisymetric field $`C_{[\rho \sigma ][\mu \nu ]}F_{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }`$ (note: for simplicity the contrivariant term $`F^{\mu \nu }`$, will be removed, it will be reinstated in (79))444It is exactly from this action that we see the gauge condition envisioned by Einstein  appear in a more coherent form.. Which has the following form:

$`C_{[\rho \sigma ]}F_{\mu \nu }=C_{[\rho \sigma ]\mu }^\mu F_{\mu \nu }=C_{[\rho \sigma ][\mu \nu ]}F^{\mu \nu }F_{\mu \nu }`$ (68)
$`=CF_{\mu \nu }=C_\mu ^\mu F_{\mu \nu }=C_{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }F_{\mu \nu }`$ (69)
$`=C_{\rho \sigma }F^{\mu \nu }F_{\mu \nu }`$ (70)
$`C_{\rho [\sigma \mu \nu ]}=0`$ (71)
from this it may be seen that the Weyl tensor is an electromagnetic version of GR.

One may now apply a jacobi identity in order to from a pseudo Bianchi Identity of the form $`C_{\alpha \beta [\mu \nu ;\lambda ]}=0`$. Which can be reduced to

$$_\lambda C_{\alpha \beta \mu \nu }+_\nu C_{\alpha \beta \lambda \mu }+_\mu C_{\alpha \beta \nu \lambda }=0$$
(72)
where we can contract with $`F^{\alpha \mu }`$

$$_\lambda C_{\beta \nu }_\nu C_{\beta \lambda }+_\mu C_{\beta \nu \lambda }^\mu =0$$
(73)
which can be contracted further with $`F^{\beta \lambda }`$

$$_\lambda C_\nu ^\lambda _\nu C+_\mu C_\nu ^\mu =0$$
(74)
or

$$\overline{)^\mu (C_{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{2}F_{\mu \nu }C)=0}$$
(75)
From this we may conclude that a similar transformation will be made with the anitsymmetric covariant term $`C_{\rho \sigma }`$. When we restore the field with equation (70), we have the following field equation:

$$C_{[\rho \sigma ]}\frac{1}{4}F_{\mu \nu }+A_{\alpha \nu }^\mu C=\mathrm{\Lambda }g_{\mu \nu }$$
(76)
where the gauge term is assumed to be an Ansatz $`A_\alpha ^\mu =\eta _\alpha ^{\mu \nu }^\nu \mathrm{ln}\varphi (x)`$, thus equation (46) is only an approximation of the above field. To obtain field density one is left with

$$F_\alpha ^{\mu \nu }=\frac{\left(x^2+\rho ^2\right)^2}{4\rho ^2\eta _\alpha ^{\mu \nu }}$$
(77)
which is similar to an anitsymmetric gauge for a Yang-Mills field see Ref. :

$$S_{YM}=\frac{1}{4}d^4xF_{\mu \nu }^\alpha F^{\alpha \mu \nu }$$
(78)
We recall from section (3) that an observation of a gravitational field will only occur when two antisymmetric tensor come in contact. Thus it is precisely the below field equation which bridges the gap between quantum theory and GR.

$$\left[C_{\alpha \beta }\frac{1}{4}\stackrel{~}{F}_{\alpha \beta }+A_{a\beta }^\alpha C\right]_{;\beta }=0$$
(79)
The gauge potential $`A_{a\beta }^\alpha `$ represents the second component of the cosmological term $`F^{\mu \nu }`$ under torsion. So that with (77), we have

$$\left[C_{\alpha \beta }\frac{1}{4}\frac{4\rho ^2\eta _{\alpha \beta }^a}{\left(x^2+\rho ^2\right)^2}\frac{\left(x^2+\rho ^2\right)^2}{4\rho ^2\eta _{\alpha \beta }^a}C\right]_{;\beta }=0$$
(80)
which reduces to

$$\left[C_{\alpha \beta }\frac{1}{4}g_{\alpha \beta }+2C\right]_{;\beta }=0$$
(81)
this solution is parallel to the Einstein field equation, when considering antisymmetric scalar curvatures.

Thus it is seen that the cosmological constant is the source of torsion in the antisymetric Weyl tensor. In essence the false electromagnetic vacuum is responsible for gravitation within the Weyl-tensor. Our new variable action is a Weyl-Hilbert action:

$$S_{WH}=\delta \sqrt{g}d^4x\left(\frac{(R+2\mathrm{\Lambda })}{16\pi G}+_M+_{YM}\right)=0$$
(82)
resulting in an uncertainty of the form $`\mathrm{\Delta }x^\mu \mathrm{\Delta }x^\nu =\frac{1}{2}|\theta ^{\mu \nu }|`$ (note: such an empirical uncertainty was give in section (5)). Which suggest that the Weyl tensor should be given within a complex gauge field. Such that the Weyl-Hilbert action transforms to a Complex-Hilbert action of form:

$`S_{CH}`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{g}d^4x\left({\displaystyle \frac{(C+2\mathrm{\Lambda })}{8\pi G}}+_M\right)`$ (83)
$`+i\left[\sqrt{g}d^4x({\displaystyle \frac{(C_{[\rho \sigma ]}+2\mathrm{\Lambda })}{8\pi G}}+_M)\right)]0`$
This was suggested in section (2.1), meaning within a quantum frame the electromagnetic and gravitational properties of the Weyl tensor may interact through a weak superposition. However, we also note from section (4) a complex solution is only empirical, thus (83) is only a pseudo action.

### 6.1 gravitational Lagrangians

Let us form a Lagrangian for the vacuum solution $`\mathrm{\Lambda }g_{\mu \nu }`$. In order to describe such an action principle we will start with the GR Lagrangian for matter in the form:

$$S_M=\sqrt{g}d^4x(g^{\mu \nu }_\mu \varphi _\nu \varphi +\mathrm{})$$
(84)
from our approach thus far we would like to consider perturbations from the vacuum such that:

$$\delta _{metric}S_{EM}=\sqrt{g}d^4x\mathrm{\Lambda }g_{\alpha \beta }\delta \stackrel{~}{F}^{\alpha \beta }$$
(85)
which can simply be given by

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }g_{\alpha \beta }:=\frac{1}{\sqrt{g}}\frac{\delta }{\delta \stackrel{~}{F}^{\alpha \beta }}S_{EM}.$$
(86)
From section (6) we now make the modification

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }g_{\alpha \beta }:=\frac{1}{\sqrt{g}}\frac{\delta _{EH}}{\delta \stackrel{~}{F}^{\alpha \beta }}S_{WH}=([C_{\rho \sigma }\frac{1}{4}g_{\alpha \beta }+2C]_{;\beta }).$$
(87)
It is seen from this Lagrangian that the cosmological constant in the EFE, is in fact an electromagnetic Weyl tensor.

On taking the conditions $`T_{\mu \nu }(x)=0R_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }=C_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }(x)`$, in the absence of a matter Lagrangian torsion is carried by the symmetric Weyl tensor or generated from the electromagnetic vacuum $`\mathrm{\Lambda }g_{\mu \nu }`$. Resulting in an uncertainty of the form $`\mathrm{\Delta }x^\mu \mathrm{\Delta }x^\nu =\frac{1}{2}|\theta ^{\mu \nu /i\alpha }h_i^a_\alpha ^\mu h_a^\nu |`$. With this one has torsion resulting in a teleparallel description of gravitation in flat spacetime. Thus the cosmological constant is a perturbation within the curvature connection made possible through virtual particles (i.e. the false vacuum).

### 6.2 teleparallel geometry

The Cartan torsion connection is given by:

$$T_{\mu \nu }^\sigma =\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\nu \mu }^\sigma \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu \nu }^\sigma ,$$
(88)
with tetrad form

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu \nu }^\rho =h_a^\rho _\nu h_\mu ^a$$
(89)
Thus the vacuum-energy tensor has torsion of the order

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }𝒢_\alpha ^\beta =h_\beta ^a\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{g}}\frac{\delta _{EH}}{\delta h_\alpha ^a}\right)$$
(90)
Hence the gravitational field equation from Weyl torsion is seen through

$$\left[C_{\alpha \beta }\frac{1}{4}g_{\alpha \beta }+2C\right]_{;\beta }=\mathrm{\Lambda }𝒢_\alpha ^\beta $$
(91)
Thus the Weyl torsion tensor within GR can be given through the metric

$$g_\alpha =\eta _{\alpha \beta }+\lambda 𝒢_\alpha ^\beta $$
(92)
such that within the EFE the Cosmological Constant takes the form

$$R_{\alpha \beta }\frac{1}{2}g_{\alpha \beta }R=8\pi GT_{\alpha \beta }+\lambda g_\alpha $$
(93)
It is known that the electromagnetic field and the stress-energy tensor can feel torsion through the action

$$𝒯_{\mu \nu }=\frac{2}{\sqrt{g}}\frac{\delta _{EM}}{\delta g^{\mu \nu }}=\frac{1}{4}\left[F_\mu ^\rho F_{\mu \rho }\frac{1}{4}g_{\mu \nu }F_{\rho \sigma }F^{\rho \sigma }\right]$$
(94)
Therefore the torsion of $`𝒢_\alpha `$ can be carried not only through the stress energy tensor but onto G itself.

Covariant Maxwell’s potentials can be given through torsion by

$$F^{}:=\omega _\nu \theta ^\nu =A_\mu ^\nu \omega _\nu \omega ^\mu $$
(95)
with current potentials

$$J^{}:=dF^{}=d\theta ^\mu \omega _\mu \theta ^\mu d\omega _\mu $$
(96)
The Weyl tensor can represent such a current through

$$^\mu C_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }=J_{\nu \rho \sigma }$$
(97)
with

$$J_{\nu \rho \sigma }=k\frac{n3}{n2}\left[_\rho T_{\nu \sigma }_\sigma T_{\nu \rho }\frac{1}{n1}\left[_\rho T_\lambda ^\lambda g_{\nu \sigma }_\sigma T_\lambda ^\lambda g_{\nu \rho }\right]\right]$$
(98)
Thus it is seen that the uncertainty by the relation $`\mathrm{\Delta }x^\mu \mathrm{\Delta }x^\nu \frac{1}{2}|\theta ^{\mu \nu }|`$ causes the Weyl tensor to carry a cosmological charge current. Thereby the final form of the Weyl gravitational field is

$$\overline{)\left[C_{\alpha \beta }\frac{1}{4}g_{\alpha \beta }+2C\right]_{;\beta }=J_\beta \mathrm{\Lambda }𝒢^\alpha }$$
(99)
The right side of the above equation can be written in the form $`J\mathrm{\Lambda }𝒢_\alpha ^\beta `$. From our pseudo Weyl Curvature (75), the relationship between charges is given by:

$`^\mu C_{\mu \nu }+\left[_\rho T_{\nu \sigma }_\sigma T_{\nu \rho }\mathrm{}\right]J_{\nu [\rho \sigma ]}`$ (100)
$`^\mu F_{\mu \nu [\rho \sigma ]}=J_\nu \left[_\rho T_{\nu \sigma }_\sigma T_{\nu \rho }\mathrm{}\right]`$ (101)
This approximation can be given through:

$$F_{\mu \nu }=\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }_\nu }{x^\mu }\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }_\mu }{x^\nu }+C_{\mu \nu }^{\alpha \beta }\mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha \mathrm{\Phi }_\beta $$
(102)
which is made possible through a Ricci symmetric tensor of form

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mu ^\sigma }{x^\nu }=\eta _{\mu \nu \sigma }\mathrm{\Phi }_\nu \mathrm{\Lambda }_\mu ^\sigma $$
(103)
which in a constant field is given by $`R_{\mu \nu }=\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mu ^\sigma F_{\sigma \nu }`$, such a field can transpose to the relation

$$F_{\mu \nu }=_\mu \mathrm{\Phi }_\nu _\nu \mathrm{\Phi }_\mu $$
(104)
such a field describes two opposed electromagnetic fields through the connection $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu \nu }^\sigma =\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mu ^\sigma \mathrm{\Phi }_\nu `$. Which has the geodesic relation

$$\frac{d^2x^\mu }{ds^2}+\left(\mathrm{\Phi }_\sigma \frac{dx^\sigma }{ds}\right)\mathrm{\Lambda }_\nu ^\mu \frac{dx^\mu }{ds}=0$$
(105)
the above geodesic also has the form

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_\sigma \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mu ^\sigma }{x^\nu }=C_{\nu \sigma }^{\alpha \beta }\mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha \mathrm{\Phi }_\beta \mathrm{\Lambda }_\nu ^\sigma $$
(106)
this term is thus antisymmetric and yields

$$R_{\mu \nu }=\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }_\nu }{x^\sigma }\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }_\sigma }{x^\nu }+C_{\nu \sigma }^{\alpha \beta }\mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha \mathrm{\Phi }_\beta \right)\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mu ^\sigma =F_{\sigma \nu }\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mu ^\sigma $$
(107)
One should also note that a four vector line element under this prescription is given by

$$u_q=\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }_{;q}}{\sqrt{\mathrm{\Phi }_;\mathrm{\Phi }^q}}$$
(108)
Finally a like wise connection is given through

$`C_{\rho \sigma \mu \nu }=R_{\rho \sigma \mu \nu }({\displaystyle \frac{2}{(n2)}}g_\rho [_\mu R_\nu ]_\sigma g_\sigma [_\mu R_\nu ]_\rho `$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{(n1)(n2)}}Rg_\rho [_\mu g_\nu ]_\sigma )`$ (109)
Thus allowing a metric to remain conformaly invariant through the rescaling operation $`g_{\mu \nu }(x)e^{f(x)}g_{\mu \nu }(x)`$. This would make the torsion term appear to disappear within classical GR by means of Ricci curvature, or through the Einstein-Hilbert action $`S=\sqrt{g}𝑑x^4R`$. However, the cosmological charge current term would still remain connected to the stress-energy tensor. This result may be obtained through the Tucker-Wang action

$$S=\lambda ^2R1$$
(110)
where $`R1=R_b^a(e_ae_b)`$, is a scalar torsion corresponding to $`T^a=de^a\mathrm{\Lambda }_b^ae^b`$. With this one can have an action principle which resembles a Brans-Dicke space by:

$$S=\delta \lambda ^2\left(\frac{R1}{16\pi G}+_{YM}\right)=0$$
(111)
Thus we have a action corresponding to a Cosmological Constant, without $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. This is made possible because we have been considering a Weyl action, empirically given by:

$$S_W=\alpha C_{\lambda \mu \nu \kappa }C^{\lambda \mu \nu \kappa }\sqrt{g}𝑑x^4.$$
(112)
Since the Cosmological coefficient is included in the Weyl tensor we have been considering, it vanishes under a Cosmological model. Therefore the action for Weyl gravitation is not governed by the pseudo action (83), but by (111).

## 7 The vacuum and the meaning of G

An alternative interpretation of mass was assumed by de Broglie by the Einstein-de Broglie equation:

$$\mathrm{}\omega _C=m_0c^2.$$
(113)
This formalism has be restated recently by Haisch and Rueda  as a possible explanation for the origin of inertial mass. Where C is given by the Compton wavelength $`\lambda _C=h/mc`$, thereby asserting the origin of inertia through the Compton wavelength. If we take the equivalence principle by heart then, one must assume that gravitational inertial would arise through a similar action. From Einstein-Cartan geometry we can assume that this field would be given through torsion. Specifically we will assume an equivalence of order $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_C=2\pi G^1`$ (see A for details), this is validated by the quantization $`\lambda _C/2\pi `$. From this we see that G is the inverse charge of an electron’s Compton wavelength. In terms of EFE we have

$$R_{\alpha \beta }\frac{1}{2}g_{\alpha \beta }R=\frac{8\pi G_Q}{c^2}T_{\alpha \beta }+\lambda _Q𝒢_\alpha $$
(114)
in essence it appears that this is simply a post Einsteinian semi-classical correction to the field equations (with teleparallel Weyl torsion acting as a gauge background) .

From our supposed relation, one would have an identity of form $`\lambda G=I`$. Therefore the above relation transverses to

$$R_{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{2}g_{\mu \nu }R+\lambda G=8\pi IT_{\mu \nu }$$
(115)
Let us now suppose that the identity is equivalent to the de Broglie wavelength $`I=h/p`$. Thus:

$$G_Q\frac{h/p}{h/mc}=\frac{\lambda _d}{\lambda _C}$$
(116)
where $`\lambda _d`$ is the de Broglie wavelength given by $`\lambda _d=h/p`$. From Compton scattering we may assume that gravitational waves can pass through particles as though they were a wave. When we view the geodesic (66) one may rewrite the identity in eq. (115), such that $`I=1/\sqrt{g_{kk}}`$. This results from a geodesic of order :

$$\frac{1}{\sqrt{g_{kk}}}\left[\frac{^2u^i}{S^2}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{kl}^i\left(\frac{x^k}{S}\right)\left(\frac{x^l}{S}\right)\right]=\frac{e}{mc^2}F^{ik}$$
(117)
thus it is viewed from this that the term $`e/mc^2`$ is nearly a classical approximation of the Compton wavelength $`\lambda _C=h/mc`$. We see this when we compare the energy sources to that of the classical fine structure constant

$$\sigma _{rad}\frac{Z^2}{137}\left(\frac{e^2}{m_0c^2}\right)^2cm^2/nucules$$
(118)
which is given by an electrons radius $`r=e^2/m_0c^2=2.818\times 10^{13}cm`$. Where through the quantum correction one has $`2\pi e^2/hc=\frac{1}{137}`$. Further the inversion by the Cosmological Constant555This prescription of the Cosmological Constant as the Compton wavelength $`\lambda _C`$, may have bearing on modern cosmological theories. For example it has been proposed by recent observations from type IA supernova, there may be something causing the universe to accelerate its expansion. Under this scenario, the Universe would be coasting from the initial ’big bang,’ however through a cosmological Compton scattering this effect would appear to increase, thus giving the allusion of an ‘accelerating’ universe. yields the Gravitational Constant through the identity $`1/\sqrt{g_{kk}}`$, or specifically through the geodesic coordinate $`u_k=S/x^k`$. Thus it is seen that the gravitational constant, fine structure, and the second law of motion appear to arrive from quantum charges!

### 7.1 standing waves and the fifth coordinate

We note that a superposition of a sinusoidial wave yields a standing wave of the form $`p=2a\mathrm{sin}(2\pi x/\lambda )\mathrm{cos}(2\pi vt/\lambda )`$. With this the standing wave of the gravitational constant would be given through:

$$p_G\lambda _0=2a\frac{\mathrm{cos}(2\pi vt/\lambda _d)}{\mathrm{sin}(2\pi x/\lambda _C)}=\mathrm{cot}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}a\frac{vt\lambda _d}{x\lambda _C}$$
(119)
Thus G is the inverse ratio between the superposition of de Broglie and Compton wavelengths666The idea of a quantum connection to the Gravitational Constant and the Cosmological constant is not new idea, and neither is a superposition relation see Ref... This standing wave can be seen as potential barrier, which results in the interaction of advanced and retarded potentials777An alternative to this interpretaion arises through Quantum Mechanics, from SR an electromagnetic field at k reading locally as electric may read as a magnetic field in the frame k’. Through the action of the Weyl tensor the electric and magnetic terms may become superimposed, thus initially one has a superposition of form $`\psi (x)=E(x)+H(x)`$, which doesn’t take on its SR form until the wave function has been canceled.. This action results in the violation of the WEC, i.e. results in a false vacuum and Weyl gravitation.

From this we understand that a gravitational constant is an inverse charge of a particles Compton wavelength. Meaning that each particle has its own local isotropic gravitational field, which is induced by mass and acceleration. This also leads to a startling corollary under relativistic velocities the charge of spacetime Q would be altered. In such a situation the Compton charge would be altered by

$$=mc^2\sqrt{1\frac{v^2}{c^2}}m\mathrm{\Phi }cq\mathrm{\Phi }E+q\stackrel{}{v}\stackrel{}{A},$$
(120)
causing an inverse relation in the G (the consequences of such an effect is briefly mentioned in B). Since the electromagnetic force has an inverse relationship squared to infinity, thus is the gravitational field. Forces such as the Yang-Mills field are confined within the Coloumb barrier, thus allowing the gravitational field at a first approximation to adopt the Newton’s Gravitational constant $`G_N`$. When compared to classical gravitation one has the field $`\phi =4\pi [2a\frac{vt\lambda _d}{x\lambda _C}]_\rho `$. From this a four-vector is required, thus gravitation is a charge in spacetime!

Through Ref.  we see our prior assumed equivalence with the Compton wavelength pops up again through the five-dimensional action:

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(x^\mu ,x^5)=\mathrm{exp}\left[ik\frac{2\pi }{\lambda _C}x^5\right]\psi (x^\mu )$$
(121)
where it is interpreted that the gravitational force arises through torsion. While electromagnetism is derived through the fifth gauge-component of the torsion tensor (which has been shown to be false in previous sections). This is a pseudo complex interpretation produced by (119) and (67), thereby giving the allusion to a ‘fifth-coordinate,’ through a superposition mechanism.

## 8 discussion

This analysis of a gravitational background space reveals the following subtle quantum aspects of the gravitational field. The dual interpretation of a causal trajectory in the Feynman school, is responsible for the appearance of a pseudo ‘fifth coordinate.’ Thus causing true vacuum energy to translate into false vacuum energy converting the potential virtual energy into kinetic energy. This results in torsion within the background space, which acts to conserve the negative energy created by the false vacuum. Torsion then acts to produce a gravitational metric by means of a quantum charge, where by the equivalence principle the second law becomes valid for a classical body. Secondarly torsion alters the de Broglie wavelength which causes electrostatic potentials to lower, acting as a relativistic gravitational field.

This analysis showed the importance of the often neglected Weyl component of Riemannian geometry. It is the antisymmetric Weyl tensor acting along with an Einstein-Cartan geometry that is responsible for the gravitational constant. Specifically pertaining to an electrons Compton wavelength for long range gravitation. However, for field of varying charge one would expect the gravitational constant and the cosmological constants to accept different values, thus gravitation in its true form would carry more than the background electromagnetic vacuum, and gravitation would be expected to have ranges limited to there local fields888For example, nuclear fields do not correspond to the inverse square relationship $`1/r^2`$, thus gravitation would be expected to behave fundamentally different here. Since the gravitational force is one of a collective nature, all vacuum field sources should be included within such a potential formalism..

## Acknowledgement

I would like to thank Fernando Loup for his correspondence on the Cosmological Constant, and for the support of this work.

## Appendix A The Compton wavelength and ‘superluminal’ shifts

The relationship between the gravitational constant G, and the Compton wavelength can be seen, when we except the value of G to be of order :

$$G=(6.74215\pm 0.000092)\times 10^{11}m^3kg^1s^2.$$
(122)
We can now compare that to the Compton wavelength999Data on the Compton wavelength comes from . of an electron given by $`\lambda _C=h/m_ec=2.426\times 10^{12}m`$. However from field density relationship shown in (80), we are left with the crude relation $`\lambda _C=2\pi G^1`$, we must consider the quantized wave form:

$$\frac{h\lambda _C}{2\pi }=386.1592642(28)\times 10^{15}m$$
(123)
Thus the inverse of G is that of

$$2\pi G^1=0.02361=\lambda _C\times 10^1$$
(124)
Such that it is seen that $`2\pi G`$ is the inverse of the Compton wavelength. Acceleration will altered the ‘charge’ or Compton wavelength such that gravitational constant(s) would be altered upon relativistic velocities. This could very well explain the propagation of observed superluminal jets emanating from Active Galactic Nuclei (AGN).

Since classically electromagnetic waves propagate via the relation $`C=\lambda \nu `$, we expect a gravitational shift from

$$\mathrm{\Delta }vv_i(G_aM)\left(\frac{1}{r_i}+\frac{1}{r_f}\right).$$
(125)
thus when viewed parallel to the direction of travel one is left with a blue shift by

$$C_0\left(1+\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }_g}{c^2}\right)=\lambda _0\left(\nu _0\left(1+\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }_g}{c^2}\right)\right).$$
(126)
Where

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_g=\frac{G_Qm_0}{\sqrt{x^2+(y^2+z^2)(1v^2/c^2)}}$$
(127)
the wavelength would appear to be altered by

$$_\lambda =\lambda ^{}\sqrt{1\frac{v^2}{c^2}}$$
(128)
this is because (126), makes it appear that the wavelength $`\lambda `$ is increasing while it is really of function of $`C_0`$ and $`\nu _0`$. This would appear to yield superluminal travel, such a result is in accordance with . This effect does not seem to be limited to AGN either, a superluminal source was also detected near SN1987A, see .

## Appendix B origin for inertia and mass increase?

From the previous section we have seen that the gravitational constant could be considered as the inverse of the Compton wavelength. From (126), we now may consider an inverse of the quantum energy $`E=hv`$ and the classical wavelength $`C=\lambda \nu `$:

$$\lambda _d=\frac{E}{C_0\left(1+\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }_g}{c^2}\right)}=\frac{h\nu _0}{\lambda \left(\nu _0\left(1+\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }_g}{c^2}\right)\right)}\frac{h}{\lambda \left(\nu _g\left(1+\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }_g}{c^2}\right)\right)}I$$
(129)
such that acceleration yields a mass increase through the de Borglie relation

$$p_0\left(1+\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }_g}{c^2}\right)=mv_0=\lambda _C\left(\nu _0\left(1+\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }_g}{c^2}\right)\right)$$
(130)
thus mass increase is governed by the action seen in (128). This is thus a verification of the equivalence principle, i.e. inertial and gravitational masses are equivalent! From (129) we can now consider a Lagrangian of form:

$`\lambda _d^{}`$ $`=`$ $`m_0c^2q\mathrm{\Phi }^{}{\displaystyle \frac{E}{C_0\left(1+\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }_g}{c^2}\right)}}`$ (131)
$`=`$ $`m_0c^2q{\displaystyle \frac{\left(\mathrm{\Phi }\frac{E}{C_0\left(1+\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }_g}{c^2}\right)}vA/c\right)}{\sqrt{1\frac{v^2}{c^2}}}}`$
this interpretation runs parallel with . However, this work diverges with equation (126), thus it is $`\lambda `$ which creates observable gravitational effects and not $`\nu `$. With this in mind one can have an action of

$$\mathrm{\Delta }S=\frac{m_0c^2}{h}\sqrt{1\frac{v^2}{c^2}}+\frac{\lambda _C}{h}\mathrm{\Phi }_g𝑑t,$$
(132)
therefore the appearance of inertia only appears for particles with a corresponding Compton wavelength through the action

$$\mathrm{\Delta }S=\frac{\lambda _C}{h}(\mathrm{\Phi }_gvA/c).$$
(133)
## Appendix C gravitation within the QED vacuum

It is known that particles such as the proton have a value of $`\lambda _c=h/m_pc=1.321\mathrm{}\times 10^{15}m`$, for the Compton wavelength. Meaning that Gravitation is not a force directed by one term, but all terms of vacuum. Thus it maybe seen that gravitation within an nucleus behaves quite differently than the Newtonian prescription. We assume from elementary data that a ‘nuclear’ gravitational field would be confined to the nucleus, not manifesting its effects in the global sense. However, for the early universe, one may have a spacetime with quite different cosmological constant(s) then the ones observed today, possibly giving new justification for inflation theory. Lastly in comparison to Appendix A, a beam of protons being accelerated from an AGN source would result in another prediction. The proton/electron ‘acceleration’ rates, and for any particle in general is directly proportional to their Compton wavelengths.

## Appendix D implications for the planck length

It is believed that the planck length $`l_p=(Gh/c^3)^{1/2}`$, is the fundamental cut off point for the gravitational field. Two problems arise with this work 1) the planck length is determined by the Compton wavelength of the mass in question. 2) the gravitational constant and thus the planck length are altered upon acceleration. The first problem is not a problem it is simply a modification required by the theory, and for the large scale universe this result is negligible under a first approximation. The second problem is still a problem, however in an earlier work , I modified the planck length with disconcern. However, with that work in mind problem two is easily solved and is given by

$$l_p=(G_Ch/m_{p_0}c^3)^{1/2}\psi .$$
(134)
Where $`G_C`$ is the gravitational constant given by the Compton wavelength, for an electron this becomes Newton’s gravitational constant $`G_N`$. And $`m_{p_0}`$ is the rest momentum of the mass in question, which is given by

$$m_{p_0}=(pc/c^2).$$
(135)
This definition is given by the relativistic wave equation $`E=\pm (pc+m_0c^2)`$. From (134) the gravitational constant can also be considered in the form

$$G_C=\frac{2\pi c^3l_p^2}{h}=2\pi c^3(G_C^2h/m_{p_0}^2c^6)^{1/2}=2\pi \frac{G_C\frac{1}{2}hc^3}{m_{p_0}c^3}=2\pi \frac{G_C\frac{1}{2}h}{m_{p_0}}$$
(136)
With this we see a gravitational uncertainty through $`\mathrm{\Delta }x\mathrm{\Delta }p\frac{1}{2}Gh`$. Finally after quantization of (136) we have a pure quantum charge, i.e $`G_Ch`$, thus gravitation carries the uncertainty of the Compton wavelength.