STUDIES ON SOME ASPECT OF FUNDAMENTAL THEORY

OF EVERYTHING

K. Ghosh∗
A.L - 123, Sector -2, Bidhan nagar, Kolkata-700 091, India.
arXiv:gr-qc/0503003v21 3 Oct 2006

I. ABSTRACT

What happens to the entropy increase principle as the Universe evolve to form the big-
crunch singularity? What happens to the uncertainity relations along the process of grav-
itational collapses? What is the quantum mechanical description of a Radon atom in a
rigid box when the distance of consecutive nodes and antinodes of ψ is equal to or less than
the diameter of the atom? What is the position-space wave function of two finite volume
massive bosons if we take contact interaction into account? How a photon produce electron-
positron pair with finite volume concentrate rest masses? What are the charges and masses
of the electron-positron pairs forming loops in the vacuum? How two particles with three-
momentums k1 , k2 (k1 6= k2 ) produced to form a loop at a space-time point always arrive
at another spacial point simultaneously? What is the microscopic explanation in terms of
particle exchanges of the force in the Casimir effect? What is the mechanism of the collapse
of the momentum-space wave function of a particle knocking out an elctron from an atom?
What is meant by |Ψ >= c1 (t)|ΨU 238 > +c2 (t)|ΨT h234 > ? Quantum mechanically the region
between the rigid walls (which is equiprobable in classical mechanics) is non-homogeneous
for a particle in a rigid box ! A photon can not reproduce Maxwell’s equations apart from
moving with velocity c. How can a process involving only a few photons be described starting
from the Maxwell’s equations? The large scale structure of the Universe is homogeneous.
What is the screen in our brains to view objects, as they are, of sizes larger than our
brains?
The current density due to a point charge is: J(~ r~′ ) = qδ 3 (r~′ − r~t )~v , where r~t defines the
trajectory of the point charge.

∗ E-address: [email protected]

1
 II. OVERVIEW

Gravitational interaction which is universally attractive is described by the General The-

ory of Relativity, a theory of fields realized through the existence of space-time and some
of its geometric properties,e.g, the curvature. The principle of equivalence leading to the
fact that the guinea and the feather fall the same way in vacuum together with the fact
that gravity violets the elementary quantum mechanical priciples (as will be evident from
this article) indicates that fields are as fundamental as particles. Fields and particles with
their common and contradictory kinemetical and dynamical features are the two fundamen-
tal constituents of nature. The attraction of opposite charges can only be explained through
accepting the electric field as a fundamental entity of nature and not through only interac-
tion mediating particle interaction (be the interaction mediating particles interacting with
the sources or among themselves)[14] although the repulsion between like charges may be
explained in the later way with photons as the interaction mediator. Quantum mechanics is
an incomplete approach to explain thr Solar system microscopic physics purely in terms of
wave-like properties whereas Quantum Field Theory is an incomplete approach to explain
the Solar system microscopic physics purely in terms of particle-like properties. For the
vacuum polarization explanation of the potential [18] in the Bhaba scattering process it is
not obvious how, in terms of photon exchanges, the loops in vacuum will screen the charges
of e− , e+ . Also an electron-positron loop with two external photon lines can not explain
charge screening in any process as the particle-antiparticle pairs are created and annihilated
after the interaction mediating photon had been created at one real particle and before the
interaction mediating photon has interacted with the other real particle. None of these two
theories are in accordance with gravity as will be manifested in this article.

III. INTRODUCTION

During the last few decades a lot of efforts had been devoted to unify the general theory of
relativity (describing the gravitational interaction) with quantum mechanics (describing the
microscopic interactions of the elementary particles). Yet the conventional theory of quan-
tum mechanics, based on unitarity and symmetries, is contradictory with general relativity
in many respects, e.g. , formally infinite zero point energy associated with canonical quanti-
zation scheme, ultraviolet divergent energy density associated with vacuum fluctuations [1]
for collapsing physical systems, unitarity violation for black hole evolution.
To unify these two descriptions of nature we can procced along two directions [2] :
For the Euclide school space-time geometry is an abstract concept which exist irrespective
of matter fields. For the non-Euclide school space-time does not exist independent of matter
fields. Space-time is form of existence of matter and can not be concieved without matter.
This feature is even more transperent from the facts, among others, that the universe is
compact and there is no well-defined stress-tensor for gravity which interwinds matter fields
and space-time geometry [3].
In the context of the general theory of relativity the conflict between the two schools
arise in the following way:
As soon as one derives the geodesic deviation equation from the principle of equivalence
one “can” forget the source, ascribing the relative accelaration of the nearby geodesics to
the space-time manifold. This, in contradiction to the philosophy of general relativity, may

2
lead to think that the space-time manifold is more fundamental leading to the concept of
quantum gravity irrespective of existence of the corresponding sources that will produce
the fluctuating geometries (no source indicates no space-time geometry and observationally,
quantum fluctuations in matter fields are negligible to produce significant alternations of the
space-time geometry).
Quantum gravity also led to many space-time geometries which are physically non-
existent. One such example is the extreme Reissner-Nordstrom black hole which cannot
be obtained through any realistic gravitational collapse [ ]. It also has vanishing Hawking
temperature. This may be interpreted through the fact that Hawking radiation through pair
production near the black hole event horizon is not possible as the metric do not change its
signature across the horizon.
We should keep in mind that the Einsteins equations in the regime of its validity de-
termine the space-time geometry: the geometry of space-time as a whole is determined by
corresponding matter fields described either in terms of some classical models or by a proper
quantum theory. This gives a particular cosmology (the closed or mathematically more
properly compact universe picture) and if we view cosmology as a whole there is really no
test body.
We will now consider some aspects of the black hole space-time geometry. In the process
of gravitational collapse an event horizon, the black hole event horizon, is formed breaking the
global CP invariance and giving rise to the Kerr-Newman families of black holes(the no hair
theorems). The black hole event horizon may be defined as the causal boundary of the set
of complete time-like geodesics which originates at the past time-like infinity and terminate
at the future time-like infinity as classically nothing can come out off the horizon. The black
hole space-time is usually described either in terms of the Schwarzschild coordinate system
or in terms of the Kruskal-Szeckers coordinate system. In the Schwarzschild coordinate
system the black hole event horizon is a two dimensional fixed point set of the time-like
Killing vector field across which some of the metric components change sign. In the Kruskal-
Szeckers coordinate system the event horizon is a two dimensional null surface across which
the square of some of the coordinates change sign. We now consider the equivalence of the
two coordinate systems in detail.

IV. EQUIVALENCE OF THE SCHWARZSCHILD AND THE

KRUSKAL-SZEKERS COORDINATE SYSTEM

The Schwarzschild space-time is a Lorentz signature, static spherically symmetric solution

of the Einstein equations when the Ricci tensor vanishes. This solution describes the exterior
geometry of a static spherically symmetric star and has been used to verify the predictions
of general relativity for the Solar system.
A space-time is said to be static if there exits a space-like hypersurface which is orthog-
onal to the orbits of the time-like Killing vector field. A space-time is said to be spherically
symmetric if the space-like hypersurfaces contains SO(3) as a subgroup of the group of
isometries. The orbit spheres of SO(3) are isometric to the unit two sphere. These fea-
tures together with the condition of the asymptotic Newtonian limit give the well-known
Schwarzschild solution in the spherical polar coordinates[3]:

ds2 = −(1 − 2M/r)dt2 + (1 − 2M/r)−1 dr 2 + r 2 [dθ2 + sin2 θdθ2 ] (1)

3
 According to the Birkhoff’s theorem [19] all spherically symmetric solutions with Rab =
0 are static and the Schwarzschild space-time is the unique static spherically symmetric
solution, upto diffeomorphisims, of the Einstein equations with Rab = 0.
The norm of the time-like Killing vector field and (∇r)a in the orthonormal coordi-
nates vanishes and some of the metric components are not well-behaved at r = 2M in the
Schwarzschild coordinates. The proper acceleraration of the constant r observers can be
obtained from the geodesic equations in the Schwarzschild coordinates. This acceleration,
a = (1 − 2M/r)−1/2 M/r 2 , is divergent at the horizon (r = 2M).
The ill-behavedness of the Schwarzschild coordinates is not a coordinate singularity like
that of the spherical polar coordinate system where the azimuthal angular coordinate φ
become ambiguous at the poles. All the ill-behavedness of the Schwarzschild coordinates at
the horizon originate from that of the space-time metric. The curvature scalars calculated
from the metric are well-behaved at the horizon unlike r = 0 where the curvature scalars
diverge. For ordinary stars this metric singularity at r = 2M is irrelevant as it is inside the
star and the Schwarzschild solution is not valid in the matter filled interiors. However it is
well-known that sufficiently massive stars can undergo gravitational collapse to form black
holes and the metric singularity at the horizon is important. Several coordinate systems had
been introduced to remove the metric singularity and to extend the Schwarzschild space-time
where the Schwarzschild coordinate system is referred to covering a proper submanifold of
the extended space-time. The metric in these extended coordinate systems are well-defined
every where apart from the space-time singularity. The most well-known extension is the
Kruskal-Szekers coordinanate system. In this article we perform a comparative study of
these two coordinate systems and show that they are not diffeomorphically equivalent.
In this section we will follow the abstract index convension of Wald [3] and extend its
significance in Appendix:A.
According to the theory of relativity if φ : M → M is diffeomorphism then (M, gab )
and (M, φ∗ gab ) represent the same physical space-time. Let a coordinate system xµ cover
a neighborhood U of a point p and a coordinate system y ν cover a neighborhood V of the
point φ(p). Now we may use φ to define a new coordinate system x′ µ in a neighborhood
O = φ−1 [V ] by setting x′ µ = y µ [φ(q)] for q belonging to O. We may then take the point of
view as φ leaving p and all tensors at p unchanged but inducing the coordinate transformation
′µ
xµ → x′ µ . For φ to be a diffeomorphism ∂x ∂xν
should be non-singular [3,15]. According to
this point of view two coordinate system covering a space-time can be taken to be equivalent
if the corresponding transformation coefficients are not singular in their common domain of
definition otherwise an arbitrary smooth function defined in one coordinate system may not
remain smooth in the other coordinate system.
To extend the Schwarzschild coordinate system one considers the two dimensional r − t
part:

ds2 = −(1 − 2M/r)dt2 + (1 − 2M/r)−1 dr 2 (2)

The Regge-Wheeler coordinate system is defined through the null-geodesics and is given
by:

r∗ = r + 2Mln(r/2M − 1) (3)

in this coordinate r → 2M corresponds to r∗ → −∞. The null coordinates are defined

as:

4
 u = t − r∗ , v = t + r∗ (4)

A regular metric is obtained through the following transformation,

U = −e−u/4M , V = ev/4M (5)

The metric in these coordinates becomes:

2 32M 3 e−r/2M
ds = − dUdV (6)
r
As there is no longer a coordinate singularity at r = 2M (i.e at U = 0 or V = 0)
one extends the Schwarzschild solution by allowing U, V to take all possible values. How-
(t−r)
ever the transformation coefficients dU/dr = −d[(r/2M − 1)1/2 e− 4M ]/dr and dV /dr =
(t+r)
d[(r/2M − 1)1/2 e 4M ]/dr are singular at r = 2M and the extension is not diffeomorphically
equivalent. Consequently as discussed at the beginning of this section the Schwarzschild
coordinate system and the (U, V ) coordinate system do not represent physically the same
space-time manifold. Consequently, according to Birkoff’s theorem, the space-time repre-
sented by the (U, V, θ, φ) coordinate system is not a solution of the Einstein equations for a
spherically symmetric black hole.
Similar discussions are valid for the Kruskal-Szekers coordinate transformations which
are obtained through the following transformations:

T = (U + V )/2, X = (V − U)/2 (7)

and the metric becomes,

32M 3 e−r/2M
ds2 = (−dT 2 + dX 2 ) + r 2 (dθ2 + sin2 θdφ2 ) (8)
r
The relation between the (T, X) and the (t, r) coordinates are well known and in the
physical regions of interests are given by [4],

X = (r/2M − 1)1/2 er/4M cosh(t/4M) (9)

T = (r/2M − 1)1/2 er/4M sinh(t/4M) (10)

valid for r > 2M, and

T = (1 − r/2M)1/2 er/4M cosh(t/4M) (11)

X = (1 − r/2M)1/2 er/4M sinh(t/4M) (12)

valid for r < 2M.

Again the transformation coefficients are not defined on the horizon and the Kruskal-
Szekers coordinates do not give a proper diffeomorphic extension of the Schwarzschild co-
ordinate system. Hence the Kruskal-Szekeres coordinates is not a solution of the Einsteins
equations for a spherically symmetric black hole
The Kruskal-Szekers coordinate system had been introduced to eliminate a particular
singular function (the metric components) in the Schwarzschild coordinate system through

5
a singular coordinate transformation. This does not ensure that all singular tensors can be
made regular in the new coordinate system and also tensors which are regular in the (t, r)
coordinates can become singular in the (T, R) coordinates. To illustrate these features we
consider the implicit relations between the two coordinate systems [1]:

(r/2M − 1)er/2M = X 2 − T 2 (13)

t T +X
= ln( ) (14)
2M X −T
The horizon in this coordinates are defined as X = ±T .
Firstly the proper acceleration of the curves in Kruskale-Szecker’s coordinate system
which correspond to the constant r observers in the Schwarzschild coordinate system is
given by a = (X 2 − T 2 )−1/2 [er/2M M/r 2 ]. This is also divergent on the horizon.
Secondly we consider the vector ( dR
′
ds
)a , R a , the proper rate of change of the curvature
scalar R obtained from (dR)a and the proper distance ds [i.e, the vector ( dR ds
∂
)( ∂r ), Ap-
pendix:A]. The norm of this vector in the Schwarzschild coordinate system is (dR/dr)2 and
is finite on the horizon. Whereas the corresponding quantity in the (T, X) coordinates can be
r/2M
obtained from the following relations [apart from normalizing factors: ( ∂X ∂s
), ( ∂T
∂s
) = [ re32M 3 ]1/2
:
dR ∂R ∂r dR ∂R ∂r
= , = (15)
dX ∂r ∂X dT ∂r ∂T
and from equ.(13),

∂r 8M 2 Xe−r/2M ∂r 8M 2 T e−r/2M
= , =− (16)
∂X r ∂T r
4 −r/M
and we have |R a KS |2 = 64M re2 ( ∂R
′
∂r
)2 [X 2 − T 2 ] = 0 on the horizon although the r
-dependent multiplying factor in front of the Kruskal-Szecker’s metric is finite at r = 2M.
The unit space-like normal vector to the r = constant surfaces, which can be defined
apart from r = 0, k a = ( dr ds
)a has unit norm (k a ka = 1) on r = 2M although k a → 0
as r → 2M which for an outside observer (r > 2M) may be interpreted as nothing can
propagate radially outward at r = 2M, consistent with the divergent acceleration for a
radially infalling particle. Also no combination of the unit time-like normal and the unit
space-like normal to the r = const. surfaces are possible whose norm is zero on the horizon
but finite for r > 2M.
For two metric spaces the definitions of continuity is as follows [16]:
Let (S, dS ) and (T, dT ) be metric spaces and let f : S → T be a function from S to T .
The function f is said to be continuous at a point p in S if for every infinitesemal ǫ > 0
there is an infintsemal δ > 0 such that

dT [f (x), f (p)] < ǫ, whenever dS [x, p] < δ. (17)

If f is continuous at every point of S then f is continuous on S.

The definition is in accordance with the intuitive idea that points close to p are mapped
by f into points closed to f (p). From equn.(13),(14) we have,

6
 X T
|dt|Sch = |dT |KS , |dt|Sch = − 2 |dX|KS (18)
(X 2 2
−T ) 1/2 (X − T 2 )1/2
and,
X T
|dr|Sch = |dX| KS , |dr| Sch = − |dT |KS (19)
(X 2 − T 2 )1/2 (X 2 − T 2 )1/2
where | | denotes the norm in the respective coordinate systems and we find that the
coordinate transformation, (t, r) → (T, X) is not continuous on the horizon as the multiplica-
tive factors diverge on the horizon (X = ±T ). Consequently the coordinate transformation
(t, r) → (T, X) is not a homeomorphism and the two coordinate systems do not topologically
represent the same space-time manifolds [3,17]. Hence we show that that the Kruskal-Szekers
coordinate system is not a proper extension of the Schwarzschild cooedinate system and it is
not a solution of the Einsteins equation for spherically symmetric black hole. We conclude
this discussion with the following note:
For any coordinate system we have,
∂xρ ∂xσ
g ′µν = (gSch.)ρσ (20)
∂x′ µ ∂x′ ν
Consequently it is not possible to find a coordinate system with a regular g ′µν with-
out absorbing the singularities of (gSch.)ρσ at r = 2M into the transformation coefficients
∂xρ
∂x′ µ
at r = 2M i.e, without breaking the diffeomorphic equivalence of the two coordinate
systems. Thus, as also discussed in the preceding sections, the Kruskal-Szekeres coordi-
nate system with a regular metric at the horizon can not be diffeomorphically equivalent
to the Schwarzschild coordinate system and thus do not represent a static asymptotically
flat solution of the Einsteins equations representing a blck hole formed out of the gravi-
tational collapse of an uncharged spherically symmetric asymptotically flat star. [see also
Appendix:E].
In passing we note that the gravitational collapse to form black hole is associated with
entropy decrease. The entropy of a star is propertional to its volume for r > 2M whereas
the entropy becomes propertinal to the area of the horizon, 16πM 2 , as the star crosses the
Schwarzschild radius to form a black hole.
It is not obvious how to describe the space-time evolution of the complete gravitational
collapse of matter fields as a whole in terms of time-like curves as, for a Schwarzschild
observer, the time-like curves suffer a discontinuity across the horizon and become space-
like inside the black hole event horizon. It is welknown that expressed in terms of the
Schwarzschild coordinates the black hole event horizon has profound impact on the quantum
description of matter fields and black hole evaporation through Hawking radiation makes the
space-time dynamic. Also Hamiltonian evolution of matter fields break down on the fixed
point sets of the time-like Killing vector field [14]. The canonically conjugate momentums
are not well-defined on the horizon as will be evident from the lagrangians of the matter
fields.

V. DISCUSSION

In a gravitational collapse once the collapsing body crosses the horizon it collapses to
form the space-time singularity breaking the description of space-time in terms of contin-
uous manifolds and the local symmetries. We can only characterize the presence of of the

7
space-time singularity in a diffeomorphism invariant way, in terms of the curvature invariants
along the space-time curves which cross the event horizon and necessarily terminate along
the space-time singularity. The formation of black hole event horizon can be characterized
through the formation of trapped surfaces. The gravitational collapse and the cosmological
evolution are the only two processes in nature through which a three dimensional physi-
cal system collapses to zero dimension (forming the space-time singularity). Here through
zero dimension we mean a point or a collection of points. We will illustrate this aspect in
Appendix:B.
Einsteins equations break down at the space-time singularity. This is something similar
to electrodynamics. We can determine the electric field for a point charge using the Maxwells
equations. But the field strength diverges and classical electrodynamics break down at the
point charge (the corresponding quantum theory QED is not a resolution to this problem.
It has its troubles associated with the point-like interaction terms. However experimental
observations confirm that all the elementary particles are of finite volume). The formation
of space-time singularity is associated with finite volume to zero dimension transition for
the corresponding collapsing body and the richest structure that we can attribute to zero
dimension is that of an analogue of (compact) three dimensional generalization of the Cantor
set [5,6] provided we generalize the description of the collapsing matter field through a proper
quantum theory [a generalization of the Pauli exclusion principle].
There are two ways that one can reach zero dimension from finite volume breaking the
continuous topology of space-time manifold. One is through the point contraction mapping
which requires an infinite number of iterations which, together with the discussions in Ap-
pendix:B, is in accordance with the fact that time is a continuous parameter. The other one
is through the formation of an analogue of the Cantor set (or any other discrete manifold
with different cardinality) in which case the underlying physical processe to achieve zero
dimension may be discontinuous. A discrete manifold may not always form a normed vector
space, e.g, the set of points (n + x) on the real line, where n is an integer and x is a
fractional number, can not form a normed vector space as the difference between two points
do not belong to the set. Also it is not physically obvious to talk of causal structure, defined
through propagation of signals, in a discrete manifold unless the manifold is space-like and
frozen in time (which is defined through physical processes). As discussed earlier accord-
ing to the General Theory of Relativity charges associated with space-time transformation
symmetries are global properties of a continuous space-time manifold as a whole whereas a
manifold without continuous topology can only have space-time independent charge.
To describe cosmological evolution and black hole evolution we will have to generalize
and geometrize conventional quantum mechanics in a suitable way. In these respects the
principal aspects to be critically studied, as will be discussed later in this article, towards
unifying the general theory of relativity and conventional quantum mechanics is the concept
of diffeomorphism invariance associated with the general theory of relativity and unitarity
associated with the conventional quantum mechanics.
The facts that the continuous topology of space-time break down at the space-time singu-
larity [Appendix:B] (indicating no well-defined observables associated with spatial transfor-
mations for the cosmologically evolving or collapsing matter fields in the near zero dimension
region) and that nature choses a particular cosmology lead us to conclude that diffeomor-
phism invariance (which for large scale structure of space-time is equivalent to invariance
under coordinate transformations) is not of so important (as it is for solar system microscopic
physics) concern for the corresponding physical laws. Rather the fact Schwarzschild coor-

8
dinates and the Kruscal- Szekers coordinates are not diffeomorphically equivalent indicates
that an appropriate choice of a suitable coordinate system is most important. However we
can express the generalized quantum theory in covariant form. This will help us to compare
the generalized quantum theory with solar system quantum physics where the physical laws
are invariant under inertial transformations and are formulated in a covariant way under the
corresponding coordinate transformations.
To generalize the conventional quantum mechanics we should take into account the fol-
lowing important aspects:
(1) Special relativity made the concept of size for ordinary objects a relative one. The
strong curvature effects near the space-time singularity will spoil the concept of dimension
for the elementary particles forming the space-time singularity.
(2) Quantum mechanics is the mechanics of quantum states which do not exist indepen-
dent of their realizations at least in principle, i.e, through interactions with other quantum
states. For solar system microscopic physics the fact that the elementary particles or bound
states formed by them are of finite volume has to be considered in the corresponding quantum
state description as long as the continuous structure of the space-time manifold holds.
(3) Every measurement process through state reduction is a non-unitary operation on
the space of quantum states [7]. Near the space-time singularity the strong carvature will
destroy the description of matter fields in terms of a unitary quantum theory.
As far as the cosmological evolution is concerned (zero dimension to finite volume and
finite volume to zero dimension transitions) no observer physics is the exact description of
the evolution of the universe in the near zero volume region. A proper generalization of
quantum mechanics may be non-unitary in the sence that the evolutions of the possible
quantum states (if the space-time description of matter is given by a particular family of
space-time curves representing possible particle trajectories [5]) representing the collapsing
physical systems may be non-unitary.
However, it is obvious that the collapsing physical system (which is a bound system
through gravitational interaction) collapsses to zero dimension violating the conventional
quantum mechanics based on the uncertainity principle (e.g, the electrons in an atom obeying
the quantum mechanical principles do not collapse on the positively charged nucleas) and
follow the deterministic laws of general relativity.
In the context of the above discussions an important contradiction between the general
theory of relativity (describing the gravitational interaction) with conventional quantum me-
chanics (describing the microscopic interactions of the elementary particles) is the following:
Positivity of the energy momentum stress-tensor together with the general theory of
relativity leads to gravitational collapses [8] and space-time singularities [9] where a three
dimensional physical system collapses to zero dimension (breaking the continuous space-time
topology) whereas positivity of the energy-momentum tensor together with the canonical
commutation relations lead to the Pauli exclusion principle (unless one introduces additional
structures about the space-time singularity).
We, living beings, are characterized by the fact that we can control some terrestial pro-
cesses. But we can neither change the physical laws nor the cosmological evolution. Many
descriptions we had made are either incomplete (unitary quantum mechanics) or approxima-
tions (point particles for microscopic physics). The discussions in the preceding paragraph
together with the facts that black holes contain no scalar hair [11], that there is no physical
explanation of only recombination for the virtual particles (which “interpret” real effects as
in the Casimir effect) to form loops in quantum field theory [Physically, in vacuum, even

9
in Feynmann’s summing over path scheme it is not obvious why particle pairs produced at
one space-time point will only recombine at another space-time point. The otherwise should
give abandunces of particles and antiparticles. We will discuss this issue in some details in
Appendix:C.] and that the universality of the minimum uncertainity relations are lost in the
gravitational collapses and are questionable in the solar system microscopic physics [12] lead
to conclude that the proper avenue towards unifying these two theories and thereby explain-
ing the cosmological evolution completely will be understanding the space-time singularity
and extending the conventional quantum theory as the position-momentum Canonical com-
mutation relations are in accordance with the corresponding minimum uncertainity relations
[13].

VI. APPENDIX:A

We can obtain the one-form (dφ)a from a zero-form (a scalar field) φ in an explicit
coordinate variables notation:
∂φ
[(dx)a ]µ
X
(dφ)a = (21)
∂xµ
here the range of the summation is the dimension of space-time and it does not represent
an infinitsemal change in φ. When expressed in a particular coordinate basis [(dx)a ]µ will
be just dxµ , a coordinate one-form, and the µ -th component of (dφ)a is ∂x∂φ
µ as an arbitrary

tensor T , in its operator form, represented in a coordinate basis can be expressed as:
∂ ∂
T = T αβ... µν... ( α )( )...(dxµ )(dxν )... (22)
∂x ∂xβ

Here ( ∂x∂α ), ( ∂x∂ β ) are coordinate unit vecrors and dxµ,ν are coordinate one-forms.
In terms of a coordinate basis the covariant d Alembaratian operator can be obtained
from the invariant:
∂φ ∂φ
(dφ)a (dφ)a = g µν
XX
(23)
∂xµ ∂xν
here the explicit summations are again over µ, ν with the ranges same as above. When
expressed explicitly in a coordinate basis the Lagrangian density of a massless scalar field
is given by: gµν ∂ µ φ∂ ν φ = g µν ∂µ φ∂ν φ. The infinitesemal change δφ of the scalar field φ can
be interpreted as the scalar product of the one form (dφ)a and the infinitsemal vector line
elements.

VII. APPENDIX:B

In this section we will briefly discuss the relationship between the fundamental properties
of the elementary particles and space-time geometry. We will show that a line-element is
not just a collection of points. Line-elements, area-elements and volume-elements are as
fundamental as points. We also demonstrate that three spatial dimentions is in accordace
with the finite volume and spin of the elementary particles to give unique dynamics. We will
also discuss the consequences of these aspects for geometry and coordinatization.

10
 A point is a dimensionless object. A line is a one dimensional object. Two lines intersect
at a point. If two lines intersect each other at every point they are said to be coincident.
Two non-coincident lines are said to be parallel if they never intersect each other. A plane
is a two dimensional object and any point on the plane can be characterized through the
choice of two lines on the plane and constructing a coordinate system in the usual way.
There are two possible motions on a plane, translations and rotations. Rotations can be
uniquly characterized only through their magnitude and the unique normal to the plane. In
three dimension any infinitesemal rotation can be taken to take place on a plane uniquly
characterized through its unique normal which is contained within the three dimensional
spatial geometry. Higher dimensions greater than three will spoil the uniquness of the
normal to the plane of rotation. Thus three dimensional spatial geometry is self -complete
both geometrically and to describe the dynamics of matter particles uniquly.
A line is not just a collection of points as a collection of dimensionless objects (points),
however large may be in cardinality, cannot give a dimensionful object. For example the
total length of the deleted intervals to form the Cantor set (a collection of discrete points)
is 1 although the cardinality of the Cantor set is same as the original unit length interval [5]
considered, conventionally, as a collection of points. On a line “two points separated by an
interval (finite or infinitesemal)” or “two points coincident” have meaning but “two points
adjuscent” is not defined. We have to introduce line intervals, finite or infinitesemal, as
fundamental mathematical entities to form lines giving them the continuous topology. We
illustrate this feature in the context of the real line.
An arbtrary real rational number may expressed as r = n.x1 x2 x3 ............xp , where n is
an integer, xi = 0, ..., 9 for i < p, xj = 0 for j > p, p may be arbitrarily large but finite and
xp 6= 0, i.e., the sequence of the decimal places is finite. Whereas an irrational number is
given by: ir = n.x1 x2 x3 ............ and the sequence of the decimal places runs to infinity. Here
the definitions differ from the conventionals. We will consider r, ir > 0 in the following
section.
It is easy to find that between any two rational numbers there are infinite number of
irrational numbers as any irrational number (with xi same as that of r for all i < p) whose
p -th decimal number is equal to xp is greater than r and any irrational number (again with
xi same as that of r for all i < p) whose p -th decimal number is equal to (xp − 1) is lower
than r. Similar arguments are valid for an integer as the sequence of decimal places for an
irrational number is infinite. This will be transparent from the following dicussions.
If someone say that the two points on the real line represented by a rational number
r(6= an integer) and an irrational number ir are adjuscent; we can always find an irrational
number, following the construction in the above paragraph with any xi (i > p) replacing xp ,
which is greater than or lower than ir and is nearer to r.
If r is an integer (> 0) and ir = r.x1 x2 x3 ............, with all but xp (= 1) are zero for
p → ∞, the whole region infinity on R1 can be used through a mapping of the decimal
position index p of ir for p → ∞ (with only xp nonzero, = 1) to the integers in the region
infinity of R1 to construct an irrational number less than ir and closer to r [i.e, the number
of decimal places having value zero before xp = 1 for p → ∞ can be increased indefinitly].
Similar will be the case for ir = (r − 1).999...... ,with all xi = 9 but xj = 8 for j → ∞ and
j > i, to construct an irrational number greater than ir and closer to r through a mapping
of the decimal position index j of ir for j → ∞ (with all xi = 9, xj = 8 for j > i) to the
integers in the region infinity of R1 . [i.e, the number of decimal places having value 9 before
xj = 8 for j → ∞ can be increased indefinitly].

11
 Similar as above will be the arguments with (n ≥ 0) r = n.x1 x2 x3 ............xp , ir =
n.x1 x2 x3 ............ (xi same for both for 1 ≤ i ≤ p) with all xi (i > p) but xj (= 1) are zero
for j → ∞ and for ir = n.x1 x2 x3 ............yp 999.... with the p -th decimal place yp = xp − 1
and all xi (i > p) but xj (= 8, j > i) for j → ∞ are equal to 9.
For two irrational numbers (ir)1 , (ir)2 we can always recoordinatize R1 so that (ir)1
become a rational number and whether (ir)2 is a rational number or not the arguments
in the above paragraphs show that there are non-denumerably infinite number of points
between (ir)1 and (ir)2 .
For r ≤ 0 the corresponding arguments to prove that “two points on R1 are adjuscent”
is not defined are very similar as in the preceding paragraphs (the complete proof also
establishes the proposition within the perentheses regarding second countability discussed
at the end of this section).
This leads us to consider line interval as the fundamental geometrical entity to form a
line and the real line is not just an array of ordered points. Irrational numbers, as defined in
this section, demonstrate the continuous topology (existence of neighbourhoods) of the real
line.
Similarly, as we will illustrate later in this section, we cannot obtain a two dimensional
plane from a collection of lines and a three dimensional hyperplane from a collection of
planes. Thus one, two and three dimensional intervals are fundamental geometrical entities
to have one, two and three dimensional geometries and give the continuous topology. One
can not obtain points without spoiling the continuous topology. The three dimensional
spatial geometry of the Universe is realized through the finite three dimensional volume
of the fundamental particles and the finite three dimensional volumes of the fundamental
particles can only lead to three space dimensions for the Universe.
In brief, to have a consistent and unique dynamics as a whole the Universe should be
three dimensional which is realized through the finite three dimensional volumes and spin,
an intrinsic property distinguishing spatial directions and orientations, of the elementary
particles.
We note as the real line cannot be defined as a collection of points we have to introduce
the concept of collection of one-dimensional line elements as a fundamental mathematical
entity which, at its most primitive level, can be characterized into four classes:
(i)one-dimensional line elements without boundaries
(ii)one-dimensional line elements with one boundaries
(iii)one-dimensional line elements with two boundaries
(iv)one-dimensional line elements with the two boundaries identified (e.g, a circle)
We can introduce additional structures like length for the elements belonging to this
collection. For example we can define the length of a circle (perimeter) and introduce the
concept of its radius as the perimeter over 2π. The values of the radius form an abstract one-
dimensional line element and ,as shown earlier, the notion of two everywhere adjuscent circles
(i.e, two circles with adjuscent values of radii with everything else remaining the same) is not
defined. This feature again leads us to conclude that we cannot obtain a two-dimensional
disk from a collection of one-dimensional circles. We have to introduce the two dimensional
circular strips as fundamental mathmatical objects to construct a two-dimensional disk in
the above way. Similar arguments for two dimensional spheres (where the radius is now
defined as the positive square root of the area of the two-dimensional sphere over 4π) lead
us to conclude that we can not have a three dimensional volume element from a collection
of two dimensional spheres and we have to consider three dimensional volume elements as

12
fundamental mathmetical entities. These discussions can be extended to higher dimensions.
We now discuss a few aspects regarding coordinatization. As far as the number system
is concerned the above discussions prove that for any given number it is not possible to
define the concepts of the immediate previous number or the next number; only the con-
cepts of earlier or later numbers are well-defined. Consequenly the number system with
it’s conventional interpretation as one-to-one correspondence between numbers and points
cannot cover a one-dimensional line. We can illustrate this again through the Cantor set.
After we have removed all the intervals, whose total length is same as the original inter-
val, the rmaining set of points forming the Cantor set have continuuam cardinality,i.e, the
elements of the Cantor set, through the very definition of cardinality, can be put into a
one-to-one correspondence with the Real number system again. To summerize, the number
system with it’s conventional interpretation as one-to-one correspondence between numbers
and points can only characterize intervals. However the facts that elementary particles are
of finite volume, the non-localized character of fields, the kinematic equivalence of space and
time through the principles of Relativity (valid apart from the space-time singularity) and
the dynamical character of the Universe indicate that space-time intervals are fundamental
aspects and thereby the conventional coordinatization (there is no prblem, if required, in
coordinatizing a particular point as origin, even it may be so that at the origin the spce-time
is not well-defined) scheme defined through the concepts of neighbourhoods works well as
far as physical evolutions are concerned.
We conclude this section with a few discussions:
Firstly, do the intersection of two collections defined through a common characteristic
aspect always give a collection of the same characteristic aspect?
To illustrate let us consider two “set”s each containing a single object: a line-element.
The line-elements are intersecting but non-coincident everywhere. The intersection of these
two “set”s is a “set” containing points which are fundamentally different from line elements
(we can not say that a point is a line-element with one point as the arguments in this section
prove that a line-element is not a collection of points). Similar arguments can be extended
to higher dimensions.
Secondly, the discussions in this section will also have some profound significances in
Mathematical Analysis.
To illustrate we make some comments regarding the first and second countability of R1
discussed in Appendix:A of Wald [3]. A topological space X is first-countable if for every
point p belonging to X there is a countable collection of open sets such that every open
neighbourhood of p contains at least one member of the collection. Whereas X is second
countable if there is a countable collection of open sets such that every open set can be
expressed as an union of open sets from this family. For R1 , the open balls with rational
radii centered on points with rational coordinates form such a countable collection open sets.
When defined in the conventional way there are infinite number of irrational numbers
between two rational numbers [6]. As far as first-countability is concerned, an open set V
centered on a rational number with deleted peremeter on one of these neighbouring irra-
tional number cannot contain open balls with rational radii centered on points with rational
coordinates.
As far as second-countability is concerned the above-mentioned open set can not have
locally finite subcover as the radii of the set of open intervals centered on the given rational
number with deleted perimeter less than that of V form a line-interval and as is proved in
this article the corresponding cardinality is not well-defined Similar features can be extended

13
to Rn .

VIII. APPENDIX:C

Quantum field theory is the quantum theory of fields. It gives the dynamics of fields,
the quantum probability amplitudes of creation and annihilation of particles, in contrast to
quantum mechanics which gives the dynamics of the particles themselves obeying quantum
principle. For the same boundary conditions these two descriptions match in the form of
their kinemetic solutions. Only for the free particle boundary condition the conventional
interpretation of propagators in Q.F.T as giving the probability of particle propagation is
in accordance with reality as the quantum probabilities are nowhere vanishing in both the
theories. For microscopic particle physics experiments the free particle boundary condition
is a good approximation in practice but ideally the field φ (or the quantum mechanical wave
function ψ) is spatially confined within the experimental apparatus. In one dimension it is
meaningless to say that a particle is propagating from one point to another if the probability
of finding (or creation of) the particle is vanishing at some intermediate points.
For loops in one dimension, the momentum-space calculations give the probability that
a pair of particles with given four-momentums are created at one space-time point and a
pair of particles are annihilated at another space-time point with the same four-momentums.
This feature is transparent if one consider all possible space-time particle trajectories to form
loops in one dimension which cannot be possible without the possible space-time particle-
anitiparticle (originated with given four-momentums and annihilated with the same four-
momentums) trajectories crossing each other at least once in between any two given space-
time points. Similar feature will be apparent if one interpret the loop as a particle encircling
between any two given space-time points with the four-momentums at these two given space-
time points remaining the same.
Let us illustrate this feature following the standard literature. We consider situations
where free particle appeoximation hold. In vacuum at a given space-time point x (in one
dimension), the particle- antiparticle pair production probabilities with two-momentums
p1 , p2 are | exp(−ip1 .x1 )|2 and | exp(−ip2 .x2 )|2 respectivly apart from normalizing factors.
Once produced the quantum mechanically allowed stationary state position-space wave func-
tions that are available to the particle-antiparticle pairs are ψP (x) = exp(−ip1 .x1 ) and
ψAP (x) = exp(−ip2 .x2 ) respectivly where x denotes space-time points. The quantum me-
chanical joint probability that the particles produced at x1 , x2 = 0 with two-momentums p1
and p2 can again coincide at a space-time point between x and x + dx is:
[dx]2
Px (p1 , p2 ) = N1 (24)
T 2 L2
here N1 is the relative pair creation probability at the space-time point x = 0.
Px (p1 , p2 ) is independent of x, (p1 , p2 ) and → 0 as for free particle approximation L → ∞
although the total probability of coincidence is unity when integrated over all space-time
points. Hence quantum mechanically, numerous amount of particle-antiparticle pairs should
be observed in any microscopic experiment performed during finite time-interval if there
would have been spontaneous pair creations in vacuum.
In passing we note that a space-time formed out of loops in vacuum, closed time-like
curves, as the source can not have an intrinsic time orientation in contrary to what is
realized in nature.

14
 We next note that in non-relativistic quantum mechanics the total joint probability that
two distinguishable particles with energy E and momentums (k, −k; k = 2nπL
, |n| >> 1) can
coinside at some point x (here x is position only) is:
4
Z Z Z
P (all) = [ sin2 (kx1 )δ(x1 − x2 ) sin2 (kx2 )dx2 ][dx1 ]2 (25)
L2
here the integrals are performed over the interval [−L/2, L/2]. This expression turns out
to be unphysical as the corresponding probability turns out to be unphysical [P (all) = 3/2].
Whereas classical mechanically the maximum value of P (all) can be nearly unity when the
particles suffer impulsive elastic collisions to stick together and come to rest at some point
x0 (the corresponding quantum mechanical probability density should have been δ 2 (x − x0 )).
Similar features as discussed in this section in the contexts of equ.(24) and equ.(25) will
appear in three dimensions.
In semiconductor physics, as charge carriers holes are fictituous objects introduced for
simplifications. In reality, quantum mechanically in a p-type semiconductor the motion of
holes are out of the movements of the valence band or the acceptor level electrons. What is
the proper explanation of the polarity of the Hall potential in a p-type semiconductor?

IX. APPENDIX:D

In this section we first consider the action for the gravitational field [20]:

c3 Z √
Sg = − G −gd4 x (26)
16πk
where Gab is Einstein’s tensor. General Theory of Relativity interwinds inertial mass
(in general energy-momentum) of matter with space-time through the principle of equiva-
lence and the dimension of the coupling constant k (k = 6.67 × 10−8 cm3 − gm−1 − sec−2 )
is completely determined in terms of only mass, space and time unlike, for example, in elec-
trodynamics where one have another fundamental quantity (elctric charge) to determine the
dimension of the coupling constant. This feature is transparent if we compare the Newtonian-
limit of the general theory of relativity with the Coulomb’s law. The consequence of this
feature is the following:
h
If we set c, 2π = 1 the dimension of k is length-squared ([l2 ]) and it is no longer possible to
set k = 1 as this will make the concept of space-time dimensions meaningless. Alternatively
we could have set c, k = 1 (see footnote: page no. 269, [20]) then Planck’s constant become
dimensionful ([l2 ]).
However we can set Boltzmann constant (k ′ ) = 1 by giving temperature the dimension
h
of energy. In the reduced units c, 2π , k ′ = 1 the gravitational action becomes:
Z
√
Sg = −K G −gd4 x (27)

where K have dimension [l−2 ].

We now conclude our discussion on Quantum Field Theory. In the rest of this section
we will use the convention that < α|α > gives us probability density.
We first consider non-relativistic quantum mechanics in one dimension. In position-space
the normalized quantum mechanical wave function ψ gives us the probability amplitude.

15
(ψ ∗ ψ)dx gives us the probability of finding the particle within the infinitesemal length interval
dx. For a free particle one adopts the delta function normalization scheme for the quantum
mechanical wave function:
Z ∞
ψk∗1 (x)ψk2 (x)dx = δ(k1 − k2 ) (28)
−∞

In this equation the left-hand side is dimensionless while the one-dimensional delta func-
tion has dimension of length [l] as is obvious from it’s definition:
Z ∞
f (k)δ(k − k0 )dk = f (k0 ) (29)
−∞

for a regular function f (k).

It would be appropriate to replace the free-particle boundary condition by periodic
boundary condition which is a reasonable approximation in situations where free-particle
boundary conditions hold as for a large length interval the spacing between the adjuscent
values of the momentum allowed by the periodic boundary condition is negligible.
h
In the reduced units (c, 2π = 1) the action is dimensionless. The action for a complex
scalar field is given by:
Z
I= Ld4 x (30)

where the covariant lagrangian density for a massive field is given by,

1 ∂φ∗ ∂φ m2 ∗ 2 2
L= − φ φ (31)
2 ∂xµ ∂xµ 2

Consequently the dimension of φ (φ∗ ) should be inverse of length ([l]−1 ). In the sec-
ond quantization scheme < β|φ|α > replaces the classical field [21] and the expression
< α|φ∗ φ|α > gives the probability density of creation or annihilation of particles. For free-
particle boundary conditions the Euclidean-space generating functional for a real scalar field
is given by [22]:
1
ln[(−∂¯µ ∂¯µ +m2 +V ′′ (φ0 ))1 δ(x¯1 −x¯2 )]
WE [J] = NE e−SE [φ0 ,J]− 2 T r (32)

The terms in the logarithm giving quantum corrections are not dimensionless and the
third term is not of the same dimension as of the first two terms.
For a real scalar field confined within a finite volume box with periodic boundary condi-
tion and consistent with the second quantization scheme we have (equ.3.28,[10]):

1 X φ+ n1 ,n2 ,n3 2πi µ 1 X φ− n1 ,n2 ,n3 2πi

φ(x) = 3/2
√ exp[ (nµ x )] + 3/2
√ exp[− (nµ xµ )]
L (n ,n ,n
1 2 3 )
2k 0 L L (n ,n ,n
1 2 3 )
2k 0 L
(33)

in a relativistic theory a covariant normalization using four volume would be appropriate

3
and the normalizing factor should have dimension [l−2 ]. Clearly the dimension of φ ([l− 2 ])
in equ.(33) is no longer [l−1 ] and equ.(31) no longer gives us a lagrangian density.
In other words the dimension of the scalar field φ as required from the action deter-
mining it’s space-time evolution does not mach with the dimension required in the second

16
quantization scheme in order that one can interprete < α|φ∗ φ|α > as giving the probability
density of creation or annihilation of particles. One can absorbe the the normalizing factor
into the the fock state by mutiplying it by a factor with dimension [l−1 ] as in the second
quantization scheme < β|φ|α > replaces the classical field. This will be in accordance with
the probabilistic interpretation of the field φ as we have,
X
< α|φ∗ φ|α > = < α|φ∗|β > β
< β|φ|α > . (34)

where the sum is taken over all possible states.

However this will violate the interpretation of the Fock states as quantum mechanically
the normalization of probablity density < α|α > in a relativistic theory requires that the
each of the normalizing factors for the Fock states, whose number depends on the number
of particles present in the Fock state, should have dimension [l−2 ].
We now consider fermions and electromagnetic fields.
The covariant lagrangian density for each component of the free fermion fields (e.g,
electrons-positrons) which is formed out of their causal space-time motion is given by:

1 ∂ψ ∗ ∂ψ m2 ∗ 2 2
L= − ψ ψ (35)
2 ∂xµ ∂xµ 2

and dimension of ψ is again ([l]−1 ). After linearization of the second order partial differ-
ential equation satisfied by ψ we get the Dirac equation:

(iγ µ ∂µ − m)ψ = 0 (36)

Hereafter the following lagrangian density is used to study Q.E.D:

1
L′ = ψ̄(iγ µ ∂µ − eγ µ Aµ − m)ψ − Fµν (x)F µν (x) (37)
4
with the dimensions of ψ as determined above the dimension of the first part of L′ is no
longer that of a Lagrangian density and the action formed out of it is not dimensionless in
the reduced units. Also the current density, eψ̄γ µ ψ (although the four divergence vanishes),
do not involve any momentum operator and it is not obvious whether it is possible to have,
in any approximation, the conventional interpretation of current density as charge-density
times velocity from this expression.
The Lagrangian density of a charged scalar field which is similar to the quadratic La-
grangian density for Q.E.D is given by,

LT = Lf + Lem + Lint (38)

This complete Lagrangian density for a charged scalar is gauge invariant only if we take
Lint to be,

Lint = −Aµ j µ + e2 A2 φ∗ φ (39)

the second term do not have a transparent interpretation unless we consider screening
effects from classical electrodynamics similar to the correponding discussions given in Ap-
pendix:II of this article.

17
 X. APPENDIX: E

In this section we will illustrate the discussions in the context of equ.(20) in section IV.
The metric of the two-sphere S 2 (θ, φ) is given by
q
ds2 = A/4π(dθ2 + sin2 θdφ2 ) (40)

Here 0 ≤ θ ≤ π and 0 ≤ φ ≤ 2π. For the unit two-sphere we have,

ds2 = dθ2 + sin2 θdφ2 (41)

with the ranges of θ, φ same as above. This coodinate system have the following ill-
behavedneses:
(i) The coordinate φ suffers a discontinuity along some direction from 2π to 0.
(ii) φ is degenerate at the poles θ = 0, π. In spherical polar coordinate system (r, θ, φ)
the point (r = c, θ = 0) where c is a finite constant is obtained through identifying any
two arbitrary points on a circle characterized only through distinct values of φ. Similar
construction is valid for the point (r = c, θ = π). This will be obvious if we construct a
two-sphere S 2 (θ, φ) from a two-dimensional circular strip by identifying the inner-boundary
and the outer-boundary to two distinct points [see the discussions below eqn.(50) regarding
the reduction of eqn.(48) to eqn.(50) for points on the polar axis]. This construction can be
generalized to higher dimension.
(iii) The metric is singular at the poles [see the above discussions and App.B (a point
can’t be obtained from a one-dimensional line-element without breaking the corresponding
continuous topology)].
When the S 2 (θ, φ) can be embedded in the three dimensional Euclidean space one can
introduce Cartezian coordinate system (x, y, z) through the coordinate transformation:

x = sin θcos φ, y = sin θsin φ, z = cos θ. (42)

here x2 + y 2 + z 2 = 1. Although the metric is regular in the Cartezian coordinate system

′µ
the transformation coeffcients ( ∂x
∂xν
) are singular at the poles and also at some isolated points
on the x−y plane demonstrating the discussions below equ.(20). On the other hand to obtain
the Spherical metric, singular at two isolated points, from the regular Cartezian metric one
has to introduce coordinate transformation with singular transformation coeffcients.
We can also introduce two homeomorphic stereographic projections to coordinatize
S (θ, φ) embedded in R3 . The first one is from the North pole θ = 0 on the Equator
2

plane to coordinatize the Southern hemisphere π2 ≤ θ ≤ π. We have,

θ θ
X = cot cos φ, Y = cot sin φ (43)
2 2
and this transformation is a homeomorphism at θ = π. The second stereographic trans-
formation is from the South pole θ = π on the Equator plane to coordinatize the Northern
hemisphere 0 ≤ θ ≤ π2 . We have,

θ θ
U = tan cos φ, V = tan sin φ (44)
2 2
and this transformation is a homeomorphism at θ = 0.

18
 The transformation between the (X, Y ) and (U, V ) coordinate systems is a diffeomor-
phism at their common domain θ = π2 . The metric is also regular in these coordinate
systems.
However the transformation coefficients between (X, Y ) and (θ, φ) coordinates are singu-
lar at the South pole ( ∂X , ∂Y = 0 at θ = π),i.e, this transformation is not a diffeomorphism.
∂φ ∂φ
Similarly the transformation (θ, φ) → (U, V ) is not a diffeomorphism.
We now consider the Robertson-Walker cosmological model. The space-time metric in
terms of comoving isotropic observers is:

ds2 = −dτ 2 + a2 (τ )[dψ 2 + sin2 ψ(dθ2 + sin2 θdφ2 ) (45)

here 0 ≤ ψ ≤ π, 0 ≤ θ ≤ π and 0 ≤ φ ≤ 2π. The constant-time spatial three surfaces τ

P

are compact (topologically S 3 ) and there is no four-dimensional spatial geometry available

to embed τ . The spatial metric is singular along the closed line elements θ = 0, θ = π
P

including the two point-poles ψ = 0, π.

The discussions in section IV [equ.(20)] and in this section show that metric singularities
cannot be removed by diffeomorphically equivalent coordinate transformations. Thus the
black hole and the cosmological metric singularities are unavoidable aspects of nature.

XI. APPENDIX: F

In this section we will discuss a few aspects on electrostatics. We first consider the
electrostatic potential of an extended charged system. For convenience we can use the
spherical-polar coordinate system.
We will first consider points outside the source. Let r~′ (r ′ , θ, φ) be the position vector
for an infinitesemal volume element dv within the source which makes an angle θ with the
positive Z polar axis and an azimuthal angle φ w.r.t the positive X axis. Let ~r(r, θT , φT ) be
the position vector of the point of observation (P) making an angle θT with the polar axis
and an angle φT with the positive X axis. The magnitude of the position vector R ~ between
dv and P is then given by:
2 ′′
R2 = r 2 + r ′′ − 2rr ′′cos(θT − θ ) (46)

where,
2 2 ′′
r ′′ = r ′ [sin2 θcos2 (φT − φ) + cos2 θ], tan θ = tan θcos(φT − φ) (47)

The electrostatic potential at P is given by,

1 ρ(r ′ , θ, φ)r ′2sin θdr ′ dθdφ

Z
V (P ) = (48)
4πǫ0 [r 2 + r ′′ 2 − 2rr ′′ cos(θT − θ′′ )]1/2
′′
where r ′′ , θ are determined through equ.(47). This expression is valid for all (θT , φT )
and (θ, φ) as cos(α) = cos(−α). It is obvious from the above expression that apart from the
monopole term [i.e, the 1r term] the electrostatic potential for an arbitrary extended charged
system is anisotropic and depends on the distance (r) and orientation (θT , φT ) of the point of
oberservation [apart from it’s dependence on ρ(r ′ , θ, φ)]. This is expected as the electrostatic
potential of an ideal electric dipole along the positive Z axis and centered at the origin is:

19
 ~p.r̂
Vdip (r, θ, φ) = (49)
4πǫ0 r 2
which is anisotropic, i.e, dependent on both r and θ.
The commonly known text book expression for the potential (outside the source) is:

1 ρ(r ′ , θ, φ)r ′2 sin θdr ′ dθdφ

Z
V ′ (P ) = (50)
4πǫ0 [r 2 + r ′ 2 − 2rr ′ cos(θ)]1/2

For an arbitrary charge distribution characterized by an arbitrary charge-density function

ρ(r ′ , θ, φ) and an arbitrary field point “P (r, θT , φT )” equation (48) agrees with equ.(50) only
for the 1r terms (the monopole potential terms). Even for a spherically symmetric charge
density the higher order terms differ (for r >> r ′ ) in numerical factors and also through
dependence on θT . We will illustrate this aspect later. Equation (5) for electrostatic potential
also suffers from the following limitation:
The electric field as obtained fro the eqn.(5) has only a radial component as the θ-
dependent terms are integrated out. Let us consider an arbitrarily shaped conductor,e.g,
a positivly charged ellipsoidal conductor centerred at the origin. The static electric field
obtained from eqn.(5), being radial, will be normal to the conductor surface only at the two
poles and at the equator in contradiction to the electrostatic property of the conductors.
We should note that the exact expression, eqn.(48), for the electrostatic potential at
points out-side the source (for r >> r ′ ) of an extended charged body is in general dependent
on θT , φT . Consequently equ.(48) is not defined for points on the polar axis, θT = 0 and
θT = π. This is due to the degeneracy of the azimuthal angle φT at the polar axis and is
discussed in detail in Appendix:E. However, as is apperent from symmetry and is evident
from eqn.(48), this situation arises only when ρ(r ′ , θ, φ) is explicitly φ dependent. In this
case, the charge density ρ(r ′ , θ, φ) also is not defined on the polar axis in terms of the
azimuthal angle φ and the only unambigous way to calculate the potential is to use the
Cartezian coordinate system.
For a φ-independent source the integrand in eqn.(48) reduces to the integrand in eqn.(50)
for points on the Polar axis. To calculate the electric field for such a source we should
first perform the φ integration [with (φT − φ) ranging from 0 to 2π; see App.E (i),(ii)] and
thereafter take derivatives w.r.t r, θT . We will justify this method in the following discussions.
We now calculate the electrostatic potential for a few spherically symmetric charge dis-
tributions centered at the origin using the expression (48).
We first consider the electrostatic potential of a uniformly charged conducting spherical
shell centered at the origin, i.e, we have ρ(r ′ , θ, φ) = δ(r ′ − rs )σ where rs is the radius of the
shell. The surface charge density, σ, is independent of θ, φ. For outside points the potential
is given by eqns.(46),(47),(48):

1 δ(r ′ − rs )σr ′2 sin θdr ′ dθdφ

Z
V (P ) = (51)
4πǫ0 [r 2 + r ′′ 2 − 2rr ′′ cos(θT − θ′′ )]1/2

The potential calculation simplifies considerably if we note that,

r ′′ cos(θT − θ′′ ) = r ′ [cos θT cos θ + sin θT sin θ cos(φT − φ)] (52)

where eqn.(47) and the expansion of cos(θT − θ′′ ) is used. Consequently θT and θ terms
in eqn.(48) appear as products justifying a previous discussion regarding the calculation of

20
the electric field. This relation also indicates that for a φ-independent ρ the potential is
independent of φT as discussed earlier.
For points infinitsemally close to the surface of the shell we have,

rs 2 σ
V (P ) = ×
4πǫ0 r
sin θdθdφ
Z
2 2
[1 + sin θcos2 (φ T − φ) + cos2 θ − 2(sin θcos2 (φT − φ) + cos2 θ)1/2 cos(θT − θ′′ ) + f ( rǫs )]1/2
(53)

Here r = rs + ǫ and f ( rǫs ) is a term involving ǫ, rs , θT , φT , θ, φ. The denominator can be

binomially expanded for all θ, φ, θT , φT as ǫ → 0.
The static electric field is given by:
~ = −∇V
E ~ (54)

We know from the electrostatic properties of a conductor that the out-side electric field
on the surface of the conductor is,

~ = σ r̂
E (55)
ǫ0
From eqns.(53),(54) and (55) we can obtain the values of three definite integrals. For
example comparing the radial component (the only non-vanishing component) of the electric
field on surface of the shell we have:

I1 − I2 = 4π (56)

whereR
I1 = [1+sin2 θcos2 (φ −φ)+cos2 θ−2(sinsin θdθdφ
2 θcos2 (φ −φ)+cos2 θ)1/2 cos(θ −θ ′′ )]1/2
T T T
and
2 θcos2 (φ −φ)+cos2 θ−(sin2 θcos2 (φ −φ)+cos2 θ)1/2 cos(θ −θ ′′ )] sin θdθdφ
I2 = [sin .
R T T T
′′
[1+sin2 θcos2 (φT −φ)+cos2 θ−2(sin2 θcos2 (φT −φ)+cos2 θ)1/2 cos(θT −θ )]3/2
The other two definite integrals obtained from eqn.(54) have values zero.
We now consider the electrostatic potential of spherically symmetric charged sphere,i.e,
ρ = ρ(r ′ ). We first make some comments regarding the binomial expansion of the expression:

r ′′ 2 r ′′
R′ = [1 + ( ) − 2( )cos(θT − θ′′ )] (57)
r r
Using eqns. (47) and (52) we have,

r′ r′
R′ = 1 + ( )2 [sin2 θcos2 (φT − φ) + cos2 θ] − 2( )[cos θT cos θ + sin θT sin θ cos(φT − φ)] (58)
r r
It can be shown, considering points near the √ South pole, the convensional binomial
′
expansion [24] is not valid in general for ( rr ) ≥ 2 − 1. Cosequently we will consider only
points for which r >> r ′ for all r ′ . We have,

1 ρ(r ′ )r ′2 sin θdr ′ dθdφ

Z
V (P ) = (59)
4πǫ0 r[1 + ǫ]1/2

21
 ′′ 2 ′′ 1
here ǫ = rr − 2 rr cos(θT − θ ) and ǫ < 1 for r >> r ′ . The binomial expansion of [1 + ǫ]− 2
′′

together with eqn.(52) give us a series expansion of V (P ) in terms of 1r and θT (as discussed
below eqn.(52) V (P ) is independent of φT for a spherically symmetric charge distribution).
For example it can be shown that the r12 term, conventionally the dipole term, for V (P )
vanishes indicating that the dipole moment of a spherically symmetric charge distribution
w.r.t any axis vanishes and can be easily verified by calculating the Z-component of the total
dipole moment. The r13 term for the potential is given by,

1 9cos(2θT ) − 2
VP ( 3
)=[ ]I (60)
r 6ǫ0 r 3

where I = r ′ 4 ρ(r ′ )dr ′ . This expression is θT dependent as discussed earlier. Thus

R

although the system is geometrically spherically symmetric, Coulomb’s law (a fundamental

law of Electrodynamics unlike Newton’s law in Gravitation) together with the principle of
superposition (not valid in the General Relativistic description of Gravitation) give a finite
θT dependent quadrapole-like term in the binomially expanded expression of the electrostatic
potential.
For points close to the source we will have to use two consequitive binomial expansion:
the first one is factoring out (r 2 +r ′′2 ) in the denomenator of V (P ) and performing a binomial
′′ ′′ 2
series expansion in terms of 2 (r2rr cos(θT − θ ). The second one is in terms of rr2 as is
′′
+r ′′ 2 )
evident from the following expresion:

1 ρ(r ′ )r ′2 sin θdr ′ dθdφ

Z
V (P ) = 1/2
(61)
4πǫ0 (r 2 + r ′′ 2 ) [1 − 2 (r2rr
′′
cos(θT − θ′′ )]1/2
+r ′′ 2 )

This expression gives the usual result 4πǫQ0 r for the monopole potential term. In this
expression any power of (r 2 + r ′′ 2 ) can be binomially expanded in terms of ( rr )2 for all
′′

r > r′.
To find the potential on the suface of the source we can follow the procedure used to
study the electrostatic properties of the conductors.
Similar discussions are also valid for points inside the charged system.
In this section we have derived the exact expression for the electrostatic potential of
an extended charged system for points outside the source. It differs from the cnventional
expression through it’s dependence on θT , φT . The anisotropy discussed in this article will
give rise to many interesting predictions in both Celestrial and Terestial electromagnetic
effects.
This article is the only one which gives the proper physical description of the electromag-
netic field of an arbitrarily shaped extended system and is capable to describe the behavior
of conductors.
The θT dependence of the far region potential for spherically symmetric charged system
also gives rise to a new set of polynomials. These are the proper set of polynomials to
describe the field in the corresponding situation.
The method of derivation provides a mathematically perfect description of the field in
situations where the extended nature of the source is relevant and the priciple of superposition
is valid.
The quadrapole-like term of the radial field is opposite in direction to that of the
monopole-like term for cos(2θT ) < 2/9.

22
 This section will also have important cosequences in other branches of Physics where the
extended nature of the source is relevant. To illustrate, eqn.(3) gives the proper framework to
study the descripancies between the two descriptions (General Relativistic and Newtonian)
of gravity.
We conclude the above discussions with a few comments on the quadrapole-like potential
eqn.(60) in the context of the Newtonian description of Gravity assuming that the principle
1
of superposition is valid. In the following discussions 4πǫ 0
= G.
The θT component of the field is maximum in magnitude at θT = π/4. This θT depen-
dence can be understood if we consider the field as the sum of two vectors: the field due
to the shell with θ ranging from 0 to θT and the field due to the shell with θ ranging from
θT to π. The θT dependence of these two fields are opposite. At θT = π/4 the ratio of the
magnitude of these two fields is,
√ √
32( 2 + 1)2 r 2 + 9R2 + 12( 2 + 1)rR
√ √ >1 (62)
32( 2 + 1)r 2 + 9R2 − 24( 2 + 1)rR

where R is the radius of the spherical shell and the c.o.g method is used to calculate this
ratio.
The quadrapole-like potential energy of the configuration for an infinitesimal element of
mass ρ′ (r)r 2 sin θT drdθT dφT at (r, θT , φT ) is:

9cos(2θT ) − 2 ′
EP = −[ 3
]Iρ (r)r 2 sin θT drdθT dφT (63)
6ǫ0 r
The force acting on the infinitesimal mass-element is

F~qp = −∇E
~ P (64)

where the gradient is taken w.r.t (r, θT , φT ). The θT component of the force is proportional
to: 7cos θT − 54sin2 θT cos θT which is vanishing at θT = π/2.
The total θT component of the force acting on a test-body (with radius r ′′ ) extended
from r − r ′′ to r + r ′′ , θT1 to θT2 and φT1 to φT2 is:
9cos(2θT )−2
Z
1 ∂[ 6ǫ0 r 3
Iρ′ (r)r 2 sin θT ]
FθT (qp) = drdθT dφT (65)
r ∂θT
where the range of the integrations is same as the extention of the test-body.
The net θT component of the quadrapole-like force acting on a test body extended from
θT1 = π/2 − δ to θT2 = π/2 + δ is zero.
It can further be shown that for small deviations from the equatorial plane (θT = π/2) the
net θT -component of the quadrapole-like force on the extended test-body is always directed
towards the equatorial plane.
Similar results as above regarding the stability of the motion in the equatorial (θT = π/2)
plane are valid in the case of the monopole force which are of more relevance for r >> r ′ .
However in the limit r >> r ′ the net θT force is very small.
Similar comments are valid in the corresponding electrosttic situation with opposite
charges.
We next consider the electrostatic potential of a polarized dielectric system. The elec-
trostatic potential of a polarized dielectric system is given by,

23
 1 P~ .R̂
Z
V = dv (66)
4πǫ0 R2

here P~ is the polarization vector of the dielectric material and R

~ is the vector joining the
infinitesemal volume element dv carring a dipole moment P~ dv to the point of observation.
It’s magnitude is given by eqns.(46),(47). This expression contains an additional parameter,
the angle between P~ dv and R. ~ We can reduce equ.(51) to a simpler form consisting two
terms: one from a bound surface charge density σb and another from a bound volume charge
density ρb ,

1
Z ~
P~ .da 1
Z ~ P~ dv
∇.
V = − (67)
4πǫ0 surf ace R 4πǫ0 volume R

Here σb = P~ .n̂, n̂ is the normal to the surface of the material and ρb = −∇.
~ P~ .
The total volume charge density in presence of a polarized dielectric medium is given by:

ρ = ρb + ρf + ρsb (68)

where we include σb = P~ .n̂ in the free volume charge density as ρsb through the in-
troduction of a proper delta function. For example in the case of a dielectric sphere we
have,

ρsb (r, θ, φ) = σb (θ, φ)δ(r − rs ) (69)

Here r, rs are radial distance (not vectors) and the delta function have dimension inverse
of length.
We then have:
~ E
ǫ0 ∇. ~ = ρ = ρb + ρ′ f (70)

~ is given by,
where ρ′ f = ρf + ρsb and the divergence of the eletric displacement vector D

~ D
∇. ~ = ρ′ f (71)

Everywhere apart from the surface of the dielectric we have ρ′ f = ρf and the above
~
equation (71) maches with the conventional exprssion for the divergence of D:

~ D
∇. ~ = ρf . (72)

~ . This will also have

The effect of ρsb should be taken into the boundary conditions for D
consequences to obtain the enegy density of a given electrostatic configuration in presence
of dielectric mediums [23] as,

~ D
∇. ~ − ∇.
~ D~ 0 = ρsb (73)

We conclude this section with a few comments regarding the electrostatic field energy in
presence of dielectrics.
The eletrostic field energy in presence of dielectric mediums can approximatly be consid-
ered to consist of three parts [24]:

24
 1 ǫ
Z Z
Wtot = D.Edτ = E.Edτ = Wf ree + W spring + Wbound (74)
2 2
here ǫ = ǫ0 (1 + χe ). We briefly explain the three terms considering the realistic case of a
dielectric filled charged parallel-plate capacitor:
i) Wf ree is the energy to charge the capacitor to produce the configuration with a given
electric field. We can regain this energy if we discharge the capacitor by connecting the two
plates through a conductor.
ii) W spring is the energy required to increase the atomic/molecular dipole moments or to
polarize the atoms/molecules depending on, respectivly, whether the atoms/molecules have
permanent dipole moments or not. This energy will be regained as heat when we discharge
the capacitor.
iii) Wbound is the enrgy required to polarize the dielectric as a whole. The dipole-dipole
interaction energy for two dipoles with dipole moments p~1 and p~2 and separated by ~r is:
1 1
U= [p~1 .p~2 − 3(p~1 .r̂)(p~2 .r̂)] (75)
4πǫ0 r 3
U is minimum when the dipoles are antiparallel and maximum when the dipoles are
parallel. Consequently for any statistically infinitesemal volume of the dielectric (i.e, volume
elements which are very small compared to the dimension of system but large enough to
contain sufficient number of atoms/molecules so that microscopic fluctuations can be ap-
proximately averaged to zero) the orientation of the atomic/molecular dipoles will be as
isotropic as possible. To polarize the dielectric we have to orient the atomic/molecular
dipoles in near-parallel configuration in a given direction and supply energy to increase the
electrostatic energy of the dielectric. This energy, Wbound , will be regained as heat if we
discharge the capacitor.

XII. SUPPLEMENT:I

We will now study the behaviour of of the spectrum of covariant Klien-Gordon equation
in the near horizon limit.
We will first consider the spectrum of the covariant Klien-Gordon equation in the (3 +
1)-dimensional constant curvature black hole background which contains a one dimensional
fixed point set of the time-like Killing vector field. This black hole space-time was obtained
by Prof. M. Bannados, Prof. R. B. Mann and Prof. J. D. E. Creighton through the
identification of points along the orbits of a discrete subgroup of the isometry group of the
anti-de Sitter apce-time. They used a static coordinate system where the constant-time
foliations become degenarate along a particular direction apart from the black hole event
horizon giving a one-dimensional fixed point set of the time-like Killing vector. The metric
in the Schwarzschild like coordinates is given by,
l4 f 2 (r) 2 dr 2
ds2 = [dθ − sin 2
θ(dt/l) 2
] + + r 2 dφ2 (76)
rh2 f 2 (r)
r 2 −r 2 1
where f (r) = ( l2 h ) 2 . These coordinates are valid outside the horizon (r > rh ) for 0 ≤ θ ≤ π
and 0 ≤ φ < 2π. It is clear that the constant-time foliation becomes degenerate along the
direction θ = 0 and θ = π giving to a one-dimensional fixed point set of the time-like Killing
vector field.

25
 The covariant wave equation of a minimally coupled massive scalar field is given by,
1 √
√ ∂µ ( −gg µν ∂ν ψ) − m2 ψ = 0. (77)
−g
The solution of the angular equation is given by,
µ
1 1+x 2 1−x
Pνµ (x) = ( ) F (−ν, ν + 1; 1 − µ; ) + c.c (78)
Γ(1 − µ) 1 − x 2

where x = cos θ, µ = iEl and (ν + µ) 6= an integer. Here F (−ν, ν + 1; 1 − µ; 1−x 2

) is
1
the hypergeometric function. This solution is C throughout the angular range 0 ≤ θ ≤ π.
Consequently the energy spectrum is continuous with divergent density of states.
We will now illustrate that the divergent density of states is a characteristic feature of the
fixed point set of the time-like Killing vector field indicating the breakdown of the canonical
formalism of the conventional quantum mechanics.
We will illustrate this feature in the context of the Schwarzschild black hole which contains
a two dimensional fixed point set (the event horizon) of the time-like Killing vector field.
Since the Hawking radiation through which the non-unitary black hole evaporation takes
place originates mostly from the near horizon region we will consider the behaviour of the
spectrum of the covariant K-G equation in the near horizon region. Since the space-time
foliation is static we will consider the stationary states. We will consider the radial solution
of the covariant K-G equation. The radial solution can be obtained through the WKB
approximation. However we can not use the semi-classical quantization condition. For
the Schwarzschild black hole the constant-time foliations become degenarate at the black
hole event horizon and it is not possible to impose any consistent boundary condition on
the horizon. To obtain the degenaracy of the energy eigenstates we will now consider the
radial part of a covariant generalized probability current density equation for the low energy
eigenstates. For a general state composed out of superposition of different energy-eigenstates
we consider the cross-term taken between states with neighbouring energy eigenvalues E and
E + δE. This gives us the following relation between E and E + δE:
1
∂τ [Re(ψ1 ∗ ψ2 )] = ∂s [Re(ψ1 ∗ ∂s ψ2 )] (79)
m
where the derivatives are taken w.r.t proper time and proper distance. This expression is
similar to the probability current density equation of unitary quantum mechanics in presence
of damping potentials. This equation is used because of observed decay, using conventional
quantum mechanics, of the density of states with the proper distance from the black hole
event horizon.
We will obtain the density of states of the energy eigenfunctions by considering the
consistency of the integrated form of the generalized probability current density equation
term by term in an infinitesemally thin spherical shell surrounding the black hole with radius
2M + h and 2M + 2h where h << 2M. We obtain the following expression for the density
of states:
1 mK
= 2 (80)
δE E s
where s is the proper distance between the horizon and the spherical shell. As s → 0 the
density of states diverges and the generalized covariant current density equation becomes

26
consistent. This divergent density of states is a property of the fixed point set of the time-like
Killing vector field and this density of states gives vanishing internal energy and entropy for
the spectrum of the covariant K-G equation.
The continuous energy spectrum is also obtained when one considers the behaviour of
matter fields in the Taub-NUT space-time which contains a zero dimensional fixed point (in
the Euclidean sector) of the time like Killing vector field. In this case the angular solution
(in the Lorentzian sector) satisfies the minimum regularity condition,i.e, the angular part of
the generalized probability current density integrated over S 2 is finite. This angular solution
is similar to the spin-spherical harmonics.
The non-unitarity (decay of density of spectrum with distance away from the horizon)
discussed above is a characteristic aspect of both the black hole event horizon and the
cosmological event horizon.
We now make some comments regarding relativistic quantum mechanics similar to App:D.
For relativistically covariant normalization of the quantum mechanical wave function (or each
component of the wave fuction for spinors) of we have,
Z
ψ ∗ ψd4 x = 1 (81)

h
This indicates that in the reduced units (c, 2π = 1) the dimension of ψ is inverse length
squared [l−2 ]. While the lagrangian leading to the Klien-Gordon equation is given by:

1 ∂ψ ∗ ∂ψ m2 ∗ 2 2
L= − ψ ψ (82)
2 ∂xµ ∂xµ 2

The action determining the space-time evolution of ψ is dimensionless in the reduced

units. This gives the dimension of ψ to be [l−1 ] in contradiction to that ([l−2 ]) obtained from
the normalization condition.
In passing we note that to have a consistent time orientation for any space-time manifold,
which through the principle of equivalence is form of existence of matter fields, particles
should follow a particular family of reparameterization invariant curves in the space-time
manifold [5].

XIII. SUPPLEMENTII: COMMENTS ON CLASSICAL ELECTRODYNAMICS

In this section we will make a few comments regarding the basic laws of Classical Elec-
trodynamics.
We first consider the Gauss’s law for the electrostatic field of a point charge Q situated
Q
at the origin. The charge density in spherical polar coordinates is given by: ρ(r) = 4πr 2 δ(r).

Here δ(x) is the Dirac-delta function. The electric field is given by:

~ = 1 Q
E r̂ (83)
4πǫ0 r 2
~ for r 6= 0 is given by:
The divergence of E
~ E
∇. ~ =0 (84)

which is in accordance with the Gauss’s law for r > 0:

27
 ~ E
∇. ~ =0 (85)
However for an extended charge distribution ,for points outside the source, we have the
~ over a spherical surface of radius r (for r >> rs ,
~ da
following result for the surface integral E.
rs the radius of the source):
Qtotal 1 I′
Z
~ ~
E.da = − (86)
surf ace ǫ0 4πǫ0 r 2
where we have taken the leading order term and
Z
4
′
I = r ′ ρ(r ′ )sin3 θdr ′ dθdφ (87)
ˆ′
Here we have used eqn.(46) (47) to evaluate the surface integral of R̂.r̂R2
= (r̂−Rr2 ).r̂ . Thus
we have a screening-like term, even from the monopole field, for the suface integral of E. ~ As
discussed earlier similar sreening term did arise from the quadrapole-like potential eqn.(60).
Q
We also note that for a point charge we have ρ(r ′ , θ, φ) = 4πr 2 δ(r) and I = 0.
′

As usual the curl of E~ is zero.

The no-work law can be regained for the electrstatic field of an extended charge distri-
bution if we generalize the derivation properly. The line-integral of E ~ over a closed contour
for each element of the source with the source-coordinate remaining fixed is given by:
∂[dV (R)]
Z Z
dE. ~ =
~ dl dR = 0 (88)
contour contour ∂R
and the total work done for the whole source is obviously zero.
Proceeding as above it can be shown that the divergence of E ~ outside the source vanishes.
If we consider an annular region outside the source this feature togethar with eqn.(86) show
that the Gauss’s divergence theorm is not valid for an arbitrary source not situated at the
origin.
We now consider the divergence of E ~ inside the source. To calculate the divergence at a
point ~r within the source we break the source into two parts: one is an infinitesimal spherical
volume element of radius r ′ s centered at ~r and the other is the rest of the source. The electric
field is sum of two parts: one due to the infinitesimal volume element (∆v), E ~ ∆v , and the
other due to the rest of the source, E ~ rest . The divergence of E ~ rest vanishes for points within
∆v as can be shown from straight-forward calculation. To calculate the divergence of E ~ ∆v
we can use a spherical coordinate system centered at ~r. The position vector is given by
r~′′ − ~r. The boundary of (∆v) is given by |r~′′ − ~r| = r ′ s . We also break the charge density
into two parts:
ρ(r~′ ) = ρ∆v (r~′′ ) + ρrest (r~′ ) (89)
ρ∆v (r~′′ ) is non-zero [= ρ(r~′ )] for points within ∆v [|r~′′ −~r| < r ′ s ] while ρrest (r~′ ) is non-zero
[= ρ(r~′ )] for points not within ∆v [|r~′ − ~r| ≥ r ′s ].
We now have the following expression for the divergence of E ~ ∆v :

R̂
Z
~ E
4πǫ0 ∇. ~ ∆v = ~ ~r .(
ρ∆v (r~′′ )[∇ )](|r~′′ − ~r|)2 sin θ′ dθ′ dφ′
∆v R 2

~ ~′′ .( R̂ )](|r~′′ − ~r|)2 sin θ′ dθ′ dφ′

Z
=− ρ∆v (r~′′ )[∇ (r −~r)
∆v R2
~ ~′′ .(− R̂ )](|r~′′ − ~r|)2 sin θ′ dθ′ dφ′
Z
= ρ∆v (r~′′ )[∇ (r −~r) (90)
∆v R2

28
 ~ = (~r − r~′′ ) and to obtain the second expression we have used the fact that
Here R
ρ∆v do not depend on the unprimed coordinates. As we will discuss in the last section
~ ~′′ .(− R̂2 ) = 4πδ 3 (r~′′ − ~r). Thus we have Poisson’s equation for points inside an extended
∇ (r −~
r) R
source:

∇. ~ r) = ρ(~r)
~ E(~ (91)
ǫ0
For a volume charge density ρ(~r) the charge density should vanish at the surface of the
source. Otherwise we will have a non-trivial surface charge density. For non-trivial surface
~ can be found following the above procedure and
and line charge densitis the divergence of E
the results are same as replacing the source through proper delta functions. For a point
charge the charge desity is given by a delta function measured at the source and the proof
~ E
of the ∇. ~ law is trivial.
~ The Biot-Savart
We now consider the divergence and curl of the magnetostatic field: B.
~
law for the general case of a volume current density J is given by:
~ ′ , θ, φ) × R̂ 2
~ = µ0 J(r
Z
B r ′ sin θdr ′ dθdφ (92)
4π R2
where R is given by eqn.(46), (47).
It can easily be shown that ∇.~ B
~ = 0 following the conventional procedure [24]. We
follow the following procedure to demonstrate that ∇. ~ B
~ = 0 is the natural outcome of
the conventional interpretation of current-density as charge-density times velocity and the
~ [24]:
Biot-Savart’s law. We have the following expression for the divergence of B

~ = µ0 R̂ ~
Z
~ B
∇. ~
.∇ × Jdv (93)
4π R2
~ r~′ ) do not depend on the unprimed
For points outside of the source the r.h.s vanishes as J(
variable ~r. For points inside the source, proceeding as in the ∇. ~ E~ law, we can break the
source into two parts: a small element ∆v centered at ~r and the rest, vrest . As discussed for
the outside points, the contribution of vrest to the integral at the r.h.s vanishes for points
within ∆v. For points within ∆v we can always chose ∆v small enough so that J~∆v (r~′′ )
within ∆v is φ′ -independent and don’t have a φ̂′ component. If required ∆v may be small
enough so that the most elementary charge carriers move along the polar axis of ∆v and the
r.h.s of the above equation vanishes. In terms of the most elementary charge carriers (say
electrons) the current density is given by ρ(|r~′′ − ~r|)~v where the electron is centered at ~r.
Here we have assumed that the charge distributions of the elementary particles are isotropic.
In general we can always chose ∆v, centered at ~r, small enough so that ~v = v(~r)R̂ where
~ = (~r − r~′′ ) and
R

~ × J~∆v ] = −R̂.[∇
R̂.[∇ ~ ~′′ × J~∆v ] = 0 (94)
(r −~
r)

If the elementary charged carrier is spinning around some direction with angular velocity
~ω = ω R̂′, R̂′ characterized by a given pair of values (θ′′ , φ′′ ) of (θ′ , φ′ ), the current density
is given by J~∆v = ρ(|r~′′ − ~r|)(r~′′ − ~r) × ~ω (θ′′ , φ′′ ). Consequently, using vector product rules
and the fact that for an elementary particle or a rigid body ~ω can not vary with r ′ we have

29
 ~ = µ0 R̂ ~
Z
~ B
∇. ~ ′=0
.[∇(r~′′ −~r) × J]dv (95)
4π ∆v R2
as the integral of a function which is finite at an isolated point but zero elsewhere is zero
which is consistent with the discussions of App.B.
It is easy to extend the above arguments to show that the r.h.s of eqn.(93) vanishes for
ideal surface and ideal line current densities where the charge densities can vary with (θ′ , φ′).
Thus for points both inside and outside the source we have,
~ B
∇. ~ =0 (96)

and this law is valid for both steady and non-steady currents.
In this context we point out an important inconsistency which was also present as just
definition in the earlier versions of this article. The usal expression for current caried by
point cherges is q~v . This expression is inconsistent with the definition of current as charge
flowing per unit second as can easilly be understood from dimensional analysis. The unit
of current is Coulomb/sec, while that of q~v is Coulomb.Met./second. The proper way to
analyse currents carried by point charges would be to construct an ideal current-desity vector
expressed by a three-dimensional Dirac-delta function: J( ~ r~′ ) = qδ 3 (r~′ − r~t )~v , where r~t defines
the trajectory of the point charge. However we can easilly define a volume current density
as J~ = nq~v where n number density of charge.
The curl of B~ is given by,

~ ′ , θ, φ) − µ0 (J. ~ R̂ dv
Z
~ ×B
∇ ~ = µ0 J(r ~ ∇) (97)
4π R2
Here the integration is over the source volume. The first term arises from the source
volume integrand (apart from a multiplicative factor): J~∇.(
~ R̂/R2 ). Following the same
~ E
procedure as to obtain the ∇. ~ law we obtain the first term in eqn.(97).
We now consider the second term. We have, for the x-component,
Z
~ ∇)
~ (x − x′ ) Z
~ (x − x ) J]dv
′
~ − (x − x ) (∇.
Z ′
~ J)dv
~
(J. dv = ∇.[ (98)
R2 R3 R3
The second term in the r.h.s of the above equation vanishes as J~ do not depend on the
unprimed variables. This is in accordance with the fact that in the static case one can
interchange derivative w.r.t unprimed variables with derivative w.r.t primed variables at the
expence of a minus sign and ∇ ~ ′ .J~ vanishes for steady currents. One can also follow the
~ B
procedure used to derive ∇. ~ law provided ∆v is large enough so that the microscopically
averaged current is steady for ∆v. The first term is given by,

~ (x − x ) J]dv ~ ′ .[ (x − x ) J]dv
Z ′ Z ′
∇.[ ~ =− ∇ ~ (99)
R3 R3
The integration gives terms dependent on J~ on the boundary of the source. This is
apparent if we use the Cartezian coordinate system. As discussed in the context of ∇. ~ E~ law,
J~ should vanish on the boundary of the source otherwise we will have a non-trivial surface
current density. It can easilly be shown that for an arbitrary curved space with line element:
ds2 = h1 2 (x1 , x2 , x3 )(dx1 )2 + h2 2 (x1 , x2 , x3 )(dx2 )2 + h3 2 (x1 , x2 , x3 )(dx3 )2 the above integral
vanishes for the same boundary condition on J~ as above.

30
 For surface current densities we can follow similar procedure. For a closed surface
current density source [where the surface is characterized by rs ′ = f (θ′ , φ′ )] we have,
R
~ (x−x3s ′ ) K
∇.[ ~ ′ ]da′ = R ∇.[ ~ (x−x3s ′ ) K
~ ′ rs ′ ]rs ′ sin θ′ dθ′ dφ′ = − R ∂ ′ [sin θ′ (x−x3s ′ ) rs ′ K ′ θ′ ]dθ′ dφ′ −
R R ∂θ R
R ∂ (x−x ′
s )
∂φ ′ [ R 3 r s K
′ ′ ′
φ ]dφ ′
dθ ′
. The second term vanishes trivially out of uniqueness. For a gen-
eral steady current; ∇ ~ .K′ ~ = 0, i.e, ′ (sin θ K θ′ ) = − ′ (K φ′ ); the facts that it is physically
′ ∂ ′ ′ ∂ ′
∂θ ∂φ
impossible to have current density (K ′ θ′ ) which diverge at the poles like sinαk θ′ , k > 0, and K ′ φ′
should vanish at the poles out of the degeneracy of the φ′ coordinates [App.E, gr-qc/0504083]
indicate that the θ′ boundary terms also vanish. This, as discussed in the context of the
electrostatic potential of a spherically symmetric charge distribution, indicates that spherical
symmetry peaks out a preferred direction to be chosen as the polar axis. It can be shown that
for the ideal situation of an infinite surface current density the integral in the above equation
doe’s vanish unless the current density is divergent like λ(r ′ )1+k , k > 0 for |r ′| → ∞. This is
also in accordance with the coventional procedure to derive Ampere’s law. For a finite open
curved surface: z = g(x, y) the metric on the surface can be put into the canonical form:
ds2 = h1 2 (u, v)(du)2 + h2 2 (u, v)(dv)2 . The component of the surface current perpendicular
to the edges of the surface must vanish and there can only be a tangential current along the
edges. Thus the current density consistsR of two parts: a surface current density, K ~ s , which
vanishes at the edges and the integral, − ∇ ~ (u,v) .[ 3 K
(x−x s
′)
~ s ]h1 (u, v)h2 (u, v)(du)(dv), vanishes
R
together with a line current density ~j along the edges and the integral, - ∇
R
~ ′ .[ (x−x3s ′ )~j]dv ′ ,
R
vanishes trivially as the boundaries are the same point. Let us consider a surface with an
wedge, i.e, two surfaces joined along a curve making an angle which can, in general, vary
along the curve. If a surface current density originates at one surface the current can not
propagate to the second surface as the only way that the current can have vanishing com-
ponent perpendicular to both the surface is to propagate along the wedge (geometrically for
two surfaces making an wedge the only way that the ideal surface current density can remain
tangential to both the surfaces at the wedge is to flow along the wedge) and we can apply the
above arguments to show that the integral ∇
R
~ ′ ]dv ′ vanishes for the first surface.
~ ′ .[ (x−x3s ′ ) K
R
Similar arguments can be applied to show that the current on any kink of a surface vanishes.
Steady currents can also be produced for such surfaces if the surface is azimuthally symmet-
ric about the kink, the surface is charged and rotating steadily around the kink. In this case
also together with the earlier discussions the boundary terms vanish as the current at the
kink vanishes due to vanishing linear velocity. For an infinite straight line-current density
these arguments can easilly be extended and the integral vanishes provided the line-current
density is not everywhere divergent like λ(|x′′ |)2−k , 0 ≤ k < 1, with |x′′ | → ∞. Similar
boundary conditions have to be imposed for an arbitrary ideal line-current density. However
the above discussions show that, apart from planes and straight lines, surface current and
line currents cannot be produced due to the motion of charge carriers (considered as point
charges) as a curved surface is a collection of infinitesimal planes with the normals to the
adjuscent area-elements are not parallel while a curve is a collection of infinitesimal line-
elements and the adjuscent line-elements are not parallel. Ideal steady non-flat surface and
non-straight line currents can be produced only through the motions of charged surfaces and
charged infinite curves. The boundary conditions discussed for closed ideal surface-current
densities and ideal non-straight line current densities justify the validity of eqn.(100) as it
is physically impossible to have divergent motions. These discussions also lead us to define
the boundary of the elementary charged particle as the surface at which the charge den-
sity vanishes. For an ideal closed line-current density source the boundaries are the same

31
point. In many practical situations a pair of boundaries will be the same surface (may be
within a battery with the current density, apart from a few regions, vanishing at the interior
surface of the battery). For the above two situations the contrbution of the corresponding
boundaries vanish trivially out of uniqueness. These discussions together with the principle
of superposition also complete the arguments below eqn.(91).
Thus we have,
~ ×B
∇ ~ = µ0 J(r
~ ′ , θ, φ) (100)

For ideal surface and line current densities the results will same as replacing J(~ ~ r ) by
suitable delta functions meausured on the the source provided the sources satisfy the required
regularity conditions as discussed above.
The well-known integral law for a physical line current density contour B.
R
~ = µ0 I, where
~ dl
the contour is a closed circle concentric with the source and lies on a plane perpendicular to
the physical line-source, can be easily derived following the procedure used to establish the
no work law for the electrostatic field although for a physical line-source B ~ will have a small
non-vanishing radial component on the plane of theR circle.
Similar results as eqn.(86) will be obtained for surf ace B. ~ with the counterpart of the
~ da
first term of the righthand-side of eqn.(86) vanishing due to the cross-product present in
eqn.(92).
Faradey’s law together with the above discussions and the current density equation (dif-
ferential version of the electric charge conservation law) reproduces Maxwell’s laws of Clas-
sical Electrodynamics. However these laws should be supplemented, to the leading order, by
eqn.(23) and its counterpart for the magnetic field as dicussed in the preceding paragraph.
Fields found using symmetries and integral laws are only excellent approximations in the
sence that either we have neglected the contribution from the asymmetric part of the source
or valid for limited regions, e.g, electrostatic field found for a conductor infinitesimally close
to the surface (where, as can be shown using the Coulomb’s law, one can use the conven-
sional Gaussian pillbox procedure to calculate the field). After that we have reestablished
Maxwell’s equations we should note that the finite volume of the elementary charge carriers
indicates that ideal line/surface charge densities cannot exist in nature unless the charge
carriers can move with velocity c in one or two directions. While the discussions regarding
the curl of B~ law show that to have ideal line/surface current densities the charge carriers
should move with speed greater than c. Point charges can not exist in nature and the elec-
tromagnetic self-energies of the elementary particles are not infinite. Also the finite volumes
of the elementary charges give rise to screenining terms as discussed in the context of the
electrostatic potentials of extended charged systems.
We now make a few comments regarding the integral version of Gauss’s divergence law
in Classical Electrodynamics.
For a point charge the surface integral of the static electric field, determined by an
inverse square law, over a clossed surface is Q/ǫ0 provided the electric field is parallel with
the normal to the surface at each point. This is only possible if the origin of the coordinate
system coincides with the point charge and we obtain

~ ~′ .[ R̂ ] = 4πδ 3 (R)
∇ ~ (101)
(~
r −r )
R2
For two non-coincident point charges it is not possible to find a closed surface such
that the normal to the surface at each point is parallel to both the directions of the two

32
corresponding electric fields. Thus the inverse square law for a point charge and the priciple
of superposition for the electrostatic field indicate that for an extended source it is not
possible to find a clossed surface such that

~ = Qenc
Z
~ da
E. (102)
surf ace ǫ0
Cosequently, in general, Gauss’s divergence law:
Z Z
~ Edv
∇. ~ = ~
~ da
E. (103)
surf ace

is no longer valid. This discussion is also valid for the magnetic field.R For magnetic field
tangentiality to the boundary should be replaced by orthogonality, i.e, surf ace B. ~ will be
~ da
vanishing for an arbitrary closed surface provided B ~ is everywhere tangential on the surface.
For an ideal electric dipole placed at the origin along the positive Z-axis we should note
that although the surface integral of the Electrc field for an S 2 centered at the origin vanishes
the volume integral of the divergence of E ~ is not defined at the origin.
We now consider the electric field of a circular disc carrying a uniform surface charge
density σ. For a point (0, 0, z), z > 0, on the axis of the disc we have:

~ = σ [1 −
E
1
2 1 ]ẑ (104)
2ǫ0 (1 + Rz 2 ) 2

For negative z ẑ is replaced by −ẑ. If we use an infinitesimally thin tube along the
Z-axis we will find that the integral version of Gauss’s divergence theorem is not valid (as
the electric field is normal to the disc for points on the Z-axis) and we have a non-trivial
1
screening term: R2 1
. The screening term vanishes and the divergence theorem is valid
(1+ )2
z2
only for points infinitesimally close to the suface (z → 0) [this is expected as the transverse
dimention of the source is vanishing] and for R → ∞ which is geometrically same as the
previous situation. The tangential components of the electric field for a plane with a surface
x′ dx′ dy ′
xdxdy
charge σ is given by Ex = x y [ 2 2 2 3 ] = x′ y′ [ ′ 2 ′ 2 3 ] and Ey = x y [ 2 ydxdy 3 ] =
R R R R R R
(x +y +z ) 2 (x +y +1) 2 2 2 (x +y +z ) 2
y ′ dx′ dy ′
y′ [ 3 ]. Where (x , y ) = (x/z, y/z). In the limit |xb |, |yb | → ∞, i.e, for points
R R ′ ′ ′ ′
x′
(x′ 2 +y ′ 2 +1) 2
perpendicularly infinitesimally close to the surface compared to it’s areal dimension Ex , Ey
vanishes. Appendix:B allows us to apply this arguments for points close to the edges of the
surface. While for points on the edges the electric field has a logarithmically divergent Ey
component outward from the surface for points on the edges parallel to the X-axis and a
similar Ex component for points on the edges parallel to the Y -axis. This can be shown by
cosidering the fact that for points on the edges one of the x′ -limits for Ex and y ′-limits for
Ey in the above integrals are 1. Similar situations will arise for an ideal line charge density.
In reality even the most elementary charge carriers, the elementary charged particles, are of
finite volume and the screening terms are finite in the context of Classical Electrodynamics.
However Gauss’s diveregence theorem remains valid for conductors if the surface of in-
tegration be same as the boundary of the conductor or infinitesimally close and parallel to
the surface of the conductor and for configurations similar to these. As there can not be any
tangential component of E ~ on the surface of a conductor and E ~ vanishes for points within
~
the conductor, for each element of area da(r, θ, φ) infinitesimally close or on the surface of the

33
conductor, the source behaves as if a point charge of strength σ(rs , θ, φ)rs 2 (θ, φ) is situated
at the origin.
We conclude this article with a few comments on magnetic monopoles. It is straight
forward to show that under a general electromagnetic duality transformation, eqn.(6.151,
6.152) [3],
E~ =E ~ ′ cos ξ + H ~ ′ sin ξ D~ =D ~ ′ cos ξ + B ~ ′ sin ξ
H~ = −E ~ ′ sin ξ + H ~ ′cos ξ D~ = −D ~ ′ sin ξ + B~ ′ cos ξ
and
ρe = ρ′e cos ξ + ρ′m sin ξ J~e = J~e′ cos ξ + J~m′ sin ξ

ρm = −ρ′e sin ξ + ρ′m cos ξ J~m = −J~e′ sin ξ + J~m ′ cos ξ

the differential version of the magnetic charge conservation law doe’s not remain time-
reversal symmetric due to the pseudoscalar and pseudovector nature of magnetic monopole
charge and magnetic current density vector respectivly, i.e, if ∇. ~ J~′ = − ∂ρ′m is time-reversal
m ∂t
symmetric then ∇. ~ J~m = − ∂ρm no-longer remains time-reversal symmetric although the
∂t
differential version of the electric charge conservation law remains time-reversal symmetric
under electromagnetic duality transformation.

XIV. SUPPLEMENTIII: COMMENTS ON HYDRODYNAMICS

In this article we will review the laws of fluid dynamics. Our discussions will be based
on mainly that of chapter 40, 41 of The Feynman Lectures on Physics, Vol.2 [25].
The dynamics of dry water is governed by eqn.(40.6) [25]:

∂~v ~
~ v = − ∇p − ∇φ
+ (~v .∇)~ ~ (105)
∂t ρ
or using a vector analysis identity to the second term of the above equation:

∂~v ~
~ × ~v) × ~v = − ∇p − ∇φ
+ (∇ ~ (106)
∂t ρ
where ~v is the velocity of an fluid element for which such laws can be applicable, p is
the fluid pressure and φ is the potential per unit mass for any potential force present. We
can derive some important laws from eqn.(105). The first one is the equation for vorticity
(Ω = ∇~ × ~v ) and is obtained by taking curl of eqn.(106):

~
∂Ω ~ × (Ω
+∇ ~ × ~v ) = 0 (107)
∂t
The second one is Bernoulli’s theorems (40.12) and (40.14) [26]:

~ p + φ + 1 v2) = 0
~v.∇( (108)
ρ 2
i.e,
p 1
+ φ + v 2 = const (along streamlines) (109)
ρ 2
valid for steady flow and

34
 p 1
+ φ + v 2 = const (everywhere) (110)
ρ 2
valid for steady and irrotational flow.
However in all these equations the variation of the fluid density, ρ, is not considered
while in deriving eqn.(40.17) [25] the variation of fluid density is not properly taken into
account. The consideration for variation of the density of a nearly-incompressible fluid may
become important through the facts that when unconstrained the shape of a fluid can be
changed almost freely and sparsed away and through the facts that layers of fluids can be
very easilly spreaded or dettached away although these properties vary from fluid to fluid.
These features together with the local version of the conservation of mass law (assuming
that there is no local source or sink in the region of interest):

~ v) = 0
∇.(ρ~ (111)

indicate that we should consider the possibility for variation of ρ properly as we will
illustrate later that some ideal models can cause a finite variation of ρ and in reallity the
description of the motion should be changed. While the divergence of ~v may become impor-
tant in cases like Couette flow where the centrifugal forces imposes a finite and may even be
large divergence of ~v .
We can derive a proper version of eqn.(105) by applying Newtons second law to the fluid
momentum per unit volume and we have:

∂(ρ~v ) ~ v ) = −∇p
~ − ∇(ρφ)
~
+ [~v .∇](ρ~ (112)
∂t
This equation is in general a non-linear coupled [through eqn.(111)] partial differential
equation for ~v .
Bernoulli’s theorems for fluid dynamics can only be established when ρ is constant :

~ + (φρ) + 1 (ρv 2 )] = 0
~v .∇[p (113)
2
i.e,
1
p + (φρ) + (ρv 2 ) = const (along streamlines) (114)
2
valid for steady flow and
1
p + (φρ) + (ρv 2 ) = const (everywhere) (115)
2
valid for steady and irrotational flow.
In general, when ρ is varying, only the first of the Bernoulli’s theorems :

~ + (φρ) + 1 (ρv 2 )] = 0
~v .∇[p (116)
2
~ is vanishing or is approximately valid if |(~v.∇ρ)~
remains to be valid provided (~v .∇ρ) ~ v| is
negligible compared to the other terms in eqn.(112). To illustrate the significance of these
comments, let us consider the ideal model to calculate the efflux-coefficient, fig. 40-7 [25].

35
After that the contraction of the cross-section of the emerging jet has stopped we have, from
the coservation of mass law, the following equation for ρv at two vertical points:

ρ1 v1 = ρ2 v2 (117)

In this case pressure is the atmospheric pressure and remains the same throughout the
flow and thus even for the flow of a nearly-incompressible fluid ρ can vary as v changes with
height. In reality the flow usually gets sparsed away after a distance which varies for different
flows.
The viscous flow of a fluid is governed by the following two laws which are obtained from
eqn.(112) and eqn.(41.15),[25]:
∂(ρ~v ) ~ v ) = −∇p
~ − ∇(ρφ)
~ ~ ∇.~
~ v)
+ [~v .∇](ρ~ + η∇2~v + (η + η ′ )∇( (118)
∂t

~ v) = 0
∇.(ρ~ (119)

supplimented by proper boundary conditions. To illustrate the significance of the bound-

ary conditions we can consider the change of the shape of the surface of water in a bucket
when the bucket is given a steady rotational motion about it’s axis. The surface of the water
become paraboloidal when the bucket is rotating. This shape can not be obtained without
a vertical component of fluid velocity along the bucket surface for a finite duration although
the bucket surface only have an angular velocity.
In the above equations η is the “first coefficient of viscosity” or the “shear viscosity coef-
ficient” and η ′ is the “second coefficient of viscosity”. This equation is extremely significant
in the sence that this equation, not eqn.(41.16) [26], is the equation which contains all the
terms relevant to describe the dynamics of viscous fluids, both nearly-incompressible and
compressible. For compressible fluids ρ will also depend on pressure, p(~r). We can modify
this equation only through varying the nature of the viscous force.
The equation for vorticity is given by:
~
∂Ω
+∇ ~ × ~v) − Ω(
~ × (Ω ~ ∇.~
~ v) + ~v × ∇( ~ v ) = η (∇2 Ω)
~ ∇.~ ~
∂t ρ
~ × (∇ρ)
(∇p) ~ ~
[∇(ρφ)] ~
× (∇ρ) ~
η(∇2~v ) × (∇ρ) η + η′ ~ ~
− − + + ~
∇(∇.~v ) × (∇ρ) (120)
ρ2 ρ2 ρ2 ρ2
We can obtain an equation similar to eqn.(41.17) [25] describing the motion of a viscous
~ and it is given by:
fluid past a cylinder provided we can neglect the terms involving ∇ρ
~
∂Ω ~ × (Ω
+∇ ~ × ~v ) − Ω(
~ ∇.~
~ v ) + ~v × ∇( ~ v ) = η (∇2 Ω)
~ ∇.~ ~ (121)
∂t ρ
Following the procedure in section 41-3,[26] we can rescale the variables to obtain an
equation which has Reynolds number (R) as the only free parameter :
∂~ω ~ ′ ~ ′ .~u) + ~u × ∇ ~ ′ .~u) = 1 (∇′ 2 ω
~ ′ (∇
+ ∇ × (~ω × ~u) − ~ω (∇ ~) (122)
∂t ′ R
where the prime describe the scaled variables, ~u is the scaled velocity and R is given by
the usual expression, R = ηρ V D.

36
 To conclude in this section we have derived the exact equation describing fluid dynamics.
We considered the motion of both non-viscous and viscous fluids. We proved that in both
the cases there are terms which are neglected in the conventional theory but may become
significant in some ideal model and in reallity the description of motion is changed. Some of
these terms even change the dynamical laws of viscous fluid motions by violating the con-
ventional theory established in term of the Reynold number and these terms are significant
for the dynamics of compressible fluids like air.

XV. ACKNOWLEDGMENT

I am thankful to the members of the Theory Division, S.I.N.P, Kolkata for their coop-
erations. I am also thankful to Prof. D. J. Griffiths for pointing out a correction regarding
equ.(64). I am also thankful to a member of VECC Housing, Kolkata for reminding me an
important point.

XVI. REFERENCES

[1] J. J. Sakurai; Advanced Quantum Mechanics: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.

[2] A. N. Matveev; Mechanics and Theory of Relativity: Mir Publishers, Moscow.
[3] R. M. Wald; General Relativity: The University of Chicago Press, Chicago and Lon-
don.
[4] C. W. Misner, K. S. Thorne, J. A. Wheeler; Gravitation: W. H. Freeman and Com-
pany, New York.
[5] A. N. Kolmogorov and S. V. Fomin; Functional Analysis (Vol. I): Dover Publications,
Inc. New York.
[6] W. Rudin; Introduction to Topology and Modern Analysis: Mc Graw - Hill Book
Company.
[7] W. Lamb (Jr.); Physics Today 22.
[8] S. Chandrasekhar.
[9] A. K. Raychoudhury.
[10] N. N. Bogoliubov, D. V. Shirkov; Introduction To The Theory of Quantized Fields:
John Wiley and sons.
[11] A. K. Raychoudhury et all .
[12] A. Afriat, F. Sellery; The Einstein, Podolosky and Rosen paradox: Plenum publishing
corporation.
[13] J. J. Sakurai; Modern Quantum Mechanics (Section: 1.4 - 1.6): Addison Wesley
Publishing Company.
[14] C. Itzykson, J.B. Zuber; Quantum Field Theory: McGraw-Hill Book Company.
[15] M. Nakahara; Geometry, Topology And Physics: Adam Hilger, Bristol And New
York.
[16] T. M. Apostol; Mathematical Analysis: Narosa Publishing House.
[17] S. Weinberg; Gravitation and Cosmology: John Wiley and Sons.
[18] M. E. Preskin, D. V. Schroeder; An Introduction to Quantum Field Theory: Addison-
Wesley Publishing Company.
[19] S. W. Hawking, G. F. R. Ellis; The Large Scale Steucture of Space-Time: Cambridge
University Press.

37
 [20] L. D. Landau and E. M. Lifshitz; The Classical Theory of Fields: Butterworth-
Heinenann.
[21] J. D. Bjorken, S. D. Drell; Relativistic Quantum Fields: Mc Graw-Hill Book Com-
pany.
[22] P. Ramond; Field Theory: A Modarn Primer, Addison Wesley Publishing Company
[23] J. D. Jackson; Classical Electrodynamics: Wiley Eastern Limited.
[24] D. J. Griffiths; Introduction To Electrodynamics(1989): Prentice-Hall of India.
[25] R. P. Feynman, R. B. Leighton, M. Sands: The Feynman Lectures on Physics; Narosa
Publishing House.

38
 XVII. SAMAPTA

Any one, who had thept any aspect of this article and/or unduly disturbed the author
seriously using e.m radiation in a biological way (telepathy) during the last six years, in
particular while the article was getting prepared, or/and encouraged to do so is a descendant
of Avatar of Dharmaraj.

39