International Journal of Theoretical Physics

, Volume 15, Issue 3, pp 231–246 | Cite as

Some speculations on a causal unification of relativity, gravitation, and quantum mechanics

  • V. Buonomano
  • A. Engel


Some speculations on a causal model that could provide a common conceptual foundation for relativity, gravitation, and quantum mechanics are presented. The present approach is a unification of three theories, the first being the repulsive theory of gravitational forces first proposed by Lesage in the eighteenth century. Lesage attempted to explain gravitational forces from the principle of conservation of momentum of some hypothetical particles, which we shall call gravitons. These gravitons, whose density is assumed homogenous, are constantly colliding with objects. The gravitational force is caused by a shielding effect of bodies when they are near each other. One also can make a clear physical distinction between an accelerating and a nonaccelerating object from this viewpoint. The second of these theories is the Brownian motion theory of quantum mechanics or stochastic mechanics, which treats the nondeterministic nature of quantum mechanics as being due to a Brownian motion of all objects. This Brownian motion being caused by the statistical variation in the graviton flux. The above two theories are unified in this article with the causal theory of special relativity. Within the present context, the time dilations (and other effects) of relativity are explained by assuming that the rate of a clock is a function of the total number or intensity of gravitons and the average frequency or energy of the gravitons that the clock receives. Two clocks having some relative velocity in the same intensity gravitational field would then have a different rate because the average frequency of the gravitons would be different for each clock owing to the Doppler effect. That is, they would essentially be in different fields considering both the frequency and intensity. The special theory would then be the special case of the general theory where the intensity is constant but the average frequency varies. In all the previous it is necessary to assume a particular model of the creation of the universe, namely the Big Bang theory. This assumption gives us the existence of a preferred reference frame, the frame in which the Big Bang explosion was at rest. The above concepts of graviton distribution and real time dilations become meaningful by assuming the Big Bang theory along with this preferred frame. An experimental test is proposed.


Quantum Mechanic Brownian Motion Gravitational Force Average Frequency Causal Model 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Belinfante, F. J. (1973).A Survey of Hidden-Variable Theories, Pergamon Press, Elmsford.Google Scholar
  2. Bohm, D. (1952A).Phys. Rev. 85, 166.Google Scholar
  3. Bohm, D. (1952B).Phys. Rev.,85, 180.Google Scholar
  4. Bohm, D. and Vigier, J. P. (1954).Phys. Rev. 96, 208.Google Scholar
  5. Buonomano, V. (1974).Int. J. Theor. Phys. 13, 213. Also “A Causal Interpretation of the Special Theory of Relativity,” (an unpublished updated version of the previous article).Google Scholar
  6. Buonomano, V. and Moore, J. (1973A).Phys. Lett.,46A, 217.Google Scholar
  7. Buonomano, V. and Moore, J. (1974B). “The Classical and Relativistic Doppler Effect” (submitted for publication).Google Scholar
  8. Champeney, D. C., Isaak, G. R., and Khan, A. M. (1963A).Nature,198, 1186.Google Scholar
  9. Chempeney, D. C., Isaak, G. R., and Khan, A. M. (1963B).Phys. Lett.,7, 241.Google Scholar
  10. Champeney, D. C., Isaak, G. R., and Khan, A. M. (1965).Proc. Phys. Soc.,85, 583.Google Scholar
  11. Champeney, D. C. and Moon, P. B. (1961).Proc. Phys. Soc.,77, 350.Google Scholar
  12. Comisar, G. G. (1965).Phys. Rev.,138, B1332.Google Scholar
  13. Dankel, T. G. Jr. (1970).Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal.,37, 192.Google Scholar
  14. Fenyes, I. (1952).Z. Phys.,13, 81.Google Scholar
  15. Feynman, R. (1963).The Feynman Lecture Series, Addison-Wesley, Reading, Vol. I, pp. 7–9.Google Scholar
  16. Fock, V. (1963).The Theory of Space, Time and Gravitation, Pergamon Press, Elmsford, p. 228.Google Scholar
  17. Hafele, J. C. and Keating, R. E. (1972).Science,177, 166.Google Scholar
  18. Hay, H. J., Schiffer, J. P., Cranshaw, T. E., and Egelstaff, P. A. (1960).Phys. Rev. Lett.,4, 165.Google Scholar
  19. Kerker, M. (1974).Am. Sci.,62, 92.Google Scholar
  20. Kershaw, D. (1974).Phys. Rev.,136, B1850.Google Scholar
  21. Kundig, W. (1963).Phys. Rev.,129, 2371.Google Scholar
  22. Lesage, in Deux Traites De Physique Mecanique by P. Prevost.Google Scholar
  23. Lorentz, K. (1923) inPrinciples of Relativity, Dover, New York.Google Scholar
  24. Mach., E. (1893).The Science of Mechanics, Open Court, La Salle, Illinois (1973) p. 279.Google Scholar
  25. Moller, C. (1972).The Theory of Relativity, Clarendon Press, pp. 272–275.Google Scholar
  26. Nelson, E. (1966).Phys. Rev.,150, 1079.Google Scholar
  27. Pound, R. V. and Snider, J. L. (1965).Phys. Rev.,140, B788.Google Scholar
  28. Preston, S. T. (1877A).Phil. Mag. S.,4, 110.Google Scholar
  29. Preston, S. T. (1877B).Phil. Mag. S.,4, 206.Google Scholar
  30. Preston, S. T. (1877C).Phil. Mag. S.,4, 364.Google Scholar
  31. Turner, K. C. and Hill, H. A. (1964).Phys. Rev.,134, B252.Google Scholar
  32. Weizel, W. (1953A).Z. Phys.,134, 264.Google Scholar
  33. Weizel, W. (1953B).Z. Phys.,135, 270.Google Scholar
  34. Weizel, W. (1953C).Z. Phys.,135, 582.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1976

Authors and Affiliations

  • V. Buonomano
    • 1
  • A. Engel
    • 1
  1. 1.Instituto de MatemáticaUniversidade Estadual de CampinasSão PauloBrazil

Personalised recommendations