Axiomatic basis for quantum field theory (part 2) - updated to 19 March 2025
What we know from actual observations about unification, and how to use that information to replace the usual Dirac spinor and Feynman path integral
Part 1 is linked here, a key sentence of which states: “if the standard IR cutoff limit (low energy, screened, “Coulomb law”) electromagnetic coupling is α and the true (bare core) coupling is 1, then the total electromagnetic charge energy converted into short-range effects (mass and short-range nuclear fields, strong and weak) is simply 1 - α. So you can use “renormalization” to predict mass and other couplings, and also the interaction “mixing angles”, e.g. amplitudes for different decay routes (flavour mixing) as explained in fig 35 on p 45 of https://vixra.org/pdf/1111.0111v1.pdf).”
The paper just referenced is “nascent”, an outline of ideas and basic concepts, and needs to be reworked into a more disciplined textbook, but a recent post on Dr Rob Wilson’s blog about the matter-antimatter issue, has motivated me to start this post now with that.
Matter and antimatter pair production at unification energy
At 1.022 Mev energy, a gamma ray (energy) entering the strong electric field near a high-Z nucleus (e.g. lead, gold, uranium) can undergo pair production as predicted by Dirac’s spinor: the 1.022 Mev of energy is transformed into a 0.511 Mev electron and a 0.511 Mev positron. But this Dirac model of creation appears to conflicts with the big bang, at least if you look at the observed particles.
Ignoring dark matter, and taking the first generation of the SM together with the fact the universe is 90% (or so) hydrogen (the rest is essentially similarly composed in quark-lepton balance), i.e. 1 electron per two upquarks and one downquark (ignoring the virtual particles, which give the proton most of its mass).
You have two essential pair production pairings for those 4 long-life particles:
(1) Electron + Upquark
(2) Upquark + Downquark
(Sure, high energy collisions in the early big bang or supernovae today will give short-lived muons, tauons, also other quarks in exotic baryons, but let's keep to the majority of matter we observe, SM generation 1.)
Clearly we don't see (1) and (2) in low-energy pair production, e.g. for 1.022 Mev collisions you indeed get electron + proton, as Dirac says. But the issue is that the processes responsible for (1) and (2), or in more conventional SM language "the excess of matter over antimatter in the big bang", is at energy beyond the LHC, totally unobserved, and likely bare core unified field theory physics that will never be modelled in collider experiments on this planet. So what this observation and argument tells you is a picture of the nature pair production in the real unified field theory near time zero (ref https://vixra.org/pdf/1111.0111v1.pdf p30, fig 24). Of course, it will be generation 3 (top quarks, tauons, etc) near time zero, but the key argument is true.
So, is there a misinterpretation in the standard definition of "antimatter" which is based on observed (low energy, i.e. vacuum polarization shielded) electric charge, rather than on bare core (unshielded) electric charge or isospin charge, or even hypercharge. Is pair production different at unification energy (early times in the big bang), compared to the much lower energy scale for pair production that we observe? Matter and antimatter pair production results at unification energy are known from observations of the nature of matter today, if the big bang dynamics are correct. So surely this information should be guiding use towards the unified theory?
If you don’t want to do this, you can point to “dark matter” as an excuse to avoid this argument. The problem is that’s an argument from ignorance, e.g. sterile (non SM interacting) right-handed neutrinos (if they exist) could account for “dark matter”, possibly without dismissing the argument above.
[23.33pm 26 Feb 2025 so bedtime. To be continued when time permits.]
9 March 2025: Dr Woit has a new post launching a deluded hate attack on peace proponent President Trump, The View from My Office, a complete waste of space:
“The Trump administration has announced a cutoff of $400 million in funding to Columbia University, supposedly because of its failure to take action against anti-semitism on the campus. [Don’t bother asking him how Trump can possibly be fascist when he was elected a few months ago and pledged to to stop anti-semitism and war! It’s a waste of time.] Two months ago one would have assumed that the idea that the US president had the power to rule by decree and defund any institution he wanted to was absurd. All children in the US are taught in school about the checks and balances of the US constitutional system, which are designed to make this kind of thing impossible. We’re now learning every day something very different, how Fascist dictatorship can come to power, even in a constitutional democracy. … I’m not allowing comments here. Beyond the usual reason that I don’t want to waste my time on moderating the kind of discussion this would attract, there’s something new going on. Administrators have been fired for saying the wrong thing and I hear Title VI investigations can be opened if there’s an accusation against you. What I’m seeing from my office is a lot of quiet. In other news, our Fascist dictator has now explicitly allied the US with the Russian Fascist dictator and has removed the protections it was providing for Ukrainians being slaughtered by the Russians. This is deeply shameful for the people of the US. I think I’m allowed to say that, for now.”
Ukraine’s invasion aka Vietnam 2.0 could have been prevented (as indeed Vietnam 1.0) by a proper understanding of physics, which sadly Dr Woit and the Kremlin stooges claim to lack (I don’t believe them; they’re not that stupid).
President Trump wants a ceasefire as a bargaining chip to begin peace negotiations with Putin; Ukraine denies Trump this so Trump says “fine, do it all on your own matey!” and then denies Ukraine intelligence, funds, weapons, so it can have it all its own (delusional) way, having surrendered all its nuclear deterrence in 1994 in exchange for a Munich Agreement style peace pledge worth as much to Ukraine as the 1839 Treaty of London was worth to Belgium in 1914, or a similar deluded peace pledge with Hitler on 30 September 1938 was worth to the UK, or a Polish-UK security guarantee in 1939 was worth: nada, zilch, nil.
The only way to kick Russia out of Ukraine is to either escalate risking WWIII (which will hardly win Trump the Nobel Peace Prize), or to have a ceasefire, negotiate on the back of that, and try to come up with some kind of Korean War style July 23, 1953 armistice, which Trump wants!
Dr Woit launched a similar delusional hate attack on fact-proved quantum gravity 20 years ago:
https://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=215#comment-4081
Peter Woit says:
I’m tempted to delete the previous comment, but am leaving it since I think that, if accurate, it is interesting to see that the editor of PRL is resorting to an indefensible argument in dealing with nonsense submitted to him (although the “…” may hide a more defensible argument). Please discuss this with the author of this comment on his weblog, not here. I’ll be deleting any further comments about this.
(That full PRL correspondence, too lengthy for a comment, is uploaded in two separate email exchanges here.)
If that’s not “fascism” from Dr Peter Woit (PLEASE see definition of “fascism” on page 58 of https://vixra.org/pdf/1111.0111v1.pdf), I don’t know what is! Incidentally, although Hitler claimed he was fascist, he was really implementing the kind of “elitist” groupthink pseudo-science from “top guys” like Nazi eugenics gas chamber-advocate, the Medical Nobel Laureate Dr Alexis Carrell and also eugenics founder Sir Francis Galton (Charles Darwin’s cousin), who claimed that no-platforming or killing anyone with new ideas was a way to avoid embarrassing nonsense revolutions, or some such. It took a world war to try to get rid of that “elitist” nonsense, but traces persist today!
19 March 2025 update: from an email to Joseph Friedlander: The issue for me is that [mainstream QG speculation] doesn't predict, explain or advance the kind of gravity evidence I'm concerned with, i.e. the 1-page summary https://vixra.org/abs/1305.0012
I believe in 1982, dad had a rare hour long discussion of science with me, in which he explained the basic principle of implosion as applied to the big bang. The problem with the usual explanations of both implosion (as in nuclear weapons) and the "big bang" universe is that people don't do the calculations. Newton could have predicted dark energy (the tiny 10^{-10} m/s^2 acceleration of matter radially around us) because he had LeSage pushing the basic gravity mechanism at him, but be failed. Dad hadn't done the calculations, which I did, in three different ways (https://vixra.org/abs/1305.0012 contains one type of calculation, the latest type using standard quantum field theory principles, the earlier types - yielding the same results from a slightly different mathematical approach - are at Fig 21 and p32 of https://vixra.org/pdf/1111.0111v1.pdf using Hawking radiation from fundamental charges as exchange radiation to predict the QED coupling and in Fig 21 the random walk for vector summation to get the ~10^40 difference between QED and gravity forces to predict gravity from Hawking radiation, and finally the very first approach used by dad's argument in 1982 in Fig 40 on p49, a spacetime fabric calculation)...