### Welcome to the science of the Big Bang...

Quantum Gravity Successes

**Above:** a small scale supernova over Johnston Island, 9 July 1962. 1.4 Mt, 400 km altitude. Filmed from a mountain top 1,300 km to the east of the detonation.

Above: *Checkmate* nuclear test, 0.32 second after burst, 7 kilotons, 147 km altitude (photo taken from Johnston Island by a camera facing upwards)

Above: *Checkmate* nuclear test, 0.52 second

Above: *Checkmate*, 1.0 second

Above: *Checkmate, *2.5 seconds. Dark zig-zag rocket trails are visible. (Because you are looking upward, you are seeing the fireball through the rocket exhaust of the missile which carried the bomb up to 147 km altitude, which took sufficient time for the different winds at all the altitudes from the surface to outer space to blow the exhaust around a little. This is explained in discussion of *Checkmate* and the other American high altitude 1958-62 tests: see chapter 1 of Philip J. Dolan's manual, *Capabilities of Nuclear Weapons,* U.S. Department of Defense, Defense Nuclear Agency, Washington, D.C., 1972, with revisions.)

*Above:* the *CHECKMATE* (7 kt, 147 km detonation altitude, 19 October 1962) fireball after it has just started to become striated along the natural magnetic field (vertically aligned in this photo taken from below the detonation). The dotty lines near the middle are the wind-blown exhaust trails left behind, below the fireball, by the rocket delivery system that carried the warhead up to the detonation altitude.

Above: *CHECKMATE* detonation horizontal view (seen from a distant aircraft) compared to the view looking upwards from Johnston Island. The analysis of *CHECKMATE* on the right was done by the Nuclear Effects Group at the Atomic Weapons Establishment, Aldermaston, and was briefly published on their website, with the following discussion of the 'UV fireball' regime which applies to bursts at altitudes of 100-200 km: 'the debris blast wave expands and sweeps up air which becomes very hot. This then radiates UV, which is readily absorbed by the cold air in front of the blast wave, resulting in ionised air which is approximately transparent to further UV radiation from the blast wave. These bursts are therefore characterised by two "fireballs" - the debris air blast wave expansion is preceded by a radiation/ionisation front. The radiation front will be up/down asymmetric since mean free paths are longer in the less dense air above the detonation altitude. An example is the *CHECKMATE* event where both fronts are clearly visible in the photograph taken from Johnston Island.'

When *CHECKMATE* was detonated during the Cuban missiles crisis: 'Observers on Johnston Island saw a green and blue circular region surrounded by a blood-red ring formed overhead that faded in less than 1 minute. Blue-green streamers and numerous pink striations formed, the latter lasting for 30 minutes. Observers at Samos saw a white flash, which faded to orange and disappeared in about 1 minute.' (Defense Nuclear Agency report DNA-6040F, AD-A136820, p. 241.)

How would a 10^{55} megaton hydrogen bomb explosion differ from the big bang? Ignorant answers biased in favour of curved spacetime (ignoring quantum gravity!) abound, such as claims that explosions can’t take place in ‘outer space’ (disagreeing with the facts from nuclear space bursts by Russia and America in 1962, not to mention natural supernova explosions in space!) and that explosions produce sound waves in air by definition! There are indeed major differences in the nuclear reactions between the big bang and a nuclear bomb. But it is helpful to notice the solid physical fact that implosion systems suggest the mechanism of gravitation: in implosion, TNT is well-known to produce an *inward* force on a bomb core, but Newton's 3rd law says there is an equal and opposite reaction force *outward*. In fact, you can’t have a radially outward force without an inward reaction force! It’s the rocket principle. The rocket accelerates (with force *F = ma*) *forward* by virtue of the recoil from accelerating the exhaust gas (with force *F = -ma*) in the *opposite* direction! Nothing massive accelerates without an equal and opposite reaction force. Applying this *fact* to the measured 6 x 10^{-10} ms^{-2} ~ *Hc* cosmological acceleration of matter radially outward from observers in the universe which was predicted accurately in 1996 and later observationally discovered in 1999 (by Perlmutter, et al.), we find an outward force *F = ma* and inward reaction force by the 3rd law. The inward force allows quantitative predictions, and is mediated by gravitons, predicting gravitation in a checkable way (unlike string theory, which is just a landscape of 10^{500} different perturbative theories and so can’t make any falsifiable predictions about gravity). So it seems as if nuclear explosions do indeed provide helpful analogies to natural features of the world, and the mainstream lambda-CDM model of cosmology - with its force-fitted unobserved *ad hoc* speculative ‘dark energy’ - ignores and sweeps under the rug major quantum gravity effects which increase the physical understanding of particle physics, particularly force unification and the relation of gravitation to the existing electroweak SU(2) x U(1) section of the Standard Model of fundamental forces.

Richard Lieu, Physics Department, University of Alabama, ‘Lambda-CDM cosmology: how much suppression of credible evidence, and does the model really lead its competitors, using all evidence?’, http://arxiv.org/abs/0705.2462.

Even Einstein grasped the possibility that general relativity's lambda-CDM model is at best just a classical approximation to quantum field theory, at the end of his life when he wrote to Besso in 1954:

‘I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on the [classical differential equation] field principle, i.e., on continuous structures. In that case, nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, [non-quantum] gravitation theory included ...’

‘Science is the organized skepticism in the reliability of expert opinion.’ - Professor Richard P. Feynman (quoted by Professor Lee Smolin, *The Trouble with Physics,* Houghton-Mifflin, New York, 2006, p. 307).

In later posts, I'll review all declassified nuclear test data related to the space bursts in 1962, particularly the 7 kiloton *Checkmate* shot 147 km above Johnston Island. I'll also review books and manuals by Glasstone and Dolan, the reports by Brode, and many others, not only related to fireballs in nuclear space burst tests, but also the more complicated surface bursts with their intricate initial radiation, EMP, cratering, blast wave, thermal flash, and residual fallout.

To begin with, my interest in the big bang stems from cosmology. I had been interested in the big bang since 1982. At that time I was 10, and wanted to know what evidence there was that time and space had been created in the big bang. Any question was answered by merely ignoring the question and restating the evidence for the big bang, which I was not disputing anyway! It is telling that the greatest expert on general relativity, Sir Roger Penrose, has recently proposed a theory of what happened before the big bang, and this fact explains that general relativity is a mathematical statement of physical facts.

Without a full theory of quantum gravity, there are still uncertainties. Anybody making statements of the 'there was no spacetime fabric and no time before the big bang' is actually just plain ignorant of general relativity: see Penrose's statement at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/hardtalk/4631138.stm

Eventually I was given a book on general relativity, which disproved John Gribbin's and his friend Chown's popularising claims that the big bang is not a real explosion in a spacetime fabric. Their claims seem to stem from ignorance.

http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=273#comment-5322:

Who, on big bang religion, please note Erasmus Darwin (1731-1802), father of Charles the evolutionist, first defended the big bang seriously in his 1790 book ‘The Botanic Garden’:

‘It may be objected that if the stars had been projected from a Chaos by explosions, they must have returned again into it from the known laws of gravitation; this however would not happen, if the whole Chaos, like grains of gunpowder, was exploded at the same time, and dispersed through infinite space at once, or in quick succession, in every possible direction.’

Darwin was trying to apply science to Genesis. The big bang has never been taken seriously by cosmologists, because they have assumed that curved spacetime makes the universe boundless and such like. So a kind of belief system in the vague approach to general relativity has blocked considering it as a 10^{55} megatons space explosion. Some popular books even claim falsely that things can’t explode in space, and so on.

In reality, because all gravity effects and light come to us at light speed, the recession of galaxies is better seen as a recession speed varying with known time past, than varying with the apparent distance. Individual galaxies may not be accelerating, but what we see and the gravity effects we receive at light speed come from both distance and time past, and in that reference frame *the universe is accelerating.*

The implication of this comes when you know the mass of the universe is m, because then you remember Newton’s 2nd law, *F =m a* so you get outward force. His 3rd law then tells you there’s equal inward force (graviton mediated). We get gravity within 1.7%. This is censored by string theory dominated arXiv.org

http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=289#comment-5846

November 8th, 2005 at 11:44 am :

“Data is the only judge in the court of science. Principles, no matter how sounding, can not be used to make a judgement regarding a theory.” - Quantoken

What about the principles of Copenhagen quantum mechanics, like Bohr’s beloved Correspondence and Complementarity? Or Einstein’s principles? The maths of Bohr and Einstein is very elegant and of course consistent numerically with reality. What people argue is that there are other ways of getting the same results without using the same principles, at least regarding SR and Copenhagen principles.

It seems that Bohr and Einstein didn’t notice that there were other ways of getting the same maths without using the same philosophy. FitzGerald, Lorentz and Larmor, had the testable formulae of SR. Einstein still didn’t notice this when he gave his “Ether and Relativity” lecture at Leyden in 1920. His biographer Pais wrote that he (Pais) first gave Einstein the Poincare’s relativity papers of 1904 in the early 1950s. Einstein asked Born to acknowledge Poincare’s work. Pais says he (Pais) was angry with Born for praising Poincare too highly, since Poincare used 3 postulates and Einstein used only 2. The whole story makes me nauseous. The love of monk Ockham’s razor is just absurd. You don’t find biologists or chemists banning biological or chemical mechanisms as superfluous or unnecessary difficulties. The lack of mechanism for forces allows string theorists to claim they are copying the guessed principle philosophy of Bohr and Einstein.

November 7th, 2005 at 12:07 pm

The “flood of experimental data” still exists and remains to be analysed, the mass ratio of muon to electron and other particles, and the coupling constants of electroweak to strong nuclear and gravitation.

Theories were not “rapidly tested and those found wanting rejected”.

Take the case of Gell-Mann’s quarks versus Zweig’s aces. Zweig wrote a more detailed paper and was suppressed by a big American journal while he was in Europe at CERN, while Gell-Mann in America from experience was shrewd enough to submit his briefer and less substantiated paper to a small European journal which printed it. (Let’s not get involved in the issue of Zweig never getting a Nobel prize, as Gell-Mann officially got it for symmetry work.)

Arthur C. Clarke once said that any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. This is the fate of any revolutionary idea, which by definition (being revolutionary) is in conflict with preconceived ideas like string theory. It is very easy to weed out reality, to flush the baby away with the bath water. It is a different matter to take a heretical idea seriously. Everyone can see it is absurd and obviously wrong. I think this is why the Soviet Union, having lost an enormous amount in WWII, still managed to beat America into space with Sputnik. The mainstream is always too prejudiced in favour of yesterday’s methods to be really serious about science.

Links to more info:

Quantum Field Theory domain

Quantum Gravity blog

Los Alamos Science journal

Excellent particle physics gauge theory (fundamental force interaction) issue of Los Alamos Science journal

Background info:

http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=273#comment-5322

http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=353&cpage=1#comment-8728

http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=215#comment-4082

----------------------**The political corruption of scientific journalism**

Spiked Science

Article26 April 2001

Eco-evangelism

by Helene Guldberg

When I returned home from the horrendous event that was the New Scientist's UK Global Environment Roadshow, I got very little sympathy from my flat-mates. 'But what on earth did you expect?', they retorted. 'Look at the leaflet. It says it all.'

They had a point. The headline read 'New Scientist presents: Judgement Day - the Global Environment Roadshow'. It went on: 'Find out how wholly unexpected forces, such as global warming, pollution, ozone-layer destruction, water shortages and soil degradation could combine in new and terrifying ways to produce global nightmares nobody predicted.' And the blurb finished with the call to: 'measure your contribution to human survival on Earth by going through a personal evaluation to find out how much damage you do to the environment. Discover if you are an Angel or a Devil.'

But despite this, I had a notion - since the debate was organised by the New Scientist for an adult audience - that this would at least be open to rational discussion. Not a chance. Rather than an appraisal of scientific evidence about climate change, pollution, soil erosion and water shortages, we were presented with the absolutely worst-case scenarios for what could happen to us - as if they were fact - and the very grave possibility that we could self-destruct.

Jeremy Webb, editor of the New Scientist, started by emphasising that human beings have 'as much destructive potential' as that which brought about former mass extinctions - where up to 90 percent of species were wiped out. Just look at BSE (What? How many bovine species have gone extinct as a result of BSE?), HIV (Again, what does this tell us about the human destructive potential?) and global warming (But, Jeremy, the history of the planet has been one of far greater temperature fluctuations than those predicted for the coming century).

We were then given three presentations of possible doomsday scenarios.

First, global warming (we were given a weather forecast for 2050, with the UK in a mini Ice-Age, the east coast of the USA flooded, the west coast swamped by malaria-carrying mosquitoes, South America wreaked by forest fires, and so on); second, pollution; and third, overpopulation.

Webb asked - after the presentations - whether there was anybody who still was not worried about the future. In a room full of several hundred people, only three of us put our hands up. We were all asked to justify ourselves (which is fair enough). But one woman, who believed that even if some of the scenarios are likely, we should be able to find solutions to cope with them, was asked by Webb whether she was related to George Bush!

When I pointed out that none of the speakers had presented any of the scientific evidence that challenged their doomsday scenarios, Webb just threw back at me, 'But why take the risk?' What did he mean: 'Why take the risk of living?' You could equally say 'Why take the risk of not experimenting? Why take the risk of not allowing optimum economic development?' But had I been able to ask these questions, I suppose I would have been accused of being in bed with Dubya.

One of the speakers responded to my point, that there is evidence that the air is cleaner today than several decades ago (rather than 'being turned into a sewer'). Yes, she said, that may be true, but clean air can also be a problem.

The experience was like attending a religious meeting - a mass confessional, in fact, where 'we are all sinners', but some of us sin more than others. The exercise at the end of the event (which dragged on for what seemed like an eternity) set out to assess our individual footprints on planet Earth. One woman was presented with a halo (literally) for scoring less than 200 points on her evaluation (equivalent to about a quarter of the European average); and a poor unfortunate boy was presented with horns (he was the devil) for scoring almost twice the European average.

This lad was rather bemused as to how he had managed to amass such a high score - and, to be honest, he did not look like a particularly extravagant character. But I suppose it is easy to tot up the points - and maybe he was just more honest than the rest of the audience (like a spoil-sport, I refused to participate). All you need to do is travel to Australia (which he had) and you have already totted up 300 points. Then if you bath every day (and do not share it with others in your household), travel to work by car (tut, tut), do not buy locally produced fresh products, and do not recycle your paper, then your points will quickly rocket.

If this event had been organised by Greenpeace or Friends of the Earth, I suppose I would not have got so agitated. But this kind of moralism dressed up as science - without any opportunity for rational debate - makes my blood boil.

For more information about Jeremy Webb, see the encyclopedia article linked here.

A dark ideology is driving those who deny climate change

People who claim that climate science is a conspiracy or the work of charlatans are talking rubbish

Robin McKie, The Observer, Sunday 1 August 2010

Our planet may burn, millions may die, and cities such as Moscow and New York may smoulder, but at least we will be free of petty regulation and bureaucracy.

--------------------------------

Sunday, August 01, 2010

Guardian: Devil is driving climate deniers

Dr Lubos Motl

The Reference Frame

The Observer has printed a rather incredible piece that makes most of the propaganda pieces of Nazism and communism look like friendly fairy-tales for children:*A dark ideology is driving those who deny climate change*

The deniers are wrong because 2,000 mostly drunk people around Moscow drowned in the rivers and lakes and because it was a warm weather in Moscow. Why were they drunk? Because you're deniers, dear TRF readers!

The author of the piece, Robin McKie, uses an amusing collection of irrational and downright bizarre sources to sling mud on the climate skeptics. One of them is a book called *Merchants of Doubt* by Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway.

Click the link for a review of the book.

These two "pundits" have raised one of the most serious accusations ever invented against the climate skeptics: some of the oldest or dead climate skeptics have actually dared to oppose the Soviet communism! Wow.

The most radical ones even didn't want to allow the Soviet Union to exterminate the evil U.S. capitalists by nukes which would be fair - and the real fringe has even supported the Star Wars that helped the Devil named Reagan to beat the best social system in the world.

This is quite an explosive accusation! ;-) Imagine Naomi Oreskes who is having sex with an inflatable Stalin 16 hours a day as she manages to discover this genuine bombshell that must surely put the final nail in the deniers' coffin. ;-)*Reagan, the denier-in-chief, was caught as speading jokes about the USSR.*

More seriously, I find it kind of amazing what kind of arguments these folks are using these days. The legitimate concern is that those panicked people are fanatical defenders of the extreme forms of the "updated" communism - and what their arguments are actually doing is to provide us with a more robust proof of this observation than anything that could actually be made up.

Fortunately, a vast majority of the readers don't buy these articles and would-be arguments anymore: check the discussion in the Guardian. The AGW movement is returning to the status it deserves - and it surely deserves to be on par with the fringe nationalist or Marxist groups.

In the case of global warming, the reality of global warming is that the temperature on this planet is never constant! It is always either increasing or decreasing! Hence, you can predict a 50% chance at any random time in history that the temperature will be rising, and a 50% chance that it will be falling. It’s always one or the other.

Moreover, the temperature has been almost continuously rising for 18,000 years when the last ice age started to thaw, so for this period the expectancy of warming is higher than 50%. Over the past 18,000 years global warming has caused the sea levels to rise 120 metres, a mean rise of 0.67 cm/year, with even higher rates of rise during part of this time. In the century of 1910-2010, sea levels have risen linearly by a total of 20 cm or a mean rate of rise of 0.2 cm/year.

Hence, the current rate of rise of the oceans (0.2 cm/year) is less than one third the average rate which naturally occurred over the past 18,000 years (0.67 cm/year). This tells you that the current rate of global climate change flooding risks is not record-breaking, and is not unprecedented in history.

Likewise, the political lying and scientific deception about the effects from nuclear weapons during the Cold War to support communist efforts to end the arms race before it bankrupted communism, continues today.

Update (26 Feb 2011):

The Standard Model and Quantum Gravity: Identifying and Correcting Errors**Above:** spin-1 quantum gravity illustration from the old 2009 version of quantumfieldtheory.org (a PDF linked here, containing useful Feynman quotations about this). To hear to a very brief Feynman tongue-in-cheek talk on spin-1 graviton mechanism problems, please click here.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tcOHcAVpd8M&w=480&h=390]**Above:** the dilemma of "looking clever" or being humble and honestly searching for the facts, no matter how "heretical" or unexpected they turn out to be. This review of *Surely You're Joking My Feynman* is a lot better than the autobiography itself which rambles on a lot and needs severe editing for busy readers, like all of Feynman's books. Feynman does relate several incidents that led him to the conclusion that a major error in fashionable consensus is groupthink. Working on the bomb at Los Alamos, he found he could break into any secret safe very easily. People left the last digit of their combination on the lock dial, and he could extrapolate the other digits using logic about the simple mind of the physicist or mathematician. E.g., a 3 digit combination safe showing 7 implies the combination 137, 4 implies the combination 314, 1 implies 271, and so on. When a very complex safe of a military top brass was opened very quickly by the locksmith at Los Alamos, Feynman spent weeks getting to know the guy to find out the "secret". It turned out that there was no magic involved: the combination that opened the safe was simply the safe manufacturer's one, which the top brass hadn't got around to changing! Feynman was then told by a painter that he made yellow by mixing white and red paint, which sounded like "magic". After a mishap (pink), he went back to the painter, who informed him he added yellow to the mixture to give it the right tint. Another time, he was falsely accused of being a magician by fixing radios by switching over valves/vacuum tubes (they used the same kind of vacuum tube in different circuits, so an old output amplifier tube which was failing under high current could be switched for a similar valve used for lower currents in a pre-amplifier circuit, curing the problem). In a later book, *What Do You Care What Other People Think* Feynman's time on the Presidential investigation into NASA's January 1986 Challenger explosion is explained. Upon close inspection, Challenger was blown up by engineers not in a mistake involving some weird mathematical error of the fashionable magical "rocket science" that is supposedly beyond mortal understanding, but just regular groupthink delusion: the low-level engineers and technicians in charge of O-rings *knew that rubber turns brittle at low temperatures in cold weather, and that brittle rubber O-rings sealing the Challenger booster rockets would leak fuel as the rocket vibrated, and they knew that gravity and air drag would cause the leaking fuel to run towards the rocket flames, blowing it up.*

However, those technicians who knew the facts had Orwellian doublethink and crimestop: *if they made a big scene in order to insist that the Challenger space shuttle launch be postponed until warmer weather when the rubber O-ring seals in the boosters would be flexible and work properly, they would infuriate their NASA bosses at launch control and all the powerful senators who had turned up to watch the Challenger take off, so the NASA bigwigs might give contracts to other contractors in future*. They would be considered unAmerican fear-mongers, decrepid incompetent fools with big egos. It was exactly the same for the radar operators and their bosses at Pearl Harbor. There are no medals given out for preventing disasters that aren't obvious threats splashed over the front pages of the *Washington Post*. It was not 100% certain the shuttle would explode anyway. So they crossed their fingers, said little, and nervously watched Challenger blow up on TV. Feynman was told the truth not by fellow committee investigator Neil Armstrong, or by any NASA contractor (they were just as good at covering up afterwards as keeping quiet beforehand), but by the military missile expert who investigated the 1980 Arkansas Titan military missile explosion. Feynman used a piece of rubber and a plastic cup of iced water to expose the cause at a TV news conference, but the media didn't want to know about the corruption of science and peer-reviewed risk prediction rubbish in NASA's computers and groupthink lies. His written report was nearly censored out, despite the committee chairman being a former student! It was included as a minority report, Appendix F, which concluded that NASA safety analyses were a confidence trick for public relations:

"... reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled."

Nobel Laureate Professor Brian Josephson emailed me (exchanged email PDFs are located here and here) that he used

*2nd quantization*in his Nobel Prize QM calculations, but is still stuck in

*1st quantization*groupthink when it comes to "wavefunction collapse" in the EPR paradox! Er, Brian, nobody has ever seen an epicycle or a wavefunction! Nobody has ever measured an epicycle or wavefunction! Schrodinger guessed H*Psi = -i*h-bar*d{Psi}/dt. This is a complex transmogrification from Maxwell's displacement current law, {energy transfer rate} = constant*dE/dt (for energy transfer via "electric current" flowing by the vacuum through an electric field E effect, akin to half-a-cycle of a radio wave). Note that H*Psi = -i*h-bar*d{Psi}/dt is a relativistic equation (it is only non-relativistic when his non-relativistic Hamiltonian H for energy is included; Dirac's equation is no different Schroedinger's except in replacing H with a relativistic spinor where particle spin is included, hence making the law relativistic). Dirac later showed that H*Psi = -i*h-bar*d{Psi}/dt is "analogous to" its solution, Psi

_{t}/Psi

_{0}= exp(-iHt/h-bar), which Feynman modified with -Ht = S with action S defined in units of h-bar, so the "wavefunction" (epicycle) varies in direct proportion to exp(iS). This creates the complex circle (rotation of a unit length vector on a Argand diagram, as a cyclic function of S). Feynman in his 1985 book QED reduced this exp(iS) using Euler's "jewel" to simply cos S, where the lagrangian for S is expressed so that the direction of the vector is fixed as the relativistic axis (the relativistic axis is the simple direction of the arrow for the path of zero action S = 0, because the "relativistic action" is actually defined as

*that action which is invariant to a change of coordinates!*). So we now have the "reinvented wheel" called a Euclidean circle, whose resultant in the on-shell or relativistic axis is simply the scalar amount cos S, for each path. This gets rid of complex Hilbert space and with it, Haag's theorem as an objection to the mathematical self-consistency of renormalized QFT.

*All*photons have 4 polarizations (like virtual or off-shell photons), not just 2 polarizations (as presumed from direct measurements). The extra 2 polarizations determine the cancellations and additions of phases: there is no "wavefunction collapse upon measurement". The photon goes through both slit in Young's experiment and interferes with itself, with no need for an observer. As Feynman writes in QED (1985) we don't "

*need*" the 1st quantization "uncertainty principle" if we sum the paths.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMFPe-DwULM&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&version=3]

**Above:**here we have Feynman pushed to explain why similar poles of magnets repel, using it as an excuse to talk about why ice is slippery and why good husbands call an ambulance for their wives who slip on the ice and break their hip, unless they are drunk and violent. He does end up saying that he can't explain why magnets repel in terms of anything else with which the non-mathematician is familiar. However, in his 1985 book QED he explains that virtual photons are exchanged between magnets, and this process creates the magnetic force field. The problem for Feynman was knowing what the virtual photon wavefunction means physically. In the 1985 book, he draws pictures of a rotating arrow accompanying each virtual photon, that rotates in step with the frequency of oscillation of the photon, i.e. each oscillation of the virtual photon is accompanied by a full rotation of the phase factor (which is the "hidden variable" behind the so-called "wavefunction", itself just an epicycle from 1st quantization, with no direct physical reality behind it, despite obfuscation efforts from the "nobody understands quantum mechanics"-Gestapo and the "parallel worlds" fantasy of Hugh Everett III and, with varying laws of nature, the 10

^{500}parallel universes of the superstring theory Gestapo/arXiv "peer"-reviewers).

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lytxafTXg6c&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&version=3]

**Above:**like Dr Zaius said to Charlton Heston in 1968, don't search for the facts if you have a weak stomach. It might turn out that a "unified theory" is analogous to merely a bunch of bananas, so many groupthink "bury my head in the sand" simplicity-deniers will feel sub-ape because they can't, don't, and won't be assed to put two sticks together to reach the facts. A pretty good example, discussed in detail in one way later in this post and in other ways two posts back, is Einstein's relativity, which has multiple levels of explanation. The strongest formulation of relativity is the statement that our laws of motion must give the same predictions regardless of the chosen reference frame, i.e. we get the same prediction of the reference frame is that of the earth or that of the sun. This makes the laws "invariant" of the selected reference frame. Then there are progressive weaker formulations of relativity, used in "simplified" explanations for the layman, such as "there is no spacetime fabric, there is nothing in space which can produce forces", or "relativity doesn't say an absolute reference frame is unnecessary for doing our sums, relativity actually

*disproves the existence of any absolute reference frame!*"

These "simplified" relativism "explanations" are a continuation of the best traditions of Egyptian priesthood and the Pythagorean mathematical cult. The objective of science is to act as a magician, to make the masses of the people believe whatever you say, "trust me with political power, I'm a scientist!" Then you trust them and you get mishaps, because they turn out to be humans, or more often than not, subhumans, even subape! Hence the mishaps of caloric, phlogiston, Maxwell's mechanical gear cog aether, Kelvin's stable vortex atom, Piltdown Man, peer-review, unprecedented climate change, nuclear winter theory, lethal cobalt bomb theory, superstring, etc. Groupthink science is not the kind of thing Newton and Darwin were doing, or Feynman was doing before and during the 1948 Pocono conference. Groupthink science education doesn't train people to put up with the taunts for doing unorthodox revolutionary work, so it progresses only slowly and haltingly, the "alternative ideas" are developed slowly, with the mainstream ignoring it.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Un7u2AZnjw&w=480&h=390]

**Above:**Dr Zaius is alive and well, ensuring that consensus censors facts, as shown in this BBC propaganda programme,

*Horizon: Science Under Attack*where groupthink pseudophysics is labelled "science" and the facts are dismissed because they have been censored out by "peer"-review pseudoscientific bigotry. Telegraph online Journalist James Delingpole, who exposed to the world the "hide the decline" climategate email of Dr Phil Jones is dismissed by Dr Zaius on the pretext that people must define science as the consensus of "peer"-reviewed literature. Great. So we can go on pretending that there is nothing to worry about, and using "peer"-review to prevent human progress. Ah, if only it were that easy to sweep the facts under the carpet or wallpaper over them. A PDF version of the errors in the BBC

*Horizon: Science Under Attack*episode is located here, with additional relevant data (20 pages, 2 MB download). To read the 1960s background about Dr Zaius, see the wikipedia page linked here: "Zaius serves a dual role in Ape society, as Minister of Science in charge of advancing ape knowledge, and also as Chief Defender of the Faith. In the latter role, he has access to ancient scrolls and other information not given to the ape masses. [Dr Phil Jones and the FOIA/Freedom of Information Act "harrassment" controversy.] Zaius ... blames human nature for it all. Zaius seems to prefer an imperfect, ignorant ape culture that keeps humans in check, to the open, scientific, human-curious one ... The idea of an intelligent human ... threatening the balance of things frightens him deeply."

"The common enemy of humanity is man. In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself." - Club of Rome,

*The First Global Revolution*(1993). (That report is available here, a site that also contains a very similar but less fashionable pseudoscientific groupthink delusion on eugenics.)

The error in the Club of Rome's groupthink approach is

*the lie that the common enemy is humanity. This lie is the dictatorial approach taken by paranoid fascists, both on the right wing and the left wing, such as Stalin and Hitler.*(Remember that the birthplace of fascism was not Hitler's Germany, but Rome in October 1914, when the left-wing, ex-communist Mussolini joined the new

*Revolutionary Fascio for International Action*after World War I broke out.) The common enemy of humanity is not humanity but is fanaticism, defined here by the immoral code: “the ends justify the means”. It is this fanaticism that is used to defend exaggerations and lies for political ends. Exaggeration and lying about weapons effects in the hope it will be justified by ending war is also fanaticism. Weapons effects exaggerations both motivated aggression in 1914, and prevented early action against Nazi aggression in the mid-1930s.

From: Phil Jones

To: "Michael E. Mann"

Subject: HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL

Date: Thu Jul 8 16:30:16 2004

... I didn't say any of this, so be careful how you use it - if at all. Keep quiet also that you have the pdf. ... I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is! ...

- Dr Phil Jones to Dr Michael Mann, Climategate emails, July 8th 2004

.

For NASA’s “peer-review” suppression of its own climate research contractor, please see:

http://nige.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/dr-miskolczi-nasa-resignation-letter-2005.pdf

“Since the Earth’s atmosphere is not lacking in greenhouse gases, if the system could have increased its surface temperature it would have done so long before our emissions. It need not have waited for us to add CO2: another greenhouse gas, H2O, was already to hand in practically unlimited reservoirs in the oceans. … The Earth’s atmosphere maintains a constant effective greenhouse-gas content [although the percentage contributions to it from different greenhouse gases can vary greatly] and a constant, maximized, “saturated” greenhouse effect that cannot be increased further by CO2 emissions (or by any other emissions, for that matter). ... During the 61-year period, in correspondence with the rise in CO2 concentration, the global average absolute humidity diminished about 1 per cent. This decrease in absolute humidity has exactly countered all of the warming effect that our CO2 emissions have had since 1948. ... a hypothetical doubling of the carbon dioxide concentration in the air would cause a 3% decrease in the absolute humidity, keeping the total effective atmospheric greenhouse gas content constant, so that the greenhouse effect would merely continue to fluctuate around its equilibrium value. Therefore, a doubling of CO2 concentration would cause no net “global warming” at all.”

- http://nige.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/saturated-greenhouse-effect-fact.pdf page 4.

CO2 only drives climate change in NASA and IPCC computer climate fantasies when positive-feedback from H2O water vapour is assumed. In the real world, there is negative feedback from H2O which cancels out the small effect of CO2 rises: the hot moist air rises to form clouds, so less sunlight gets through to surface air. Homeostasis! All changes in the CO2 levels are irrelevant to temperature variations. CO2 doesn’t drive temperature, it is balanced by cloud cover variations. Temperature rises in the geological record have increasing the rate of growth of tropical rainforests relative to animals, causing a fall in atmospheric CO2, while temperature falls kill off rainforests faster than animals (since rainforests can’t migrate like animals), thus causing a rise in atmospheric CO2. These mechanisms for CO2 variations are being ignored. Cloud cover variations prevent useful satellite data on global mean temperature, the effects of cloud cover on tree growth obfuscate the effects of temperature, and the effects of upwind city heat output obfuscate CO2 temperature data on weather stations. Thus we have to look to sea level rise rates to determine global warming.

We’re been in global warming for 18,000 years, during which time the sea level has risen 120 metres (0.67 cm/year mean, often faster than this mean rate). Over the past century, sea level has risen at an average rate of 0.20 cm year, and even the maximum rate of nearly 0.4 cm/year recently is less than the rates humanity has adapted to and flourished with in the past. CO2 annual output limits and wind farms etc are no use in determining the ultimate amount of CO2 in the atmosphere anyway: if you supplement fossil fuels with wind farms, the same CO2 simply takes longer to be emitted, maybe 120 years instead of 100 years. The money spent on lying “green” eco-fascism carbon credit trading bonuses can be spent on humanity instead.

For background info on how H2O cloud cover feedback cancelling CO2 variations on temperature has been faked in IPCC NASA "peer"-review bigotry, see http://www.examiner.com/civil-rights-in-portland/blacklisted-scientist-challenges-global-warming-orthodoxy and http://nige.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/the-saturated-greenhouse-effect-theory-of-ferenc-miskolczi.pdf:

(1) increased cloud cover doesn't warm the earth. True, cloud cover prevents rapid cooling at night. But it also reduces the sunlight energy received in the day, which is the source of the heat emitted during the night. Increase cloud cover, and the overall effect is a cooling of air at low altitudes.

(2) rainfall doesn't carry latent heat down to be released at sea level. The latent heat of evaporation is released in rain as soon as the droplets condense from vapour, at high altitudes in clouds. Air drag rapidly cools the drops as they fall, so the heat is left at high altitudes in clouds, and the only energy you get when the raindrops land is the kinetic energy (from their trivial gravitational potential energy).

Obfuscation of the fact that hot moist air rises and condenses to form clouds from oceans that cover 70% of the earth (UNLIKE any "greenhouse!!!!) caused this whole mess. IPCC models falsely assume that H2O vapour doesn't rise and condense into clouds high above the ground: they assume hot air doesn't rise! That's why they get the vital (FALSE) conclusion that H2O vapour doubles (amplifies) projected temperature rises from CO2, instead of cancelling them out! Their models are plain wrong.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOhGrO7zi4Y&w=480&h=390]

**Above:**electric current is essentially displacement current under disguise. Juice in Joules coming out of wires isn't due to the 1 mm/second drift of conduction band electrons, so much as Heaviside energy current. Moreover, charge up a capacitor which has a vacuum for its "dielectric", and energy flows in at light velocity, has no mechanism to slow down, and when discharged flows out at light velocity in a pulse twice as long as its length and with just half the voltage (PD) of its static charged state. It turns out that the simplest way to understand electricity is as electromagnetic energy, so we're studying the off-shell field quanta of QED, which causes slow electric drift current more like a side-show than the main-show. So by looking at IC's published cross-talk experiments, we can learn about how the phase cancellations work. E.g., Maxwell's wave theory of light can be improved upon by reformulating it in terms of path integrals.

**Above:**Dr Robert D. Klauber in 2010 accidentally misrepresented Feynman 1985 book

*QED*in terms of Feynman's earlier (complex) phase factor! The actual idea of Feynman in his 1985 book dispenses with the Argand diagram and converts exp (iS) into cos S (where S is in units of h-bar of course), as shown above. Notice that the path integral of cos S gives the

*resolved component of the resultant (final arrow)*which lies in the

*x*-direction only. To find the total magnitude (length) of the final arrow we simply have to choose the

*x*-axis to be the direction of the resultant arrow, which is easy:

*the direction of the resultant is always that of the classical action, because the contributions to the resultant are maximized by the coherent summation of paths with the least amounts of action (the classical laws correspond to least action!).*In other words, we don't need to find the direction of the quantum field theory resultant arrow in the path integral, we only need to find its length (scalar magnitude). We easily know the arrow's direction from the principle of least action, so the work of doing the path integral is then just concerned with finding the length, not the direction, of the resultant arrow. In practice, this is done automatically by relativistic formulation of the Lagrangian for action S. The definition of the path of least action as the real or "on shell" relativistic path

*automatically sets up the path integral coordinate system correctly.*

"... every particle is associated with waves and these waves may be considered as a field. ... very close to the charges that are producing the fields, one may have to modify Maxwell's field theory so as to make it a non-linear electrodynamics. ... with field theory, we have an infinite number of degrees of freedom, and this infinity may lead to trouble [Haag's theorem implies that the renormalization process for taking account of field polarization is ambiguous and flawed if done in the complex, infinite dimensional "Hilbert space"]. We have to solve equations in which the unknown ... involves an infinite number of variables [i.e., an infinite number of Feynman diagrams for a series of ever more complicated quantum interactions, which affect the classical result by an ever increasing amount

*if the field quanta are massive and significantly charged*, compared to the charges of the on-shell particles whose fields they constitute]. The usual method ... is to use perturbative methods in which ... one tries to get a solution step by step [by adding only the first few terms of the increasingly complicated infinite number of terms in the perturbative expansion series to the path integral]. But one usually runs into the difficulty that after a certain stage the equations lead to divergent integrals [thus necessitating an arbitrary "cutoff" energy to prevent infinite field quanta momenta occurring, as you approach zero distance between colliding fundamental particles]."

- Paul A. M. Dirac,

*Lectures on Quantum Mechanics,*Dover, New York, 2001, pages 1, 2, and 84.

**Above:**Feynman's 1985 book

*QED*is actually an advanced and sophisticated treatment of path integrals without mathematics (replacing complex space with real plane rotation of a polarization plane during motion along every possible path for virtual photons, as shown for reflection and refraction of light in the "sum over histories" given graphically above), unlike his 1965 co-authored

*Quantum Mechanics and Path Integrals*. The latter however makes the point in Fig. 7-1 on page 177 (of the 2010 Dover reprint) that real particles only follow differentiable (smooth) "classical" paths when seen on macroscopic scales (where the action is much larger than h-bar): "Typical paths of a quantum-mechanical particle are highly irregular on a fine scale ... Thus, although a mean velocity can be defined, no mean-square velocity exists at any point. In other words, the paths are nondifferentiable." The fact that real paths are actually irregular and not classical when looked at closely is what leads Feynman away from the belief in differential geometry, the belief for instance that space is curved (which is what Einstein argued in his general relativity tensor analysis of classical motion). The idea that real (on shell) particle paths are irregular on very small scales was suggested by Schroedinger in 1930, when arguing (from an analysis of Dirac's spinor) that the half integer spin of a fermion moving or stationary in free space can be modelled by a "zig-zag" path which he called "zitterbewegung", which is a light-velocity oscillation with a frequency of 2mc

^{2}/h-bar or about 10

^{21}Hz for an electron. Zitterbewegung suggests that an electron is not a static particle but is trapped light-velocity electromagnetic energy, oscillating very rapidly.

My recent comment to Dr Woit's blog:

"One of my criticisms of the two organizations would be that they don’t support research of the sort that Witten has had success with, at the intersection of mathematics and quantum field theory."

Do you think it possible that the future of quantum field theory could lie in a completely different direction, namely Feynman's idea of greater mathematical simplicity. E.g. the path integral sums many virtual particle path phase amplitudes, each of the form of Dirac's exp (-iHt) -> exp(iS). The sum over these histories is the path integral: the real resultant path is that for small actions S. Feynman in his 1985 bookQEDshows graphically how the summation works: you don't really need complex Hilbert space from the infinite number of Argand diagrams.

To plot his non-mathematical (visual) path integral for light reflecting off a mirror, Feynman shows that you can simply have a phase polarization rotate (in real not complex space) in accordance to the frequency of the light, e.g. what he does is to take Euler's exp(iS) = (i*sin S) + cos S and drop the complex term, so the phase factor exp(iS) is replaced with cos S, which is exactly the same periodic circular oscillation function as exp(iS), but with the imaginary axis replaced by a second real axis. E.g., a spinning plane of polarization for a photon! This gets rid of the objection of Haag's theorem, since you get rid of Hilbert space when you dump the imaginary axis for every history!

Feynman makes the point in his Lectures on Physics that the origin of exp(iS) is the Schroedinger/Dirac equation for energy transfer via a rate of change of a wavefunction (Dirac's of course has a relativistic spinor Hamiltonian), which just "came out of the mind of Schroedinger". It's just an approximation, a guess. Dirac solved it to get exp(-iHt) which Feynman reformulated to exp(iS). The correct phase amplitude is indeed cos S (S measured in units of h-bar, of course). Small actions always have phase amplitudes of ~1, while large actions have phase amplitudes that vary periodically in between +1 and -1, and so on average cancel out.

Are graphs mathematics? Are Feynman diagrams mathematics? Is mathematical eliticism (in the mindlessly complexity-loving sense) obfuscating a simple truth about reality?

Feynman points out in his 1985 book

*QED*that Heisenberg's and Schroedinger's intrinsic indeterminancy is just the old QM theory of 1st quantization

*which is wrong because it assumes a classical coulomb field*, with randomness attributed to intrinsic (direct) application of the uncertainty principle which is non-relativistic (Schroedinger's 1st quantization Hamiltonian treats space and time differently) and is unnecessary since Dirac's 2nd quantization shows that

*the field is quantized not the classical coulomb field*. Dirac's theory is justified by predicting magnetic moments and antimatter, unlike 1st quantization. The annihilation and creation operators of the quantized field only arise in 2nd quantization, not in Schroedinger's 1st quantization where indeterminancy has no physical explanation in chaotic field quanta interactions:

‘I would like to put the uncertainty principle in its historical place: When the revolutionary ideas of quantum physics were first coming out, people still tried to understand them in terms of old-fashioned ideas … But at a certain point the old-fashioned ideas would begin to fail, so a warning was developed that said, in effect, “Your old-fashioned ideas are no damn good when …” If you get rid ofallthe old-fashioned ideas and instead use the ideas that I’m explaining in these lectures – adding arrows [path amplitudes] for all the ways an event can happen – there is noneedfor an uncertainty principle!’

- Richard P. Feynman,

*QED,*Penguin Books, London, 1990, pp. 55-56.

“… Bohr [at Pocono, 1948] … said: ‘… one could not talk about the trajectory of an electron in the atom, because it was something not observable.’ … Bohr thought that I didn’t know the uncertainty principle … it didn’t make me angry, it just made me realize that … [ they ] … didn’t know what I was talking about, and it was hopeless to try to explain it further. I gave up, I simply gave up …”

- Richard P. Feynman, quoted in Jagdish Mehra’s biography of Feynman,

*The Beat of a Different Drum,*Oxford University Press, 1994, pp. 245-248.

Bohr and other 1st quantization people never learned that uncertainty is caused by field quanta acting on fundamental particles like Brownian motion of air molecules acting on pollen grains. Feynman was censored out at Pocono in 1948 and only felt free to explain the facts after winning the Nobel Prize. In the Preface to his co-authored 1965 book

*Quantum Mechanics and Path Integrals*he describes his desire to relate quantum to classical physics via the least action principle, making classical physics appear for actions greater than h-bar. But he couldn't make any progress until a visiting European physicist mentioned Dirac's solution to Schroedinger's equation, namely that the wavefunction's change over time t is directly proportional to, and therefore (in Dirac's words) "analogous to" the complex exponent, exp(-iHt). Feynman immediately assumed that the wavefunction change factor indeed is equal to exp(-iHt), and then showed that -Ht -> S, the action for the path integral (expressed in units of h-bar).

Hence, Feynman sums path phase factors exp(iS), which is just a cyclic function of S on an Argand diagram. In his 1985 book QED, Feynman goes further still and uses what he called in his

*Lectures on Physics*(vol. 1, p. 22–10) the "jewel" and "astounding" (p. 22-1) formula of mathematics, Euler's equation exp(iS) = i (sin S) + cos S to transfer from the complex to the real plane by dropping the complex term, so the simple factor cos S replaces exp (iS) on his graphical version of the path integral. He explains in the text that the cos S factor works because it's always near +1 for actions small compared to h-bar, allowing those paths near (but not just at) least action to contribute coherently to the path integral, but varies cyclically between +1 and -1 as a function of the action for actions large compared to h-bar, so those paths in average will cancel out each other's contribution to the path integral. The advantage of replacing exp (iS) with cos S is that it gets rid of the complex plane that makes renormalization mathematically inconsistent due to the ambiguity of having complex infinite dimensional Hilbert space, so Haag's theorem no longer makes renormalization a difficulty in QFT.

The bottom line is that Feynman shows that QFT is simple, not amazingly complex mathematics: Schroedinger's equation "came out of the mind of Schroedinger" (Lectures on Physics). It's just an approximation. Even Dirac's equation is incorrect in assuming that the wavefunction varies smoothly with time, which is a classical approximation: quantum fields ensure that a wavefunction changes in a discontinuous (discrete) manner, merely when each quantum interaction occurs:

‘It always bothers me that, according to the laws as we understand them today, it takes a computing machine an infinite number of logical operations to figure out what goes on in no matter how tiny a region of space, and no matter how tiny a region of time. How can all that be going on in that tiny space? Why should it take an infinite amount of logic to figure out what one tiny piece of spacetime is going to do? So I have often made the hypothesis that ultimately physics will not require a mathematical statement, that in the end the machinery will be revealed, and the laws will turn out to be simple, like the chequer board with all its apparent complexities.’

- R. P. Feynman,

*The Character of Physical Law,*November 1964 Cornell Lectures, broadcast and published in 1965 by BBC, pp. 57-8.

"When we look at photons on a large scale – much larger than the distance required for one stopwatch turn [i.e., wavelength] – the phenomena that we see are very well approximated by rules such as “light travels in straight lines [without overlapping two nearby slits in a screen]“, because there are enough paths around the path of minimum time to reinforce each other, and enough other paths to cancel each other out. But when the space through which a photon moves becomes too small (such as the tiny holes in the [double slit] screen), these rules fail – we discover that light doesn’t have to go in straight [narrow] lines, there are interferences created by the two holes, and so on. The same situation exists with electrons: when seen on a large scale, they travel like particles, on definite paths. But on a small scale, such as inside an atom, the space is so small that [individual random field quanta exchanges become important because there isn't enough space involved for them to average out completely, so] there is no main path, no “orbit”; there are all sorts of ways the electron could go, each with an amplitude. The phenomenon of interference becomes very important, and we have to sum the arrows [in the path integral for individual field quanta interactions, instead of using the average which is the classical Coulomb field] to predict where an electron is likely to be."

- Richard P. Feynman,

*QED,*Penguin Books, London, 1990, Chapter 3, pp. 84-5.

"You might wonder how such simple actions could produce such a complex world. It’s because phenomena we see in the world are the result of an enormous intertwining of tremendous numbers of photon exchanges and interferences."

- Richard P. Feynman,

*QED,*Penguin Books, London, 1990, p. 114.

"Underneath so many of the phenomena we see every day are only three basic actions: one is described by the simple coupling number,j;the other two by functions P(A to B) and E(A to B) – both of which are closely related. That’s all there is to it, and from it all the rest of the laws of physics come."

- Richard P. Feynman,

*QED*, Penguin Books, London, 1990, p. 120.

**Above:**the path integral interference for light relies on the cancelling of photon phase amplitudes with large actions, but for the different case of the fundamental forces (gravitation, electromagnetism, weak and strong), the path integral for the virtual or "gauge" bosons involves a geometrical cancellation. E.g., an asymmetry in the isotropic exchange can cause a force! The usual objections against virtual particle path integrals of this sort are the kind of mindless arguments that equally would apply to

*any quantum field theory*, not specifically this predictive one. E.g., physicists are unaware that the event horizon size for a black hole electron is smaller than the Planck length, and thus (in Planck's argument), a radius of 2

*GM/c*

^{2}is more physically meaningful as the basis for the grain-size cross-section for fundamental particles than Planck's

*ad hoc*formulation of his "Planck length" from dimensional analysis. Quantum fields like the experimentally-verified Casimir radiation which pushes metal plates together

*don't cause drag or heating*, they just deliver forces.

*"Critics" are thus pseudo-physicists!*

My great American friend Dr Mario Rabinowitz brilliantly points out the falsehood of Einstein's general relativity "equivalence principle of inertial and gravitational mass" as the basis for mainstream quantum gravity nonsense in his paper

*Deterrents to a Theory of Quantum Gravity*, pages 1 and 7 (18 August 2006), http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0608193. General relativity is based on the false equivalence principle of inertial and gravitational mass, whereby Einstein falsely assumed that Galileo's law for falling bodies is accurate, whereas of course it is a falsehood, because the mass in any falling body is not accelerated purely by Earth's mass, but is also "pulling" the Earth upwards (albeit by a small amount in the case of an apple or human, where one of the two masses is relatively small compared to the mass of the Earth). But for equal masses of fundamental particles (e.g. for the simplest gravitational interaction of two similar masses) this violation of Galileo due to mutual attraction violates Einstein's equivalence principle as explained below by Dr Rabinowitz. Einstein forgot about the error in Galileo's principle when formulating general relativity on the basis of the equivalence principle (note that genuine errors are not a crime, unlike arrogantly continuing to use personal worship by the charlatan media as a sword to "defend" the errors of GR BS against genuine competent critics for another 40 years, which

*was*Einstein's real crime against progress in science, which

*continues to this day under the guise of protecting a Jew no matter how factually wrong his physics is*):

"As shown previously, quantum mechanics directly violates the weak equivalence principle in general and in all dimensions, and thus violates the strong equivalence principle in all dimensions. ...

"Most bodies fall at the same rate on earth, relative to the earth, because the earth's mass M is extremely large compared with the mass m of most falling bodies for the reduced mass ... for M [much bigger than] m. The body and the earth each fall towards their common center of mass, which for most cases is approximately the same as relative to the earth. ... When [heavy relative to earth's mass] extraterrestrial bodies fall on [to] earth, heavier bodies fall faster relative to the earth [because they "attract" the earth towards them, in addition to the earth "attracting" them; i.e., theymutually shield one another from the surrounding inward-converging gravity field of distant immense masses in the universe] making Aristotle correct and Galileo incorrect. The relative velocity between the two bodies is v_{rel}= [2G(m + M)(r_{2}^{-1}- r_{1}^{-1})]^{1/2}, where r_{1}is their initial separation, and r_{2}is their separation when they are closer.

"Even though Galileo's argument (Rabinowitz, 1990) was spurious and his assertion fallacious in principle - that all bodies will fall at the same rate with respect to the earth in a medium devoid of resistance - it helped make a significant advance [just like Copernicus's solar system with incorrect circular orbits and epicycles prior to Kepler's correct elliptical orbits, or Lamarke's incorrect early theory of "acquired characteristic" evolution pathing the way for Darwin's later genetic theory of evolution] in understanding the motion of bodies.Although his assertion is an excellent approximation ... it is not true in general. Galileo's alluring assertion that free fall depends solely and purely on the milieu and is entirely independent of the properties of the falling body, led Einstein to the geometric concept of gravity. [Emphasis added to key, widely censored, facts against GR.]"

“Einstein and his successors have regarded the effects of a gravitational field as producing a change in the geometry of space and time. At one time it was even hoped that the rest of physics could be brought into a geometric formulation, but this hope has met with disappointment, and the geometric interpretation of the theory of gravitation has dwindled to a mere analogy, which lingers in our language in terms like “metric,” “affine connection,” and “curvature,” but is not otherwise very useful. The important thing is to be able to make predictions about images on the astronomers’ photographic plates, frequencies of spectral lines, and so on, and it simply doesn’t matter whether we ascribe these predictions to the physical effect of gravitational fields on the motion of planets and photons or to a curvature of space and time.”

- Professor Steven Weinberg,

*Gravitation and Cosmology,*Wiley, New York, 1972, p. 147.

**Above:**"Could someone please explain how or why, if, as SR tells us,

*c*is the ceiling velocity throughout the Universe, and thus gravity presumably cannot propagate at a speed faster than the ceiling velocity, the Earth is not twice as far away from the Sun every thousand years or so which is the obvious consequence of gravity propagating at such a low speed as

*c*and not, as everyone since Newton had always supposed, near-instantaneously?" - James Bogle (by email). Actually this supposed problem is down to just ignoring the facts:

*gravity isn't caused by gravitons between Earth and Sun; it's caused instead by exchange of gravitons between us and the surrounding immense distant masses isotropically distributed around us, with particles in the Sun acting as a slight shield.*

If you have loudspeakers on your PC and use an operating system that supports sound files in websites, turn up the volume and visit www.quantumfieldtheory.org. The gravitons are spin-1 not spin-2, hence they are not going between the sun and earth but the sun is an asymmetry: the speed that "shadows" move is not light speed but

*infinite*. This is because

*shadows don't exist physically as light velocity moving radiation!*The sun causes a pre-existing shadowing of gravitons ahead of any position that the earth moves into, so the speed of the gravitons had nothing to do with the speed that the earth responds to the sun's gravity. The sun sets up an anisotrophy in the graviton field of space in all directions around it in advance of the motion of earth. The mainstream “gravity must go at light speed” delusions are based purely on the ignorant false assumption that the field only exists between earth and sun. Wrong. The sun's "gravity field" (anisotropy in graviton flux in space from distant immense masses) is pre-existing in the space ahead of the motion of the planet, so the speed of gravitational effects is

*instant*, not delayed.

The exchange of gravitons between masses (gravitational charges) has a repulsive-only effect. The Pauli-Fierz spin-2 graviton is a myth; see the following two diagrams. Spin-1 gravitons we're exchanging with big distant masses result in a bigger repulsion from such massive distant masses (which are very isotropically distributed, around us in all directions) than nearby masses, so the nearby masses have an asymmetric LeSage shadowing effect: we're pushed towards them with the very accurately predicted coupling (diagrams below for quantitative proof)

*G*by the same particles that cause the measured cosmological acceleration

*~Hc*. So we have an accurate quantitative prediction, predicting the numbers accurately via connecting the observed cosmological acceleration with gravitational coupling

*G*, and this connection was made in May 1996 and was published two years before the cosmological acceleration was even discovered! Notice that the acceleration and expansion of the universe is

*not*an effective expansion! I.e., as discussed later in this post, all the fundamental forces have couplings (e.g.

*G*, alpha

_{EM}, etc.) that are directly proportional to the age of the universe. This is implied by the formula derived below, which is the correct quantum gravity proof for Louise Riofrio's empirical equation

*GM = tc*

^{3}, where

*M*is the mass of the universe and

*t*is its age.

Edward Teller in 1948 made the erroneous claim that any variation (which had been predicted in a an error-filled guesswork way by Dirac) of

*G*is impossible because it would vary the fusion rate in the big bang or in a star, but actually a variation of

*G*does not have the effect Teller calculated because (as shown in this and several earlier posts)

*all*fundamental couplings are varying, electromagnetic as well as gravity! Hence, although Teller was incorrect in claiming that a doubling of

*G*increases fusion via proton-proton gravitational compression in a star or the big bang fusion: it can't do that,

*because the force of electromagnetic repulsion between colliding protons is increased by exactly the same factor as the gravitational force is increased!*Therefore, fusion rates are essentially unaffected (uncharged particles like radiation pressure have a relatively small effect). Louise's investigation of a presumed of

*c*with as the reciprical of the cube-root of the age of the universe in her equation is spurious: her

*GM = tc*

^{3}is instead evidence of a direct proportionality of

*G*and age of universe

*t*(the full reasons are explained in earlier posts). Now, galaxies, solar systems, atoms and nuclei are all orbital systems of stars, planets, shells of electrons and shells of nucleons, respectively, with their size controlled by fundamental forces by equations like

*F = m*2

_{1}m_{2}G/r^{}= m

_{1}v

^{}2/r or

*m*

_{1}G/r = v^{2}, so if

*m*and

_{1}*v*are constants while coupling

*G*(or a Standard Model force coupling like alpha

_{EM}) is directly proportional to the age of the universe, it follows

*G*must be directly proportional to radius

*r*, so that the radius of a galaxy, solar system, atom or nucleus is directly proportional to the age of the universe

*t*. If the horizon radius of the flat spacetime universe and the radii of galaxies, solar systems, atoms and nuclei are all directly proportional to

*t*it follows that although distant matter is receding from us, the expansion of all objects prevents any relative change in the overall (scaled) universe:

*rulers, people, planets, etc. expand at the same rate, so receding galaxy clusters will not appear smaller.*You might think that this is wrong, and that increasing

*G*and alpha

_{EM}should pull the Earth's orbit in closer to the sun, and do the same for the electron. However, this more obvious solution or increasing orbital velocities it is not necessarily consistent with the

*very slow*rate of increase of

*G*, so that it's more consistent to think of a scaling up of sizes everything as force strengths increase: a stronger gravitational field can

*stabilize*a galaxy of larger radius but containing the same mass! It is possible that a stronger alpha

_{EM}can

*stabilize*a larger electron ground state radius; whether this is the case depends on whether or not the orbital velocity is altered as the electromagnetic coupling is varied.

However, if course, the Lambda-CDM cosmological model, basically a Friedmann-Walker metric from general relativity which implicitly assumes constant

*G*is totally incorrect viewed from the new quantum gravity theory. Is spacetime really flat? From a naive extrapolating using the false old framework of cosmology, hyped by Sean Carroll and other bigots who refuse to accept these facts of quantum gravity proved over a decade ago, you might expect that the linear increase of

*G*with age of the universe will cause the universe to eventually collapse. However, remember that the cosmological acceleration (a repulsion that supposedly flattens out the spacetime curvature on cosmological distance scales by opposing gravitation) is itself a quantum gravity effect: on the largest scales, mutual repulsion of masses predominates over LeSage shadowing and its pseudo-attraction.

Nevertheless, back in 1996 when we predicted the same cosmological acceleration using two completely different calculations, only one way was from the quantum gravity theory. The

*other*correct prediction of the

*a ~ Hc*cosmological acceleration was simply from the effect of spacetime on the Hubble

*v = HR*observed recession rate law (see proof linked here). That analysis is a complementary duality with the similar prediction of comological acceleration from a different calculation method via quantum gravity, the cosmological acceleration should be viewed as an artifact of the problem that the receding galaxies we see are being seen at times in our past which are related to distances by

*R = ct*. If we represent time since the big bang by

*t*, then the time,

*T*in our past of a supernova apparently distance

*R*away is related to time

*t*by simply

*t + T*= 1/

*H*. So the cosmological acceleration is just a result of the fact that radiation comes back to us at light velocity, not instantly. So if there was not a time delay, we wouldn't see any cosmological acceleration: the acceleration is physically being caused by the effective reference frame in which greater distances correspond to looking backwards in time. The universe horizon radius expands at the velocity of light, a linear expansion. This produces cosmological acceleration forces and thus gravitation due to the increasing time-lag for the exchange all forms of radiation, including gravitons. At the same time, masses and rulers expand by the mechanism already explained, so the relative scale of the universe remains constant while gravitation and cosmological acceleration operate.

**Correction of mainstream errors in Electroweak Symmetry**

Over Christmas, Dr Dorigo kindly permitted some discussion and debate over electroweak symmetry at his blog posting comments section, http://www.science20.com/quantum_diaries_survivor/blog/rumors_about_old_rumor, which helped to clarify some of the sticking points in the mainstream orthodoxy and possibly to highlight the best means of overcoming them in a public arena.

Some arguments against electroweak symmetry follow, mostly from replies to Dr Dorigo and Dr Rivero. The flawed logic of the "Higgs boson" assumption is based on the application of gauge theory for symmetry breaking to the supposed "electroweak symmetry" (never observed in nature). Only broken "electroweak symmetry", i.e. an

*absence*of symmetry and thus separate electromagnetic and weak interactions, have actually been observed in nature. So the Higgs boson required to break the "electroweak symmetry" is an unobserved epicycle required to explain an

*unobserved*symmetry! What's interesting is the nature of the groupthink "electroweak symmetry". Above the "electroweak unification" energy, there is supposed to be equality of electromagnetic and weak forces into a single electroweak force. Supposedly, this is where the massive weak bosons lose their mass and this gain light velocity, long range, and thus stronger coupling, equal in strength to the electromagnetic field.

This unification guess has driven other possibilities out of sight. There are two arguments for it. First, the breaking of Heisenberg's neutron-proton SU(2) chiral "isospin symmetry" leads to pions as Nambu-Goldstone bosons; so by analogy you can argue for Higgs bosons from breaking electroweak symmetry. This is unconvincing because, as stated, there is no electroweak symmetry known in nature; it's just a guess. (It's fine to have a guess. It's not fine to have a guess, and use the guess as "evidence" for "justifying" another guess! That's just propaganda or falsehood.) Secondly, the supposed "electroweak theory" of Weinberg and others. Actually, that they is better called a hypercharge-weak theory, since U(1) in the standard model is hypercharge, which isn't directly observable. The electromagnetic theory is produced by an adjustable epicycle (the Weinberg angle) that is forced to make the hypercharge and weak theories produce the electromagnetic field by ad hoc mixing. The prediction of the weak boson masses from the Weinberg angle isn't proof of the existence of an electroweak symmetry, because the weak bosons only have mass when the "symmetry" is

*broken*. All evidence to date suggests that electroweak symmetry (like aliens flying around in UFOs) is just a fiction, the Higgs is a fiction, and mass is not generated through symmetry breaking. Yet so much hype based on self-deception continues.

The funny thing about the Glashow-Weinberg-Salam model is that it was formulated in 1967-8, but was not well received until its renormalizability had been demonstrated years later by ‘t Hooft. The electroweak theory they formulated was perfectly renormalizable prior to the addition of the Higgs field, i.e. it was renormalizable with massless SU(2) gauge bosons (which we use for electromagnetism), because the lagrangian had a local gauge invariance. ‘t Hooft’s trivial proof that it was also renormalizable after “symmetry breaking” (the acquisition of mass by all of the SU(2) gauge bosons, a property again not justified by experiment because the weak force is left-handed so it would be natural for only half of the SU(2) gauge bosons to acquire mass to explain this handedness) merely showed that the W-boson propagator expressions in the Feynman path integral are independent of mass when the momentum flowing through the propagator is very large. I.e., ‘t Hooft just showed that for large momentum flows, mass makes no difference and the proof of renormalization for massless electroweak bosons is also applicable to the case of massive electroweak bosons.

‘t Hooft plays down the trivial

*physical*nature of his admittedly

*mathematically impressive*proof since his personal website makes the misleading claim: “…I found in 1970 how to renormalize the theory, and, more importantly, we identified the theories for which this works, and what conditions they must fulfil. One must, for instance, have a so-called Higgs-particle. These theories are now called gauge theories.”

That claim that he has a proof that the Higgs particle

*must*exist is totally without justification. He merely showed that

*if*the Higgs field provides mass, the electroweak theory is still renormalizable (just as it is with massless bosons). He did not disprove all hope of alternatives to the Higgs field, so he should not claim that! He just believes in electroweak theory and won a Nobel Prize for it, and is proud. Similarly, the string theorists perhaps are just excited and proud of the theory they work on, and they believe in it. But the result is misleading hype!

I'm not denying that the interaction strengths run with energy and may appear to roughly converge when extrapolating towards the Planck scale. You get too much noise from hadron jets when doing such collisions, to get an unambiguous signal. Even if you just collide leptons at such high energy, hadrons are created in the pair production at such high energies, and then it's a reliant on extremely difficult QCD jet calculations to subtract the gluon field "noise" before you can see any signals clearly from the relatively weak (compared to QCD) electromagnetic and weak interactions.

I'm simply pointing out that there is no evidence given for electroweak symmetry, by which I refer not to the weak bosons losing their mass at high energy. I don't accept as evidence for electroweak symmetry a mere (alleged) similarity of the weak and electromagnetic cross-sections at very high energy (differing rates of running with energy in different couplings due to unknown vacuum polarization effects could cause apparent convergence simply by coincidence, without proving a Higgs field mechanism or the existence of electroweak symmetry). It's hard to interpret the results of high energy collisions because you create hadronic jets which add epicycles into the calculations needed to deduce the relatively small electromagnetic and weak interactions. The energies needed to try to test for electroweak symmetry are so high they cause a lot of noise which fogs the accuracy of the data. If you wanted to use these HERA data to prove the existence of electroweak symmetry (massless weak bosons), you would need to do more than show convergence in the cross-sections.

"I am talking about very clean events of hard deep inelastic scattering, where the bosons are seen with great clarity due to their leptonic decays."

You're thinking possibly about weak SU(2) symmetry and electromagnetic symmetry, and you think these two separate symmetries together as "electroweak symmetry". I'm 100% behind the extensive evidence gauge theory for weak interactions and 100% behind gauge theory for electromagnetic interactions. These separate symmetries, produced in the "electroweak theory" by mixing U(1) hypercharge boson with the SU(2) bosons, are not however "electroweak symmetry", which only exists if massless weak bosons exist at very high energy. The Higgs field is supposed to give mass to those bosons at low energy, breaking the symmetry. At high energy, the weak bosons are supposed to lose mass, allowing symmetry of weak isospin and electromagnetic interactions by making the range of both fields the same.

I really need to find any alleged evidence for "electroweak symmetry" in my research for a paper, so if you ever recall the paper with the HERA data which you say contains evidence for electroweak symmetry, please let me know! So far I've read all the QFT books I can get (Weinberg, Ryder, Zee, etc.) and electroweak theory papers on arXiv, and I have not found any evidence for electroweak symmetry.

My understanding (correct me if I'm wrong here) is that if you collide protons and electrons at TeV energies, you knock free virtual quarks from the sheer energy of the collision? These virtual quarks gain the energy to become real (onshell) quarks, forming hadron jets. These jets are difficult to accurately predict because they are dominated by QCD/strong forces and the perturbative expansion for QCD is divergent, so you need lattice calculations which are inaccurate. So you can't compare what you see with a solid prediction. You can measure what you see, but you can't analyze the data very accurately. The color charge of the QCD jets can't interact with the weak bosons, but the jets also have electromagnetic and weak charges which do interact with weak bosons. So you cannot do a precise theoretical analysis of the entire event. All you can really do is to produce particles and see what they are and how they interact. You can't do a complete theoretical analysis that's accurate enough to deduce electroweak symmetry.

Yes, definitely SU(2) weak symmetry is based on an enormous amount of good empirical evidence: what I'm questioning is "electroweak symmetry". Evidence for the broken and mixed U(1) symmetry and SU(2) symmetry is not at issue. What should be regarded as an open question is whether electroweak symmetry exists. The simplest default alternative to the Higgs-electroweak theory is to have a mixed but broken "electroweak symmetry", i.e. no electroweak symmetry. This is precisely what Feynman argued in the 1980s. Instead of having a Higgs field which makes weak field quanta massive at low energy but massless at high energy, you instead add a quantum gravity gauge theory to the standard model, which gives mass to the weak field quanta at all energies (as well as giving masses to other massive particles). The quantum gravity gauge theory has mass-energy as its charge and it has gravitons as its bosons. In other words, the Higgs/electroweak symmetry theory is a complete red-herring. If its advocates are allowed to continue their propaganda, then there will be no well-developed alternative to the Higgs/electroweak symmetry when the LHC rules out the Higgs. The result will be the usual last-minute panic with a consensus of ill-informed opinions promoting new epicycles to prop up nonsense (save face).

Feynman's opposition to "electroweak symmetry" is in Gleick's biography of Feynman:

When a historian of science pressed him on the question of unification in his Caltech office, he resisted. “Your career spans the period of the construction of the standard model,” the interviewer said.

” ‘The standard model,’ ” Feynman repeated dubiously. . . .

The interviewer was having trouble getting his question onto the table. “What do you call SU(3) X SU(2) X U(1)?”

“Three theories,” Feynman said. “Strong interactions, weak interactions, and the electromagnetic. . . . The theories are linked because they seem to have similar characteristics. . . . Where does it go together? Only if you add some stuff we don’t know. There isn’t any theory today that has SU(3) X SU(2) X U(1) — whatever the hell it is — that we know is right, that has any experimental check. . . . "

Virtual quarks form in pairs due to pair production around the proton. The pairs get knocked free in high energy collision. I do know that individual quarks can't exist by themselves. I wrote that the quarks are produced in pair production, and get knocked free of the field of the proton in a high energy inelastic collision. I didn't write that individual quarks exist alone.

The mass term in the lagrangian always exists, but it doesn't have the same value. If m = 0, that is the same as getting rid of the mass term. Reference is for instance Zee's QFT book. You can't formulate a QFT very conveniently without the field having mass. Sidney Coleman is credited by Zee with the trick of adding a mass term for the massless QED virtual photon field, for example. You have to have a mass term in the field to get the gauge theory lagrangian, but at the end you can set the mass equal to zero. It's a mathematical trick. It's not physics, just math.

The precise reference is Zee, 1st ed., 2003, pp 30-31: "Calculate with a photon mass m and set m = 0 at the end ... When I first took a field theory course as a Student of Sidney Coleman this was how he treated QED in order to avoid discussing gauge invariance." He ends up with an electromagnetic potential of (e^{-mr})/(4 Pi r). The exponential part of this, e^{-mr}, is due to the mass term. Setting m = 0 gives e^{-mr} = 1, so the mass term has no effect, and you get the expected potential for a massless field. By exactly the same argument, mass terms in the weak field need to be eliminated for "electroweak symmetry" by making m = 0 where such symmetry exists. Otherwise, you end up with a weak field potential which has an exponential term (reducing the range and field strength) due to the mass of the weak field quanta. To get "electroweak symmetry", the weak field potential must become similar to the electromagnetic field potential at unification energy. That's the definition of this "symmetry".

Pauli first applied Weyl’s gauge theory to electrodynamics and was well aware that that for electromagnetic interactions, it really doesn’t matter if you have a mass term in the propagator like 1/[(k^2)-(m^2)], because it just represents the momentum delivered by the field boson in the Feynman diagram. You can treat the relativistic field quanta (moving with velocity c) as non-relativistic, allow the rest mass momentum in the propagator to represent the relativistic momentum of photons, and then simply edit out the problem of field quanta mass in the field potential by letting m = 0 in the final stage. This math trick complements the physics of gauge invariance so there is no problem. Pauli however knew that the mass in the propagator is a real problem for non-Abelian fields that carry electric charge, so he objected to the Yang-Mills theory when Yang gave his lecture in 1954. Yang and Mills could not treat the mass of the field and Pauli made such a fuss Yang had to sit down. Electrically charged field quanta can’t propagate without rest mass (their magnetic self-inductance opposes their motion), so they must really have a mass in the propagator, as far as Pauli was concerned. This doesn’t apply to uncharged field quanta like photons, where you don’t need a massive propagator. Now the problem is: how do you get electroweak symmetry with electrically charged, massless SU(2) quanta at electroweak unification energy. As far as I can see, most of the authors of modern physics textbooks ignore or obfuscate the physics (which they mostly disrespect or frankly hate as being a trivial irrelevance in “mathematical physics”). But Noether makes all of the “mathematical symmetries” simple physical processes:

Noether’s theorem: every conservation law corresponds to an invariance or symmetry.

Gauge symmetry: conservation of charge (electric, weak, or color).

Electroweak symmetry: equality of couplings (strengths) of electromagnetic and weak interactions at electroweak unification energy.

Langrangian symmetry or local phase invariance: produced by a lagrangian that varies with changes in the wavefunction, so that emission of field quanta compensate for the energy used to change the wavefunction.

When you switch from describing massive to massless field quanta in electromagnetism, the equation for field potential loses its exponential factor and thus ceases to have short range and weak strength. However, the field quanta still carry momentum because they have energy, and energy has momentum. So there is no problem. Contrast this to the problems with getting rid of mass for SU(2) electrically charged W bosons!

“... concentrate on the hard subprocess, where the real (perturbative) physics is. There, the gamma and the W/Z have similar strengths once you reach virtualities of the order of the boson masses.”

You seem to be arguing is that “electroweak symmetry” is defined by similarity of the strengths of the weak and electromagnetic forces at energies equivalent to the weak boson masses (80 and 91 GeV). There is some confusion in QFT textbooks on exactly what the difference is between “electroweak symmetry” and “electroweak unification”.

At energies of 80 and 91 GeV (weak W and Z boson masses), the electromagnetic (gamma) and W/Z don’t seem to have very similar strengths: http://www.clab.edc.uoc.gr/materials/pc/proj/running_alphas.html

Yes, the electrically neutral Z weak boson has higher mass (91 GeV) than the electrically charged W weak bosons (80 GeV), but that's just because the weak isospin charge coupling (g_W) has a value of only half the weak hypercharge coupling (g_B). The weak hypercharge for left-handed leptons (ie those which actually participate in weak interactions) is always Y = -1, while they have a weak isospin charge Y = +/-1/2. (Forget the right handed lepton hypercharge, because right handed leptons don't participate in weak interactions.) So the weak isospin charge has just half the magnitude of the weak hypercharge! The Weinberg mixing angle Theta_W is defined by:

tan (Theta_W) = (g_W)/(g_B)

The masses of the weak bosons Z and W then have the ratio:

cos (Theta_W) = (M_W)/(M_Z)

Therefore, the theory actually predicts the difference in masses of the Z and W weak bosons from the fact that the isospin charge is half the hypercharge. This is all obfuscated in the usual QFT textbook treatment, and takes some digging to find. You would get exactly the same conclusion for the left-handed weak interaction if you replace weak hypercharge by electric charge for leptons (not quarks, obviously) above. Because isospin charge takes a value of +/-1/2 while electric charge for leptons takes the value +/-1, the ratio of isospin to electric charge magnitude is a half. Obviously for quarks you need an adjustment for the fractional electric charges, hence the invention of weak hypercharge. Physically, this "(electric charge) = (isospin charge) + (half of hypercharge)" formula models the compensation for the physical fact that quarks appear to have fractional electric charges. (Actually, the physics may go deeper than this neat but simplistic formula, if quarks and leptons are unified in a preon model.) I'm well aware of the need for some kind of mixing, and am well aware that the difference in W and Z boson masses was predicted ahead of discover at CERN in 1983.

I'm writing a paper clarifying all this, and it is good to be able to discuss and defend a criticism of electroweak symmetry here, to see what kind of arguments are used to defend it. It will help me to write the paper in a more concise, focussed way. Thank you Alejandro, thanks to Tommaso for tolerating a discussion, and other commentators.

For the record: the essential "tan (Theta_W) = (g_W)/(g_B)" is equation 10.21 in David McMahon's 2008 "QFT Demystified" textbook.

The problem with the usual interpretation of the top quark mass for Higgs boson studies is that to counter this argument, I would have to discuss an alternative theory in detail, instead of just pointing out inconsistencies in the mainstream theory. Then critics will dismiss me as a crackpot and stip listening. But the top quark coupling seems to me to be evidence pointing exactly the other way, towards a quantum gravity gauge theory. The top quark mass fits in perfectly to a simple model for particle masses. The foundation is model for masses was a relationship between the Z boson mass and the electron mass (or similar) in a paper you wrote with Hans de Vries, so thank you for that. To summarize the essentials, we put a quantum gravity gauge group into the standard model in a very neat way (treating it like hypercharge), and remove the Higgs mass model. Mixing gives masses to the massive particles in a very novel way (not). A charged fundamental particle, eg a lepton, has a vacuum field around it with pair production producing pairs of fermions which are briefly polarized by the electric field of the fermion, and this shields the core charge (thus renormalization). The energy absorbed from the field by the act of polarization (reducing the electric field strength observed at long distances) moves the virtual fermions apart, and thus gives then a longer life on average before they annihilate. Ie, it causes a statistical violation of the uncertainty principle: the energy the off-shell (virtual) fermions absorb makes them move closer towards being on-shell. For the brief extra period of time (due to polarization) which they exist before annihilation, they therefore start to feel the Pauli exclusion principle and to behave more like on-shell fermions with a structured arrangement in space. One additional feature of this vacuum polarization effect in giving energy to virtual particles is that they briefly acquire a real mass. So the vacuum polarization has the effect of turning off-shell virtual fermions briefly into nearly on-shell fermions, simply by the energy they absorb from the electric field as they polarize! This vacuum mass and the Pauli exclusion principle have the effect of turning leptons into effectively the nuclei of little atoms, surrounded by virtual fermions which when being polarized add a Pauli exclusion principle structured real mass. It is this vacuum mass effect from the vacuum which is all-important for the tauon and also the top quark. The neutral Z acquires its mass by mixing of SU(2) with a quantum gravity gauge group. http://nige.wordpress.com/2010/05/07/category-morphisms-for-quantum-gravity-masses-and-draft-material-for-new-paper/

Theta_W or θ_W is empirically determined to be 29.3 degrees at 160 MeV energy using the 2005 data from parity violation in Møller scattering (sin^2 θ_W = 0.2397 ± 0.0013 was obtained at 160 MeV) and it was determined to 28.7 degrees at 91.2 GeV energy in 2004 data using the minimal subtraction renormalization scheme (sin^2 θ_W = 0.23120 ± 0.00015). This difference is usually cited as evidence of the running of the Weinberg angle with energy, due to the running coupling which is caused by vacuum polarization (shielding the core charges, which is a bigger effect at low energy than at high energy). See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weinberg_angle

What I stated was that, ignoring the running coupling effect (which is smaller for the weak isospin field than in QED, because of the weakness of the weak force field relative to QED), the Weinberg angle is indeed

tan θ_W =1/2.

This is gives θ_W = 26.57 degrees. Remember, empirically it is 29.3 degrees at 160 MeV and it is 28.7 degrees at 91.2 GeV. The higher the energy, the less vacuum polarization we see (we penetrate closer to the core of the particle, and there is therefore less intervening polarized vacuum to shield the field) Therefore, the figure for higher energy, 28.7 degrees is predicted to be closer to the theoretical bare core value (26.57 degrees) than the figure observed at low energy (29.3 degrees). The value of θ_W falls from 29.3 degrees at 160 MeV to 28.7 degrees at 91.2 GeV, and to an asymptotic value for the bare core of 26.57 degrees at much higher energy.

Yes, there must be a mixing of SU(2) and U(1). But no, I've never been against such a mixing. My incomplete draft paper from last October explains what I mean: http://nige.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/paper-draft-pages-1-5-2-oct-2010.pdf (ignore underlined Psi symbols; they should have an overbar). My argument is that the mathematics of the Standard Model are being misapplied physically. The electroweak unification is achieved by mixing SU(2) with U(1) but not anywhere near the way it is done in the Standard Model. SU(2) is electroweak symmetry: the three gauge bosons exist in massless and massive forms. Massless charged bosons can't propagate unless the magnetic self inductance is cancelled, which can only happen in certain circumstances (e.g. a perfect equilibrium of exchange between two similar charge, so that the charged bosons going in each opposite direction have magnetic vectors than cancel one another, preventing infinite self-inductance, just electromagnetic energy in a light velocity logic step propagating along a two-conductor power transmission line). This effectively makes electric charge the extra polarizations that virtual photons need to account for attraction and repulsion in electromagnetism. The massive versions of those SU(2) bosons are the weak bosons, and arise not from a Higgs field but from a U(1) hypercharge/spin-1 quantum gravity theory.

There is a massive error of the Standard Model's CKM parameter matrix in the "electroweak" theory, which has the contradiction that when a lepton like a muon or tauon decays, it decays via the intermediary step of a weak gauge boson to give a lepton, but when a quark decays it doesn't delay into a lepton via the weak gauge boson, but instead into another quark: http://nige.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/diagram1.jpg. See

http://nige.wordpress.com/2010/05/07/category-morphisms-for-quantum-gravity-masses-and-draft-material-for-new-paper/ and

http://nige.wordpress.com/2010/06/29/professor-jacques-distler-disproves-the-alleged-anomaly-in-beta-decay-analysis/. When you correct this theoretical beta decay analysis error, all of the problems of the Standard Model evaporate and you get a deep understanding (this draft PDF paper is incomplete and underlined Psi symbols should have overbars, but most of the rest of the theory is on other blog posts).

www.quantumfieldtheory.org

“... it comes about that, step by step, and not realizing the full meaning of the process, mankind has been led to search for a mathematical description ... mathematical ideas, because they are abstract, supply just what is wanted for a scientific description of the course of events. This point has usually been misunderstood, from being thought of in too narrow a way. Pythagoras had a glimpse of it when he proclaimed that number was the source of all things. In modern times the belief that the ultimate explanation of all things was to be found in Newtonian mechanics was an adumbration of the truth that all science as it grows towards perfection becomes mathematical in its ideas. ... In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries of our era great Italians, in particular Leonardo da Vinci, the artist (born 1452, died 1519), and Galileo (born 1564, died 1642), rediscovered the secret, known to Archimedes, of relating abstract mathematical ideas with the experimental investigation of natural phenomena. Meanwhile the slow advance of mathematics and the accumulation of accurate astronomical knowledge had placed natural philosophers in a much more advantageous position for research. Also the very egoistic self-assertion of that age, its greediness for personal experience, led its thinkers to want to see for themselves what happened; and the secret of the relation of mathematical theory and experiment in inductive reasoning was practically discovered. ... It was an act eminently characteristic of the age that Galileo, a philosopher, should have dropped the weights from the leaning tower of Pisa. There are always men of thought and men of action; mathematical physics is the product of an age which combined in the same men impulses to thought with impulses to action.”

- Dr Alfred North Whitehead,An Introduction to Mathematics,Williams and Norgate, London, revised edition, undated, pp. 13-14, 42-43.

Einstein's tensors (second order differential equations) presuppose a classical distribution of matter and a classical, continuously acting acceleration. Einstein and others have problems with the fact that all mass and energy is particulate, in setting up the stress-energy tensor (gravity charge for causing spacetime curvature) in general relativity. How do we use a tensor formulation, that can only model a continuous distribution of matter, to represent discrete particles of mass and energy?

Simple:

*we don't*. They average out the density of discrete particle mass-energy in a volume of space by replacing it with the helpful approximation of an imaginary "perfect fluid" which is a continuum, not composed of particles. So all the successes of general relativity are based on lying, averaging out the discrete locations of quanta in a volume, to feed into the stress-energy tensor. If you don't do this lie, general relativity fails completely: for discrete point-like particles in the stress-energy tensor, the curvature takes just two possible values, both of them unreal (zero and infinity!). So general relativity is just a classical approximation, based on lying about the nature of quantum fields and discrete particles!

"In many interesting situations… the source of the gravitational field can be taken to be a perfect fluid…. A fluid is a continuum that ‘flows’... A perfect fluid is defined as one in which all antislipping forces are zero, and the only force between neighbouring fluid elements is pressure."

- B. Schutz,A First Course in General Relativity,Cambridge University Press, 1986, pp. 89-90.

However, there is one thing that Einstein did do that was a step beyond Newton in general relativity, which is explained well at http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath103/kmath103.htm:

It is this "trace" term that Einstein had to introduce to make the stress-energy tensor's divergence zero (satisfying the conservation of mass-energy) that makes light deflect twice as much more due to gravity than Newton's law predicts. But as Feynman showed in the final chapter to the second edition (not included in the first edition!) of the second volume of his "Lectures on Physics", this special feature of curved spacetime is simple to understand as being a gravitational field version of the Lorentz-FitzGerald contraction. Earth's radius is contracted by (1/3)MG/c

^{2}= 1.5 millimetres to preserve mass-energy conservation in general relativity. Just as Maxwell predicted displacement current by looking physically at how capacitors with a vacuum for a dielectric allow current to flow through a circuit while they charge up, you don't need a physically false tensor system to predict this. The fact that Maxwell used physical intuition and not mathematics to predict displacement current is contrary to the lying revisionist history at http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath103/kmath103.htm, the author of which is apparently ignorant of the fact that Maxwell

*never used vector calculus*(which was an innovation due to self-educated Oliver Heaviside, a quarter century later), messed up his theory of light, never unified electricity and magnetism consistently despite repeated efforts, and came up with an electrodynamics which (contrary to Einstein's ignorant claims in 1905 and for fifty years thereafter) is only relativistic for a (non-existent) "zero action" approximation, and

*by definition fails to be relativistic for all real-world situations*(that comprise of

*small not non-zero actions which vary as a function of the coordinate system and thus motion, and so are not generally invariant*). You don't need tensors to predict the modifications to Newtonian gravity that arise when conservation of mass-energy in fields is included; you don't need general relativity to predict the excess radius that causes the apparent spacetime curvature, because a LeSage type quantum gravity predicts that spin-1 gravitons bombarding masses will compress them, explaining the contraction. And a light photon deflects twice as much due to a perpendicular gravity field than slow-moving bullets deflect, because of the Lorentz-FitzGerald contraction of the energy in the light photon: 100% of the energy is in the plane of the gravitational field, instead of just 50% for a bullet. So light photons interact twice as strongly with the gravity field. There is no magic!

**Prediction of gravitational time-dilation**

When light travels through a block of glass it slows down because the electromagnetic field of the light interacts with the electromagnetic fields in the glass. This is why light is refracted by glass. Light couples to gravitational fields as well as electromagnetic. The gravitational time dilation from the Einstein field equation is proved in an earlier blog post to be simply the same effect. The gravitons are exchanged between gravitational charges (mass/energy). Therefore, the concentration of gravitons per cubic metre is higher near mass/energy than far away. When a photon enters a stronger gravitational field, it interacts at a faster rate with that field, and is consequently slowed down. This is the mechanism for gravitational time dilation. It applies to electrons and nuclei, indeed anything with mass that is moving, just as it applies to light in a glass block. If you run through a clear path, you go faster than if you try to run through a dense crowd of people. There's no advanced subtle mathematical “magic” at work. It’s not rocket science. It’s very simple and easy to understand physically.

*You can’t define time without motion, and motion gets slowed down by dense fields just like someone trying to move through a crowd.*

Length contraction with velocity and mass increase by the reciprocal of the same factor are simply physical effects as FitzGerald and Lorentz explained. A moving ship has more inertial mass than its own mass, because of the flow of water set up around it (like "Aristotle's arrow", fluid moving out at the bows, flows around the sides and pushes in at the stern). As explained in previous posts, the "ideal fluid" aproximation for the effect of velocity on the drag coefficient of an aircraft in the 1920s was predicted theoretically to be the factor (1 -

*v*

^{2}/

*c*

^{2})

^{-1/2}, where

*c*is the velocity of sound: this is the "sound barrier" theory. It breaks down because although the shock wave formation at sound velocity carries energy off rapidly in the sonic boom, it isn't 100% efficient at stopping objects from going faster. The effect is that you get an effective increase in inertial mass from the layer of compressed, dense air in the shock wave region at the front of the aircraft, and the nose-on force has a slight compressive effect on the aircraft (implying length contraction). Therefore, from an idealized understanding of the basic physics of moving through a fluid, you can grasp how quantum field theory causes "relativity effects"!

"… light ... “smells” the neighboring paths around it, and uses a small core of nearby space."

- Richard P. Feynman,

*QED,*Penguin Books, London, 1990, Chapter 2, p. 54.

**Above:**classical light "wave" illustration from Wikipedia. Most people viewing such diagrams confuse the waving lines with axes labelled

*field strengths*in a single physical dimension, for

*field lines waving in three dimensional space!*Don't confuse field strength varying along one axis for a field line waving in two dimensions. It's interesting that field lines are just a mathematical convenience or abstract model invented by Faraday, and are no more real in the physical sense than isobars on weather maps or contour lines on maps. If you scatter iron filings on a piece of paper held over a magnet several times, the absolute positions of the apparent "lines" that the filings clump along occur in randomly distributed locations, although they are generally spaced apart by similar distances. The random "hotspot" locations in which high random concentrations of the first-deposited filings land, form "seeds", which - under the presence of the magnetic field - have induced magnetism (called paramagnetism), which attract further filings in a pole-to-pole arrangement that creates the illusion of magnetic field lines.

This classical theory of light (the diagram is a colour one of the version in Maxwell's original

*Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism,*final 3rd ed., 1873) is wrong: it shows fields along a single, non-transverse, dimension: a longitudinal "pencil of light" which violates the experimental findings of the double slit experiment! (If you look, you will see

*only one spatial direction*shown, the

*z*axis! The apparent

*y*and

*z*axes are not actually spatial dimensions but just the electric

*E*and magnetic

*B*field

*strengths*, respectively! You can draw a rather similar 3-dimensional diagram of the speed and acceleration of a car as a function of distance, with speed and acceleration plotted as if they are dimensions at right angles to the distance the car has gone. Obfuscating tomfoolery

*doesn't make the graph spatially real in three dimensions*.)

The real electromagnetic photon, needed to explain the double slit experiment using single photons (as Feynman shows clearly in his 1985 book

*QED*), is entirely different to Maxwell's classical photon guesswork of 1873: it is spatially extended in a transverse direction, due to the reinforcement of multiple paths (in the simultaneous sum of histories) where the action of the paths is small by comparison to about 15.9% of Planck's constant (i.e., to

*h*-bar or

*h*divided by twice Pi). However, this quantum theory path integral theory of the light photon is today still being totally ignored in preference to Maxwell's rubbish in the ignorant teaching of electromagnetism. The classical equations of electromagnetism are just approximations valid in an imaginary, unreal world, where there is simply one path with zero action! We don't live in such a classical universe. In the

*real world*, there are multiple paths, and we have to sum

*all*paths. The classical laws are only "valid" for the physically false case of zero action, by which I mean an action which is not a function of the coordinates for motion of the light, and which therefore remains invariant of the motion (i.e. a "pencil" of light, following one path: this classical model of a photon

*fails to agree with the results of the double slit diffraction experiment using photons fired one at a time*).

To put that another way, classical Maxwellian physics is only relativistic because its (false) classical action is invariant of the coordinates for motion. As soon as you make the action a variable of the path, so that light is not a least-action phenomenon but instead takes a spread of actions each with different motions (paths), special relativity ceases to apply to Maxwell's equations! Nature isn't relativistic as soon as you correct the false classical Maxwell equations for the real world multipath interference mechanism of quantum field theory on small scales,

*precisely because action is a function of the path coordinates taken.*If it wasn't a function of the motion, there would simply be no difference between classical and quantum mechanics. The invariance of path action as a false classical principle and its variance in quantum field theory is a fundamental fact of nature. Just learn to live with it and give up worshipping Dr Einstein's special relativity fraud!

Thus, in quantum field theory we recover the classical laws by specifying no change in the action when the coordinates are varied, or as Dirac put it in his 1964

*Lectures on Quantum Mechanics*(Dover, New York, 2001, pp. 4-5):

"... when one varies the motion, and puts down the conditions for the action integral to be stationary, one gets the [classical, approximately correct on large-scales but generally incorrect on small scales] equations of motion. ... In terms of the action integral, it is very easy to formulate the conditions for the theory to be relativistic [in the real contraction, FitzGerald-Lorentz-Poincare spacetime fabric, emergent relativity mechanism,notEinstein's damnable lies against a quantum field existing in the vacuum; remember Dirac's public exposure of Einstein's damned lies in his famousNaturev168, 1951, pp. 906-7 letter, "Is there an aether?": ‘Physical knowledge has advanced much since 1905, notably by the arrival of quantum mechanics, and the situation has again changed. If one examines the question in the light of present-day knowledge, one finds that the aether is no longer ruled out by relativity, and good reasons can now be advanced for postulating an aether. . . . Thus, with the new theory of electrodynamics [vacuum filled with virtual particles] we are rather forced to have an aether.’!]: one simply has to require that the action integral shall be invariant. ... [this] will automatically lead to equations of motion agreeing with [Dirac's aether-based] relativity, and any developments from this action integral will therefore also be in agreement with [Dirac's aether-based] relativity."

Classical physics corresponds falsely to

*just*the path of least action, or least time, whereas real ("sum over multiple path interference") physics shows us that even in simple situations, light does not just follow the path of least action, but the energy delivered by a photon is actually spread over a range of paths with actions that are

*small*compared to

*h*-bar, but are

*not zero!*There is a big difference between a path having zero action and a spread of paths having actions which are not zero but merely small compared to

*h*-bar! This "subtle" difference (which most mathematical physicists fail to clearly grasp even today) is, as Feynman explained in his 1985 book

*QED,*the basis of the

*entirely different behaviour of quantum mechanics from the behaviour of classical physics!*

We have experimental evidence (backed up with a theory which correctly predicts observed force couplings) that the force-causing off-shell radiation of the vacuum isn't a one-way inflow, but is falling in to the event horizon radius of a fundamental particle, then being re-emitted in the form of charged (off-shell) Hawking exchange radiation. The reflection process in some sense is analogous to the so-called normal reflection of on-shell light photons by mirrors, as Feynman explained in

*QED*in 1985. Light isn't literally reflected by a mirror, as Feynman showed by graphical illustration of path integral phase amplitude summation in

*QED*(1985), light bounces off a mirror randomly in all directions and all paths of large action have random phase amplitudes which cancel one another out, leaving just paths with small path actions to add together coherently. The path integral for off-shell virtual photons (gauge bosons) is exactly the same. They go everywhere, but the net force occurs in the direction of least action, where their phases add together coherently, rather than cancelling out at random! The effective reflection of similarly charge polarized gauge bosons between similar charges is just the regular exchange process as depicted in basic (non-loopy) Feynman diagrams for fundamental interactions.

**Above:**electric fields carry electric charge (nobody has ever seen the core charge of an electric field), although this is contrary to the mainstream reasoning based on historical accident, which assumes that the virtual photons of electromagnetism are electrically neutral and are distinguished for positive and negative fields due to some magical, unobservable extra polarizations! It's obvious that charged massless exchange radiation can propagate simultaneously along paths in opposite directions (although it can't go along a one-way path only, due to infinite magnetic self-inductance at light velocity!), because of the cancellation of the superimposed magnetic field vectors as shown in the diagram above (for theoretical introduction, see linked paper here, although note that underlying of Psi symbols should be overbars).

Wow. You'd think this would be immediately taken up in education and the media and explained clearly to the world, wouldn't you? No chance! What's wrong is that Feynman's 1985 book

*QED*is simply ignored. When Feynman first tried to publish his simple "Feynman diagrams" and his multipath interference theory of quantum mechanics at the Pocono conference in 1948, he was opposed bitterly by the old 1st quantization propagandarists like Niels Bohr, Oppenheimer, Pauli, and many others. They thought he didn't understand Heisenberg's uncertainty principle! They hated the idea of simple Feynman diagrams to guide physical understanding of nature by allowing the successive terms in the path integral's perturbative expansion to be given a simple physical meaning and mechanism, in place of obscure, obfuscating guesswork pseudo-mathematical physics. They hated progress then. People still do!

In 2002 and 2003 I wrote two papers in the

*Electronics World*journal (thanks to the kind interest or patience of two successive editors) about a sketchy quantum field theory that replaces, and makes predictions way beyond, the Standard Model. Now in 2011, we can try an alternative presentation to clarify all of the technical details not by simply presenting the new idea, but by going through errors in the Standard Model and general relativity. This is because, after my articles had been published and attacked with purely sneering

*ad hominem*"academic" non-scientific abuse, Leslie Green then wrote a paper in the August 2004 issue of the same journal, called "Engineering versus pseudo-science", making the point that any advance that is worth a cent by definition must conflict with existing well established ideas. The whole idea that new ideas are supplementary additions to old ideas is disproved time and again. The problem is that the old false idea will be held up as some kind of crackpot evidence that the new idea must be wrong. Greene stated in his paper:

"The history of science and technology is littered with examples of those explorers of the natural world who merely reported their findings or theories, and were vehemently attacked for it. ... just declaring a theory foolish because it violates known scientific principles [e.g. Aristotle's laws of motion, Ptolemy's idea that the sun orbits the earth, Kelvin's stable vortex atoms of aether, Einstein's well-hyped media bigotry - contrary to experimental evidence - that quantum field theory is wrong, Witten's M-theory of a 10 dimensional superstring brane on an 11 dimensional supergravity theory, giving a landscape 10^{500}parallel universes, etc.] is not necessarily good science. If one is only allowed to check for actions that agree with known scientific principles, then how can any new scientific principles be discovered? In this respect, Einstein's popularisation of the Gedankenexperiment (thought-experiment) is potentially a backward step."

So the only way to get people to listen to facts is to kill the rubbish holding them back from being free to think about a vital innovation that breaks past the artificial barriers imposed by mainstream groupthink ideology and its suppressive and corrosive treason to the case of genuine scientific advance and human progress in civilization.

**Fig. 1a:**the primary Feynman diagram describing a quantum field interaction with a charge is similar for mathematical modelling purposes for all of the different interactions in the Standard Model of particle physics. The biggest error in the Standard Model is the assumption that the physically simplest or correct model for electromagnetism is an Abelian gauge theory in which the field is mediated by uncharged photons, rather than a Yang-Mills theory in which the field carries charge. This blog post will explain in detail the very important advantages to physics to be obtained by abandoning the Abelian theory of electromagnetism, and replacing it by a physically (

*but not mathematically*) simpler Yang-Mills SU(2) theory of electromagnetism, in which the massless field quanta can be not merely neutral, but can carry either positive or negative electric charge. (Source: Exchange Particles internet page. For clarity I've highlighted an error in the direction of an arrow in the weak interaction diagram; this is of course nothing to do with the error in electromagnetism which I'm describing in this post.)

Note also the very important point for high-energy physics where particles approach very closely into field strengths exceeding Schwinger's 1.3 x 10

^{18}volts/meter cutoff for vacuum fermion pair production, i.e. spacetime annihilation and creation "loops" as shown on a Feynman diagram, have been excluded for these simplified diagrams. In understanding the long range forces pertinent to the kind of low energy physics we see everyday, we can usually ignore spacetime loops in Feynman diagrams, because in QED the biggest effect for low energy physics is from the simplest Feynman diagram, which doesn't contain any loops. The general effect of such spacetime loops due to pair-production at high energies is called "vacuum polarization": the virtual fermions suck in energy from the field, depleting its strength, and as a result the average distance between the positive and negative virtual fermions is increased slightly owing to the energy they gain from their polarization by the field. This makes them less virtual, so they last slightly longer than predicted by Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, before they approach and annihilate back into bosonic field quanta. During when gaining extra energy from the field, they modify the apparent strength of the charge as seen at lower energies or longer distances, hence the need to renormalize the effective value of the charge for QFT calculations, by allowing it to run as a function of energy. In QCD there is gluon antiscreening, which we explained in previous posts is due to the creation of gluons to accompany virtual hadrons created by pair production in very strong electric fields, so the QCD running coupling at the highest energies runs the opposite way to the QED running coupling. Field energy must be conserved, so the QED field loses energy, the QCD field gains energy, hence asymptotic freedom for quarks over a certain range of distances. This total field energy conservation mechanism is completely ignored by QFT textbooks! As the virtual fermions gain some real energy from the field via the vacuum polarization, they not only modify the apparent charge of the particle's core, but they also get modified themselves. Onshell fermions obey the Pauli exclusion principle. Thus, the virtual fermions in strong fields can actually start to become structured like electron shells around the particle core. This mechanism for vacuum structuring, as shown in earlier blog posts, gives rise to the specific discrete spectrum of fundamental particle masses, a fact that has apparently led to the repeated immediate deletion of arXiv-submitted papers, due to ignorance, apathy, and hostility of mainstream physicists towards checkable, empirically based mechanisms in QFT. Elitist superstring theorists preach (off the record, on Dr Lubos Motl's superstring theory blog, or in anonymous sneering comments) that all of this progress is merely "heuristically based" physics, that such experimentally guided theory makes them sick, is mathematically naive, inelegant or repulsive, and that it would "just" reduce physics to a simple mechanical understanding of nature that the person in the street could grasp and understand. (Amen to that last claim!)

**Fig. 1b:**Maxwell's equations (Maxwell wrote them in long-hand first-order differential term summarizing the laws of Gauss, Ampere and Faraday with the addition of his own, now textbook-obfuscated, law of "displacement current" through the aether for the vital case of open circuits, e.g. the effects of net energy transfer through space from of accelerating and decelerating currents in the plates of a charging or discharging of a capacitor which has a vacuum as its "dielectric"; the advanced curl and div operator notation was introduced by self-taught mathematical physicist Oliver Heaviside) contradict reality experimentally in what is called the Aharonov–Bohm effect (or Ehrenberg–Siday–Aharonov–Bohm effect). The failure of Maxwell's equations is their neglect of energy in fields in general, and neglect of the conservation of energy in supposedly "cancelled" fields in particular! E.g., inside a block of glass through which light travels, there is positive electric field energy density from atomic nuclei and negative electric field energy density from orbital electrons. The two fields superimpose and neatly "cancel", leaving no effect according to Maxwell's equations (which don't predict the variation of relativity permittivity as a function of "cancelled" fields!). So why does light slow down and thus refract in glass? Answer: the energy density of the "cancelled" electric fields is still there, and "loads" the vacuum. The photon's electromagnetic field interacts with the electromagnetic energy in the glass, and this slows it and can deflect its direction. All you can do with Maxwell's equations to allow for this is to make an

*ad hoc*modification to the permittivity of the vacuum, fiddling with the "constants" in the equation to make it agree with experiments! The same effect applies to magnetic fields, as the experimental confirmation of the Aharonov–Bohm effect proves. To correct Maxwell's equations, we replace them with a similarly first-order but more comprehensive "field potential" vector which includes a term that allows for the energy of cancelled fields in the vacuum. Note, however, that this modification to Maxwell's equations under some conditions leads to conflicts with "special relativity". E.g., if the zero point vacuum itself is viewed as consisting of "cancelled" field energy by analogy to a block of glass, then the modified Maxwell equations no longer necessarily necessitate the principle of special relativity, but under some circumstances necessitate absolute motion instead. This fact is usually obfuscated either to defend mathematical mysticism in theoretical physics, or to "protect Einstein's authority", much as people used to reject Newton's laws in deference to the more-ancient "authority" of Aristotle's laws of motion.

The problem that the zero-point electromagnetic energy in the vacuum might constitute an absolute frame of reference due to gravitational effects is clearly stated by Richard P. Feynman and Albert R. Hibbs,

*Quantum Mechanics and Path Integrals,*Dover, New York, corrected edition, 2010, page 245:

"... if we were to sum this ground-state energy over all of the infinite number of possible modes of ever-increasing frequency which exist even for a finite box, the answer would be infinity. This is the first symptom of the difficulties which beset quantum electrodynamics. ... Suppose we choose to measure energy from a different zero point. ... Unfortunately, it is really not true that the zero point of energy can be assigned completely arbitrarily. Energy is equivalent to mass, and mass has a gravitational effect. Even light has a gravitational effect, for light is deflected by the sun. So, if the law that action equals reaction has qualitative validity, then the sun must be attracted by the light. This means that a photon of energy {h-bar}*{omega} has a gravity-producing effect, and the question is: Does the ground-state energy term {h-bar}*{omega}/2 [this assumes two modes per k] also have an effect? The question stated physically is: Does a vacuum act like a uniform density of mass in producing a gravitational field?"

On page 254, they point out that if the charged and neutral Pi mesons differ only in charge, then their observed differences in mass (the charged Pi meson has a greater mass than the neutral Pi meson) implies that this extra mass in the case of a charged particle comes from "the different way they couple to the electromagnetic field. So presumably the mass difference ... represents energy in the electromagnetic field." Using the same cutoff that works here for the electromagnetic field of an electron, on page 255 they find that the corresponding correction to the mass of the electron for electromagnetic field interactions "is only about 3 percent, but there is no way to test this, for we do not recognize a neutral counterpart to the electron." As we pointed out since 1996, there are two separate long-range zero-point fields in the vacuum: gravitational (gravitons) and electromagnetic (off-shell photons), with very different energy densities due to the factor of 10

^{40}difference in their long-distance couplings (the coupling at the low-energy IR cutoff limit, i.e. asymptotic limit of the running coupling that is valid for the low-energy physics domain, below ~1 MeV kinetic energy). The confusion in the value of the pseudo "cosmological constant" from the zero point vacuum comes from confusing the immense electromagnetic field energy density of the vacuum for the relatively tiny gravitational field energy density of the vacuum. It is the latter, manifested (as we proved effectively in 1996) by spin-1 gravitons, which causes the small observed cosmological acceleration of the universe,

*a ~ Hc*. This is so because electric charge comes in two forms which balance, preventing long-range electromagnetic forces in the universe, whereas all observed gravitational charge has the same single sign and cannot cancel out. Gravitation thus pushes the matter apart (over long distances), causing cosmological acceleration. (On relatively small distance scales, the shielding of an observer by the presence of a relatively nearby mass, from the immense convergence of exchange gravitons with the surrounding isotropic universe, pushes the observer towards the nearby mass. The details of this have been carefully checked and confirmed to experimental accuracy!)

**Fig. 1c:**the SU(2) Yang-Mills field strength equation for electromagnetism utilizing massless charged field quanta reduces to the Maxwellian U(1) equation (equivalent to uncharged gauge bosons) under all necessary conditions, because of the motion-denying magnetic self-inductance of charged massless field quanta of SU(2). Note that the transfer of electric charge by Yang-Mills gauge bosons is not unaccompanied by a force. The charged gauge bosons carry both force-causing energy and charge. SU(2) includes one neutral boson as well as two charged bosons, so the neutral boson can deliver forces without carrying charge. SU(2) is thus a rich mathematical theory that can do a lot, and it is tempting with massless exchange radiation to attribute the neutral boson to graviton and the charged ones to electromagnetism (with left-handed interacting massive versions also existing to produce weak interactions). An addictive "drunkards walk" of charged massless gauge bosons between the ~10

^{80}real fermion pairs in the universe the produces a path integral resultant that "conveniently" predicts the low-energy electromagnetism coupling IR limit to be (~10

^{80})

^{1/2}stronger than gravitation, because the neutral bosons (gravitons) don't undergo such an addictive path integral! However, the theory is stronger than such superficial conveniences suggest, because it also predicted two years ahead of observation the correct observed cosmological acceleration of the universe, and vice-versa, it predicts the observed gravitational coupling (not using the 10

^{40}factor just mentioned). It turns out that the simplest fully-consistent theory of nature has the graviton emerge from U(1) hypercharge which mixes with the neutral massless gauge boson of SU(2). Ignorant critics may claim that this correct limit proves that the SU(2) model is unnecessary under Occam's Razor since for most cases it reduces to U(1) for practical calculations in electromagnetism, but this is a false criticism. The SU(2) electromagnetic theory is necessary to properly understand the relationship between electromagnetism and weak interactions (only left-handed interacting spin field quanta effectively acquire mass and partake in weak interactions)! The Abelian U(1) theory is a hypercharge which - when mixed with SU(2) - gives rise to the masses of the weak field quanta and also gives rise to a neutral field quantum, a spin-1 graviton. This is necessary. The spin-1 graviton pushes masses together, and this was falsely rejected by Pauli and Fierz in 1939 on the basis of a hidden implicit assumption which has been proved false. The currently fashionable claim that, because Maxwell's equations are rank-1 tensors and general relativity's Ricci tensor curvature is rank-2, electromagnetic field quanta are spin-1 and gravitons are spin-2, is a complete fraud; it is an expression of the most puerile physical and mathematical confusion between physical reality and the different mathematical models that can be used to represent that physical reality. We can, for instance, express electromagnetic forces in terms of rank-2 curvature equations. We don't, not because this is the "wrong" thing to do, but because it is unnecessary, and it is far more convenient to use rank-1 equations (divs and curls of Faraday's "field lines").

Regarding mathematics being confused for reality, the great Eugene Wigner in 1960 published a paper called "The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences",

*Communications in Pure and Applied Mathematics,*vol. 13, No. I. It's mainly hand-waving groupthink fashion, that is a "not even wrong" confusion between reality and continuously-evolving mathematical models that are just approximations, e.g. differential equations for wavefunctions in quantum mechanics implicitly assume that wavefunctions are continuously variable - not discretely variable - functions, which disagrees with the physical premise of quantum field theory, namely that every change in the state of a particle is a discrete event! (This definition, of a change of "state" as being a discrete change, doesn't include purely rotational phase amplitudes due to the spin of a particle which has a transverse polarization; the wavefunction for phase amplitude will be a classical-type continuous variable, but other properties such as accelerations involve forces which in quantum field theory are mediated by discrete particle interactions, not continuous variables in a spacetime continuum.)

The first false specific claim that Wigner makes in his paper is his allusion, very vaguely (the vagueness is key to his confusion), to the fact that the integral of the Gaussian distribution, exp(-

*x*

^{2}), over all values of

*x*between minus infinity and plus infinity, is equal to the square root of Pi. He feels uneasy that the square root of Pi, the ratio of the circumference to diameter of a circle, is the result of a probability distribution. However, he ignores the fact that there is -

*x*

^{2}in the natural exponent, so this is a natural geometric factor. If

*x*is a scaled distance, then

*x*

^{2}is an area, and you're talking geometry.

*It's no longer simply a probability that is unconnected to geometry*. For example, the great RAND Corporation physicist Kahn in Appendix I to his 1960 thesis on deterrence,

*On Thermonuclear War,*shows that the normal or Gaussian distribution applies to the effect of a missile aimed at a target; the variable

*x*is the ratio of distance from intended ground zero, to the CEP standard error distance for the accuracy of the missile. We see in this beautiful natural example of falling objects hitting targets that the Gaussian distribution is implicitly geometric, and it is therefore no surprise that its integral should contain the geometric factor of Pi.

The circular area that objects fall into is the product Pi*

*r*

^{2}where

*r*is radius, which is directly proportional to the scaled radius,

*x*. This is mathematically why the square root of Pi comes out of the integral of exp(-

*x*

^{2}) over

*x*from minus to plus infinity (i.e., over an infinitely extensive flat plane, that the objects fall upon). Quite simply, the Gaussian distribution law fails to include the factor Pi in its exponent, so you get the square root of Pi coming out of the integral (thus the square root of Pi is the normalization factor for the Gaussian distribution in statistics). If only the great Gauss in 1809 had half a brain and knew what he was doing, he'd have included the Pi factor in the exponent, giving an integral output of 1, so we wouldn't get the fictitious square root of Pi! The Gaussian or normal distribution is just the plain old negative exponential distribution of coin-tossing, with relative area as its variable! It's therefore simply the insertion of area as the variable that introduces Pi (either directly in the exponent, or else as the square root of Pi in the integral result and related normalization factor). The error of Wigner was in not recognising that the square of dimensionless relative radius,

*x*

^{2},

*needs to be accompanied by the equally dimensionless geometric factor Pi, in the negative exponent*. It is a classic error of theoretical physicists to believe, on the basis of a mistaken understanding of dimensional analysis, that dimensionless geometric conversion factors like Pi only apply to dimensionful, absolute distances or areas, not to relative distances or areas. In fact, factors like Pi obviously

*also*apply to dimensionless

*relative*measures of distance or area, because it is self-evident that if the radius of a circle is one dimensionless unit, then its area is obviously Pi dimensionless units, and not one dimensionless unit, as confused people like Gauss and Wigner believed with their obfuscating formula for the normal distribution!

Statistician Stephen M. Stigler (best known for Stigler's law of eponymy) first suggested replacing the Gaussian distribution exp(-

*x*

^{2}) with exp(-Pi*

*x*

^{2}) in his 1982 paper, "A modest proposal: a new standard for the normal",

*The American Statistician*v36 (2). However, Stigler was too modest and therefore failed to make the point with sufficient physical force to get the world's mathematics teachers and users to dump Laplace's and Gauss's obfuscating, fumbling nonsense and make statistics physically understandable to clear-thinking students. So even today, Wigner's lie continues to be believed by the fashionable groupthink ideology of pseudo-mathematical physics prevailing in the world, as the following illustration indicates (note that the hoax began with Laplace, who infamously claimed that God was an unnecessary hypothesis in his crackpot mathematics!!!):

Wigner also ignores the fact that the mathematical concept of Pi is ambiguous in physics because of excess radius of mass in general relativity; general relativity and quantum gravity predict that around a spherical mass

*M*, its

*radius*shrinks by excess radius (1/3)MG/

*c*

^{2}metres, but the transverse direction (circumference) is unaffected, thus varying Pi unless there is curved spacetime. Since curved spacetime seems to be a classical large-scale approximation incompatible on the deeper level with quantum fields, where all actions consist of not of continuously variable differential equations but rather of a series of discrete impulsive particle interactions, it appears that the "excess radius" effect proves that the mathematical textbook value of Pi is wrong, and the real value of Pi is a variable quantity, which is the effect of the gravitational field warping spatial dimensions. Wigner simply ignores this mathematical failure of Pi, implicitly assuming that the textbook formula is correct. Actually, nobody verified the textbook formula precisely to more than a few significant figures, and since gravity is so small, the variation in Pi is small. So the point remains: mathematics has nothing to do with physics, beyond constituting a puerile tool or model for imperfect but often helpful calculations and is a danger in leading to arcane worship as an alternative to religion, a problem that goes back to the very roots of mathematics in the Egyptian priesthood and in the Greek Pythagorean cult.

The failure of mathematics to make deterministic predictions precisely even for classical systems like the collision of three balls in the "three body problem" which is beyond Newton's laws, shows this mathematical failure so very clearly. Newton only came up with laws of motion that are deterministic when applied to an artificially simplistic situation which never really occurs precisely in our universe! Even if you tried to collide two balls in the vacuum of space, particles of radiation would affect the outcome! Nature isn't mathematical! It's physical. So Pi isn't really the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter; that's only an approximation!

Wigner's "mathematical reality" ideology nearly cost America the vital Nagasaki plutonium bomb that finally convinced Japan to agree to a conditional surrender without a horrific million plus casualties in an invasion of Japan, after Hiroshima and the Russian declaration of war against Japan failed. Wigner designed the plutonium production reactors but arrogantly tried to prevent the engineers from enlarging the core size to allow for unknowns. He raged that the engineers were ignorant of the accuracy of the cross-sections for fission and the accuracy of the mathematical physics of nuclear chain reactions, and were delaying plutonium production by insisting on bigger reactor cores than were needed. After the first reactor started up, it shut itself down a few hours later. Wigner's data on the 200 fission products had been incomplete, and it turned out that some fission products like Xe-135 had large cross-sections to absorb neutrons, so after a few hours enough had been produced to "poison" the chain reaction. It was only because the engineers had made the cores bigger than Wigner specified, knowing that mathematical physics predictions are often wrong, that they were able to overcome the poisoning by adding extra uranium to the core to keep it critical!

Fig. 1d: he was unable to understand the immoral perils of relativism in blocking progress in physics, and was unable to understand the simplicity of physical mechanisms for fundamental forces, but at least Einstein was able to make the equations look pretty and attractive to the children who have only learned to count up to the number three, and who like patterns and very simple equations (a PDF version of above table is linked here, since I can't easily put Greek symbols into html blog posts that will display correctly in all browsers; notice that the top-left to bottom-right diagonal of zero terms are the trace of the tensor, which is zero in this case). Actually, using the field tensor formulation to represent the various components of electric and magnetic fields, is quite a useful - albeit usually obfuscated - reformulation of Maxwell's equations. However, mathematical models should

*never*be used to

*replace*physical understanding of physical processes, e.g. by deliberate attempts to obfuscate the simplicity of nature. If you're not blinded by pro-tensor hype, you can see an "anthropic landscape" issue very clearly with Einstein's tensor version of Maxwell's equations in this figure: the field strength tensor and its partial derivative are indeed capable of modelling Maxwell's equations. But only in certain ways, which are "picked out" specifically because they agree with nature. In other words, it's just

*ad hoc*mathematically modelling; it's not a predictive theory. If you chisel a beautiful woman out of marble, all well and good; but you are a liar if you claim she was already in the marble waiting to be chiselled out. Your chisel work created the statue: it's not natural. Similar arguments apply to mathematical modelling in Maxwell's theory!

(On the subject of Einstein's relativism worship as an alternative to religion, see the earlier post linked here. While many liars still try to "defend" relativism by claiming falsely that proponents of quantum field theory are racists out to gas Jews, the sad fact is the

*precisely the opposite:*Einstein tried to get a handful of Jews out of Germany, including Leopold Infeld, but his popular relativism helped Professor Cyril Joad attack Winston Churchill's call for an arms race with the Nazis in the early 1930s, making it politically unacceptable to the nation, and thus weakening the hand of the already weak-brained Prime Minister at the Munich watershed in September 1938. E.g., Joad was standing at the back of one of Churchill's popular lectures. Churchill made the point that we could deter Hitler by having an arms race. Joad then stood up and "innocently" asked Churchill "whether this advice was what he would tell the enemy", triggering cheers and applause and media criticism of Churchill. It is certainly true that if everything were relative with no absolute truth and no absolute distinction between good and evil, Churchill's advice is rubbish. This relativism, however, is not the case in morality, any more than in light velocity under a real FitzGerald-Lorentz contraction. Joad's popular deceit led to millions of unnecessary deaths, as Kahn proved in 1960. Joad's successors simply attacked Kahn while ignoring the facts, and then tried the same error of relativism during the Cold War with the Soviet Union. "The people suffering in the Soviet Union had a

*right*to be free to be forced by the KGB to live under Soviet communism, just as we are free to have "a different system of government", you see! Relatively speaking,

*neither*side was right, and it was just "playground politics" to have a Cold War instead of sensibly disarming to ensure peace and safety from the horrible risk of deterring invasions, you see!" After President Nixon's Watergate scandal and failure in Vietnam, to deflect media attacks from Nixon, America began to press ahead with negotiations with the Soviet Union for SALT treaties just when the Soviet threat was reaching parity with the Western arms stockpile, and when Soviet civil defense was being transferred from civilian control to military control with vastly increased spending. If the arms race had been stopped, the Soviet Union might have survived instead of going effectively bankrupt when Reagan manipulated oil prices in the 1980s. In 1975, America signed the Helsinki Act, for the first time agreeing to the borders of the Soviet Union and its Warsaw Pact in Europe. This officially handed over those countries and people to Soviet control. After it was signed, the Chairman of the Soviet KGB (secret police), Yuri Andropov, stated in a letter to the Soviet Central Committee on 29 December 1975: "It is impossible at present to cease criminal prosecutions of those individuals who speak out against the Soviet system, since this would lead to an increase in especially dangerous state crimes and anti-social phenomena." Einstein's "peaceful co-existence" propaganda was a falsehood. How on earth can anyone surrender to such lying relativist evil?)

**Fig. 1e:**clever field strength tensor in SO(3,3): Lunsford using 3+3d obtains the Pauli-Lubanski vector for particle spin, hence obtaining a

*quantum*phenomenon from

*classical*electrodynamics! The quantum number of particle spin is crucial to classical physics because, as we shall see, it determines how the phase amplitudes of paths with different actions vary. The quantum path with least action in the path integral has the classical equations of motion. The other paths are excluded due to spin-related phase amplitude cancellation. It's really that simple! Bosons with spin-1 are transformed by Dirac-Anderson pair-production into pairs of spin-1/2 fermions (the charged radiations in pair-production are trapped in loops by gravitation, thus giving the black hole event horizon cross-sectional area for quantum gravity interactions, which is confirmed by empirically-checked quantum gravity calculations, which allows the magnetic field of any portion of the loop to be cancelled by the magnetic field from the opposite side of the loop which has the opposite direction, allowing stable spin without self-inductance issues; this is shown in my 2003

*Electronics World*paper), so just as fermions combine at low temperatures into a Bose-Einstein condensate composed of Cooper pairs of electrons (or other fermions) that together behave

*like*a frictionless, superconducting, low-viscosity boson, so too a spin-1 boson of radiation at any temperature is physically equivalent to a superposition of two spin-1/2 fermion-like components. (Higher temperatures cause random brownian motion with enough energy to break up the delicate Cooper pair spin-coupling, thus preventing superconductivity, etc.)

Fermion amplitudes during scatter

*subtract*, while boson amplitudes add together with a

*positive*sign, because of the superposition of the magnetic field self-induction vectors that are the consequence of spinning charges! (This rule applies to the scatter of similar particles in similar spin states with one another, not to unpolarized beams.) It is related to the Pauli exclusion principle, because Pauli stipulated that no two fermions with the same set of quantum numbers can exist in the same location; in a sense, therefore, the Pauli exclusion principle (only an empirically confirmed principle, not a mechanism or really deep explanation) causes fermions with originally similar sets of quantum numbers to change their states when they approach closely enough to interact. Bosons don't obey Pauli's exclusion principle, so they don't need to change their states when they scatter! This problem is discussed - but it's simple solution is ignored - by Feynman in the

*Lectures on Physics*, v3, p.4-3:

"We apologise for the fact that we cannot give you an elementary explanation. An explanation has been worked out by Pauli from complicated arguments of quantum field theory and relativity. He has shown that the two [boson and fermion interaction amplitude sign rules] must necessarily go together, but we have not been able to find a simple way of reproducing his arguments on an elementary level. It appears to be one of the few places in physics where there is a rule which can be stated very simply [for particles with identical spin states: fermion scattering amplitudes subtract in scatter, but boson scattering amplitudes add with a positive sign], but for which no one has found a simple and easy explanation. The explanation is deep down in relativistic quantum mechanics [QFT]. This probably means that we do not have a complete understanding of the fundamental principle involved. For the moment, you will just have to take it as one of the rules of the world."

(But don't be fooled. Just because Feynman said that, doesn't prove that peer-reviewers and journal editors are interested in the nurture and publication of deep-explanations to long-existing problems. Instead, the situation is the exact opposite. The longer an anomaly or "issue" has existed, the better the textbook authors learn to live with it, to camouflage it behind a wallpaper of obfuscating symbolism, and to reinterpret it as a badge of pride: "

*nobody*understands quantum mechanics". This is spoken with the "nobody"

*snarled*as a threat accompanied by a motion of the hand towards the bulging holster, after you have just explained the answer! Progress comes from change, which is violently opposed by bigots. Niccolò Machiavelli,

*The Prince*(1513), Chapter 6: "And let it be noted that there is no more delicate matter to take in hand, nor more dangerous to conduct, nor more doubtful in its success, than to set up as the leader in the introduction of changes. For he who innovates will have for his enemies all those who are well off under the existing order of things, and only lukewarm supporters in those who might be better off under the new." The struggle for progress against the vested interests of the status quo is called politics, and the extension of politics against unreasonable opponents who won't really listen or actually try to block progress is, as Clausewitz defined it, war: "War is not merely a political act, but also a real political instrument, a continuation of political commerce, a carrying out of the same by other means.")

Danny Ross Lunsford's magnificent paper

*Gravitation and Electrodynamics over SO(3,3)*overcame the hurdles required to unify gravitation and electrodynamics dynamically, making confirmed predictions (unlike the reducible gravitation-electrodynamics unification ideas of 4+1d Kaluza-Klein, Pauli, Einstein-Mayer, and Weyl; Pauli showed that "any generally covariant theory may be cast in Kaluza's form", hence the mindless and fruitless addition of 6/7 extra spatial dimensions in "not even wrong" string theory), but despite acceptance and publication in a peer-reviewed journal (

*International Journal of Theoretical Physics,*Volume 43, Number 1, 161-177), and despite supplying the required arXiv endorsement, his brilliant paper was mindlessly removed from the stringy unification theory dominated arXiv (U.S. Government part-funded) pre-print server, thus denying its circulation via the accepted mainstream electronic route to physicists around the world. To summarize Lunsford's great idea is very easy. There is not one time dimension, but three, making a total of three spatial and three time dimensions. In other words, spacetime is symmetric, with one timelike dimension per spatial dimension.

One way to grasp this is to note that the age of the universe can be deduced (since the universe has been found to have a flat overall geometry, i.e. dark energy offsets the gravitational curvature on large scales), from looking at the redshift of the universe to obtain the Hubble parameter: the age of the universe is the reciprocal of that parameter. Since we build geometry on the basis of 90 degree angles between spatial dimensions, we have three orthagonal dimensions of space, SO(3). Measuring the Hubble constant in these 3 orthagonal dimensions by pointing a telescope in the three 90-degree different directions and measuring the redshift-distance Hubble parameter in each of them, would give 3 separate ages for the universe, i.e. 3 time dimensions! Obviously, if we happen to see isotropic redshift, all the 3 age measurements for the universe will be similar, and we will live under the delusion that there is only one time dimension, not three. But in reality, there may be a simple reason why the universe has an isotropic expansion rate in all directions, and thus why time appears to have only one discernable dimension: nature may be covering up two time dimensions by making all time dimensions appear similar to us observers. If this sounds esoteric, remember that unlike string theorists who compactify 6/7 unobservable extra spatial dimensions, creating a landscape of 10

^{500}metastable vacua, Lunsford's SO(3,3) is the simplest possible and thus the best dynamical electromagnetic-gravitational unification according to Occam's razor. Lunsford proves that the the SO(3,3) unification of electrodynamics and gravitation eliminates the spurious "cosmological constant" from general relativity, so that the "dark energy" causing the acceleration must be spin-1 repulsive quantum gravity, just as we predicted in 1996 when predicting the small but later measured acceleration of the universe,

*a ~ Hc.*(A prediction published via

*Electronics World*, October 1996, p896, and also

*Science World*ISSN 1367-6172, February 1997, after the paper had been rejected for "being inconsistent with superstring theory", an (as yet) "unconfirmed speculation", etc. (

*after*confirmation, they just gave no reason for rejection when repeated submissions were made!) by the so-called "peer-reviewers" who censor predictive theories from publication for

*CQG, Nature,*et al. Unfortunately, just like those mainstream bigots, IC - despite claiming to champion progress, and despite my efforts to write about his work which culminated in publications - has never in fifteen years agreed host a single discussion on his website of QFT, nor in his numerous scientific publications, but instead like the crank string theorists resorted to shouting the idea down and wasting time!)

Lunsford finishes his paper: "It thus appears that the indeterminate aspect of the Einstein equations represented by the ordinary cosmological constant, is an artifact [in general relativity, not in nature!] of the decoupling of gravity and electromagnetism. ... the Einstein-Maxwell equations are to be regarded as a first-order approximation to the full calibration-invariant system. One striking feature of these equations that distinguishes them from Einstein's equations is the absent gravitational constant - in fact the ratio of scalars in front of the energy tensor plays that role. This explains the odd role of

*G*in general relativity and its scaling behaviour (see Weinberg, 1972 [S. Weinberg,

*Gravitation and Cosmology*, Wiley, p. 7.1, p. 10.8, 1972])."

**Fig. 1f:**Oleg D. Jefimenko and Richard P. Feynman (equation 28.3 in the

*Feynman Lectures on Physics,*vol. 1) independently solved Maxwell's equations in the early 1960s, which allows quantum field theory effects to be easily seen in the Maxwell correction to Coulomb’s force law for steady charges to an equation which allows for charge motion. The Jifimenko-Feynman equation for electric field strength is a three component equation in which the first component is from Coulomb’s law (Gauss’s field divergence equation in the Maxwell equations) where force

**F**=

*q*

**E**so that electric field

**E**=

*q*/(4*Pi*Permittivity*

*R*

^{2}) . The Feynman-Jefimenko solution to Maxwell's equations for field directions along the line of the motion and acceleration of a charge yields the simple summation of terms:

**E**

_{v/m}= [

*q*/(4*Pi*Permittivity)] {

*R*

^{-2}+ [

**v**(cos

*z*)/(

*cR*

^{2})] + [

**a**(sin

*z*)/(

*Rc*

^{2})] }

The sine and cosine factors in the two motion related terms are due to the fact that they depend on whether the motion of a charge is towards you or away from you (they come from vectors in the Feynman-Jefimenko solution;

*z*is the angle between the direction of the motion of the charge and the direction of the observer). The first term in the curly brackets is the Coulomb law for static charges. The second term in the curly brackets with a linear dependence on

**v**/

*c*is simply the effect of the redshift (observer receding from the charge) or blue shift (observer approaching the charge) of the force field quanta, which depends on whether you are moving towards or away from the charge

*q*; as the Casimir effect shows, field quanta or virtual photons do have physically-significant wavelengths. The third term in the curly brackets is the effect of accelerations of charge, i.e. the real (on-shell) photon radio wave emission: this radio emission field strength drops off inversely with distance rather than as the inverse square of distance. (The time-dependence of

**E**at distance

*R*in the equation is the retarded time

*t*-

*R/c*, which allows for the light speed delay due to the field being composed of electromagnetic field quanta and waves which must transverse that distance from charge to observer before the field can be observed.)

This solution to Maxwell's equations is important for the analysis of quantum field theory effects due to gauge bosons.

**Physical mechanism of electric forces**

Fig. 1a shows the Feynman diagrams used for the

*main*force-causing interactions (there are many others too; for example the pions aren't the only mesons involved in the strong nuclear force that operates between nucleons).

**Fig. 2:**mathematical concepts like plots of electric and magnetic field strengths or even "field lines" inside photons are

*not physically real*but they do constitute a useful

*tool,*when mathematically shown on a graph, for establishing the physical distinctions and mechanisms for on-shell (real) and off-shell (virtual) radiations in quantum field theory, and it should be remembered that Maxwell's equations are an incomplete description of electromagnetism (the field potential A

_{{mu}}is needed to account for effects of the superimposed energy density in so-called "cancelled fields", e.g. the Aharonov-Bohm effect, where the superimposed field energy loads the vacuum and thus affects quantum phenomena, just as the "cancelled" negative and positive fields from electrons and nuclei in a block of glass load the vacuum with energy density and thus slow down light).

This diagram is a revision of one from my 2003

*Electronics World*article, the main updates being due to a continuing study of IC experimental work (which he interpreted sadly using an obsolete theory) on electromagnetic energy currents, and a forceful argument in an email from Guy Grantham, which stated that the only realistic way to make a simple exchange-radiation mechanism for both attraction and repulsion is to have electrically charged field quanta (although being he didn't help in actually working out the details shown above!). The whole point is that off-shell electrically massless field quanta can't propagate in the vacuum, due to magnetic self-inductance! Therefore, they will only propagate if there is an ongoing exchange in both directions such that the magnetic fields are cancelled out. This physical mechanism for transmission and cancellation is obviously at the root of the phase amplitude in quantum field theory, whereby spinning quanta can be supposed to take all possible routes through the vacuum, although the wildly varying phases at large actions cause the paths with large actions to cancel one another out, e.g. to be stopped by field effects like non-cancellation of magnetic self-inductance.

**Fig. 3:**physical basis of path integrals for the simple case of light reflection by a mirror. Classically the reflection law is that the angle of incidence equals the angle of reflection, which is of course the path that light travels in the least time or least "action" (action is defined as the integral of the lagrangian over time; for classical systems the lagrangian is the difference between the kinetic and potential energy of a particle at any given time). Light follows all paths, but most of them have randomly orientated "phases" and thus cancel out in the vector summation. Only for small actions do the phases add together coherently. Thus, light effectively occupies not a one dimensional line as it propagates, but is spread out spatially in space due to the reinforcement of all those paths with actions small compared to Planck's constant,

*h = E/f*(which has units of action, and when divided by twice Pi, is equal to the proper unit of quantum action in quantum field theory). Hence Feynman's great statement: "Light ... uses a small core of nearby space. (In the same way, a mirror has to have enough size to reflect normally: if the mirror is too small for the core of nearby paths, the light scatters in many directions, no matter where you put the mirror.)" – R. P. Feynman,

*QED*(Penguin, 1990, page 54).

**Fig. 4:**a minor mathematical modification of Feynman's path integral theory involving replacing the imaginary (complex) phase amplitude with the real term in its expansion by Euler's equation, which is needed to overcome Dr Chris Oakley's mathematical problem with today's sloppy (mathematically non-rigorous) textbook quantum field theory, namely Haag's theorem, which proves that essential renormalization is impossible in a complex space like Foch space (an infinite-dimensional vector space) or Hilbert space (a complex inner product space, in which a complex number is associated to each pair of coordinate elements),

*because the isomorphism that maps the free-field Hilbert space on to the renormalized-field Hilbert space is ambiguous!*(This theorem was proved by Hall and Wightman. The reason why the mainstream ignores Haag's theorem is that Haag postulated that the whole interaction picture doesn't exist, an interesting possibility which was investigated without great success by Dr Chris Oakley. Nobody seems to have grasped the obvious solution, namely that Hilbert space doesn't exist and the phase factor is mathematically fictitious and in the real world must lose it's complexity (this lack of sense is probably due to groupthink or mathematical respect to Euler, Hilbert, Schroedinger, Dirac, et al.; by analogy Newton should have resisted suggesting his laws of motion, purely out of respect for the dead genius Aristotle?). We must express the phase vectors as arrows in

*real space*if we want quantum field theory to be renormalizable in a self-consistent, non-ambiguous manner. The path integral as shown above works just as well this way, it just eliminates the problem of Haag's theorem. (Haag's theorem is the argument behind Dr Oakley quotations from both Feynman and Dirac, who point out that because of renormalization, quantum field theory can't be proved to be self-consistent. As Feynman wrote in his 1985 classic,

*QED,*the lack of proof of self-consistency due to Haag's theorem is embarrassing to any self-respecting mathematical physicist working in quantum field theory.) The diagram proves the equivalence of the resultant amplitudes when using

*e*

^{iS}and cos

*S*for the phase factor in the path integral (sum over path histories). Basically, what we are suggesting is that we take Euler’s

*e*

^{iS}= cos

*S*+

*i*sin

*S*then drop the complex term

*i*sin

*S*, which cuts out the use of the imaginary axis from the Argand diagram, giving only real space!

**Fig. 5:**how simply replacing the complex e

^{iS}phasor with its real component cos (

*iS*) replaces complex space with real space, averting the inability to prove self-consistency in quantum field theory due to Haag's theorem. This allows the spatially distributed (truly transverse) on-shell and off-shell photons (unlike Maxwell's idea of the photon) shown in Fig. 2 to have a

*physically real*phase factor to be modelled, with the phase denoting a real physical property of the photons taking different paths, e.g. the phase factor can denote differing angles of spin polarization or differing charge combinations, unlike the imaginary, unphysical phase factor. The reasons why this isn't done in textbooks is the fashionable groupthink argument that, historically, the origins of the textbook complex exponential phase factor are rooted in the solution to the time-dependent form of Schroedinger's equation, and the time-dependent form of Schroedinger's equation survives as Dirac's equation because Dirac's equation is only different from Schroedinger's in its Hamiltonian (i.e., the spacetime-compatible Dirac "spinor"). However, as Feynman explained in his

*Lectures on Physics,*Schroedinger's equation was just a guess that "came out of the mind of Schroedinger"! It's not a physical fact, and it's actually contrary to physical facts because in quantum field theory it should take a discrete quantum interaction to cause a discrete wavefunction change, but Schroedinger's equation intrinsically assumes a classical, continuously varying wavefunction! The error here is obvious. Why defend a guesswork derivation error which prevents renormalized quantum field theory from being rigorously, unambiguously formulated mathematically and proved self-consistent? Dr Thomas Love has explained that all of the problems of wavefunction collapse in quantum mechanics originate from this guess by Schroedinger: "‘The quantum collapse [in the mainstream interpretation of quantum mechanics, where a wavefunction collapse occurs whenever a measurement of a particle is made] occurs when we model the wave moving according to Schroedinger (time-dependent) and then, suddenly at the time of interaction we require it to be in an eigenstate and hence to also be a solution of Schroedinger (time-independent). The collapse of the wave function is due to a discontinuity in the equations used to model the physics, it is not inherent in the physics."

Just as Bohr's atom is taught in school physics, most mainstream general physicists with training in quantum mechanics are still trapped in the use of the "anything goes" false (non-relativistic) 1927-originating "first quantization" for quantum mechanics (where anything is possible because motion is described by an uncertainty principle instead of a quantized field mechanism for chaos on small scales). The physically correct replacement is called "second quantization" or "quantum field theory", which was developed from 1929-48 by Dirac, Feynman and others.

The discoverer of the path integrals approach to quantum field theory, Nobel laureate Richard P. Feynman, has debunked the mainstream first-quantization uncertainty principle of quantum mechanics. Instead of anything being possible, the indeterminate electron motion in the atom is caused by second-quantization: the field quanta randomly interacting and deflecting the electron.

“... Bohr ... said: ‘... one could not talk about the trajectory of an electron in the atom, because it was something not observable.’ ... Bohr thought that I didn't know the uncertainty principle ... it didn't make me angry, it just made me realize that ... [ they ] ... didn't know what I was talking about, and it was hopeless to try to explain it further. I gave up, I simply gave up ..."

- Richard P. Feynman, quoted in Jagdish Mehra's biography of Feynman,

*The Beat of a Different Drum,*Oxford University Press, 1994, pp. 245-248. (Fortunately, Dyson didn't give up!)

‘I would like to put the uncertainty principle in its historical place: When the revolutionary ideas of quantum physics were first coming out, people still tried to understand them in terms of old-fashioned ideas … But at a certain point the old-fashioned ideas would begin to fail, so a warning was developed that said, in effect, “Your old-fashioned ideas are no damn good when …” If you get rid of all the old-fashioned ideas and instead use the ideas that I’m explaining in these lectures – adding

*arrows*[path amplitudes] for all the ways an event can happen – there is no

*need*for an uncertainty principle!’

- Richard P. Feynman,

*QED,*Penguin Books, London, 1990, pp. 55-56.

‘When we look at photons on a large scale – much larger than the distance required for one stopwatch turn [i.e., wavelength] – the phenomena that we see are very well approximated by rules such as “light travels in straight lines [without overlapping two nearby slits in a screen]“, because there are enough paths around the path of minimum time to reinforce each other, and enough other paths to cancel each other out. But when the space through which a photon moves becomes too small (such as the tiny holes in the [double slit] screen), these rules fail – we discover that light doesn’t have to go in straight [narrow] lines, there are interferences created by the two holes, and so on. The same situation exists with electrons: when seen on a large scale, they travel like particles, on definite paths. But on a small scale, such as inside an atom, the space is so small that [individual random field quanta exchanges become important because there isn't enough space involved for them to average out completely, so] there is no main path, no “orbit”; there are all sorts of ways the electron could go, each with an amplitude. The phenomenon of interference becomes very important, and we have to sum the arrows [in the path integral for individual field quanta interactions, instead of using the average which is the classical Coulomb field] to predict where an electron is likely to be.’

- Richard P. Feynman,

*QED,*Penguin Books, London, 1990, Chapter 3, pp. 84-5.

His path integrals rebuild and reformulate quantum mechanics itself, getting rid of the Bohring ‘uncertainty principle’ and all the pseudoscientific baggage like ‘entanglement hype’ it brings with it:

‘This paper will describe what is essentially a third formulation of nonrelativistic quantum theory [Schroedinger's wave equation and Heisenberg's matrix mechanics being the first two attempts, which both generate nonsense 'interpretations']. This formulation was suggested by some of Dirac’s remarks concerning the relation of classical action to quantum mechanics. A probability amplitude is associated with an entire motion of a particle as a function of time, rather than simply with a position of the particle at a particular time.

‘The formulation is mathematically equivalent to the more usual formulations. … there are problems for which the new point of view offers a distinct advantage. …’

- Richard P. Feynman, ‘Space-Time Approach to Non-Relativistic Quantum Mechanics’, Reviews of Modern Physics, vol. 20 (1948), p. 367.

‘… I believe that path integrals would be a very worthwhile contribution to our understanding of quantum mechanics. Firstly, they provide a physically extremely appealing and intuitive way of viewing quantum mechanics: anyone who can understand Young’s double slit experiment in optics should be able to understand the underlying ideas behind path integrals. Secondly, the classical limit of quantum mechanics can be understood in a particularly clean way via path integrals. … for fixed h-bar, paths near the classical path will on average interfere constructively (small phase difference) whereas for random paths the interference will be on average destructive. … we conclude that if the problem is classical (action >> h-bar), the most important contribution to the path integral comes from the region around the path which extremizes the path integral. In other words, the article’s motion is governed by the principle that the action is stationary. This, of course, is none other than the Principle of Least Action from which the Euler-Lagrange equations of classical mechanics are derived.’

- Richard MacKenzie, Path Integral Methods and Applications, pp. 2-13.

‘… light doesn’t really travel only in a straight line; it “smells” the neighboring paths around it, and uses a small core of nearby space. (In the same way, a mirror has to have enough size to reflect normally: if the mirror is too small for the core of neighboring paths, the light scatters in many directions, no matter where you put the mirror.)’

- Richard P. Feynman, QED, Penguin Books, London, 1990, Chapter 2, p. 54.

There are other serious and well-known failures of first quantization aside from the nonrelativistic Hamiltonian time dependence:

“The quantum collapse [in the mainstream interpretation of first quantization quantum mechanics, where a wavefunction collapse occurs whenever a measurement of a particle is made] occurs when we model the wave moving according to Schroedinger (time-dependent) and then, suddenly at the time of interaction we require it to be in an eigenstate and hence to also be a solution of Schroedinger (time-independent). The collapse of the wave function is due to a discontinuity in the equations used to model the physics, it is not inherent in the physics.” – Thomas Love, California State University.

“In some key Bell experiments, including two of the well-known ones by Alain Aspect, 1981-2, it is only after the subtraction of ‘accidentals’ from the coincidence counts that we get violations of Bell tests. The data adjustment, producing increases of up to 60% in the test statistics, has never been adequately justified. Few published experiments give sufficient information for the reader to make a fair assessment.” – http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/9903/9903066v2.pdf

First quantization for QM (e.g. Schroedinger) quantizes the product of position and momentum of an electron, rather than the Coulomb field which is treated classically. This leads to a mathematically useful approximation for bound states like atoms, which is physically false and inaccurate in detail (a bit like Ptolemy's epicycles, where all planets were assumed to orbit Earth in circles within circles). Feynman explains this in his 1985 book QED (he dismisses the uncertainty principle as complete model, in favour of path integrals) because

*indeterminancy is physically caused by virtual particle interactions from the quantized Coulomb field becoming important on small, subatomic scales!*Second quantization (QFT) introduced by Dirac in 1929 and developed with Feynman’s path integrals in 1948, instead quantizes the field. Second quantization is physically the correct theory because all indeterminancy results from the random fluctuations in the interactions of discrete field quanta, and first quantization by Heisenberg and Schroedinger’s approaches is just a semi-classical, non-relativistic mathematical approximation useful for obtaining simple mathematical solutions for bound states like atoms:

‘You might wonder how such simple actions could produce such a complex world. It’s because phenomena we see in the world are the result of an enormous intertwining of tremendous numbers of photon exchanges and interferences.’

- Richard P. Feynman, QED, Penguin Books, London, 1990, p. 114.

‘Underneath so many of the phenomena we see every day are only three basic actions: one is described by the simple coupling number, j; the other two by functions P(A to B) and E(A to B) – both of which are closely related. That’s all there is to it, and from it all the rest of the laws of physics come.’

- Richard P. Feynman, QED, Penguin Books, London, 1990, p. 120.

‘It always bothers me that, according to the laws as we understand them today, it takes a computing machine an infinite number of logical operations to figure out what goes on in no matter how tiny a region of space, and no matter how tiny a region of time. How can all that be going on in that tiny space? Why should it take an infinite amount of logic to figure out what one tiny piece of spacetime is going to do? So I have often made the hypothesis that ultimately physics will not require a mathematical statement, that in the end the machinery will be revealed, and the laws will turn out to be simple, like the chequer board with all its apparent complexities.’

- R. P. Feynman, The Character of Physical Law, November 1964 Cornell Lectures, broadcast and published in 1965 by BBC, pp. 57-8.

Sound waves are composed of the group oscillations of large numbers of randomly colliding air molecules; despite the randomness of individual air molecule collisions, the average pressure variations from many molecules obey a simple wave equation and carry the wave energy. Likewise, although the actual motion of an atomic electron is random due to individual interactions with field quanta, the average location of the electron resulting from many random field quanta interactions is non-random and can be described by a simple wave equation such as Schroedinger’s.

This is fact, it isn’t my opinion or speculation: professor David Bohm in 1952 proved that “brownian motion” of an atomic electron will result in average positions described by a Schroedinger wave equation. Unfortunately, Bohm also introduced unnecessary “hidden variables” with an infinite field potential into his messy treatment, making it a needlessly complex, uncheckable representation, instead of simply accepting that the quantum field interations produce the “Brownian motion” of the electron as described by Feynman’s path integrals for simple random field quanta interactions with the electron.

Quantum tunnelling is possible because electromagnetic fields are not classical, but are mediated by field quanta randomly exchanged between charges. For large charges and/or long times, the number of field quanta exchanged is so large that the result is similar to a steady classical field. But for small charges and small times, such as the scattering of charges in high energy physics, there is some small probability that no or few field quanta will happen to be exchanged in the time available, so the charge will be able to penetrate through the classical "Coulomb barrier". If you quantize the Coulomb field, the electron's motion is indeterministic in the atom because it's randomly exchanging Coulomb field quanta which cause chaotic motion. This is second quantization as explained by Feynman in

*QED*. This is not what is done in quantum mechanics, which is based on first quantization, i.e. treating the Coulomb field

*V*classically, and falsely representing the chaotic motion of the electron by a wave-type equation. This is a

*physically false*mathematical model since it omits the physical cause of the indeterminancy (although it gives convenient predictions, somewhat like Ptolemy's accurate epicycle based predictions of planetary positions):

**Fig. 6:**Schroedinger's equation, based on quantizing the momentum p in the classical Hamiltonian (the sum of kinetic and potential energy for the particle), H. This is an example of 'first quantization', which is inaccurate and is also used in Heisenberg's matrix mechanics.

*Correct*quantization will instead quantize the

*Coulomb field potential energy,*V, because the whole indeterminancy of the electron in the atom is

*physically caused*by the chaos of the randomly timed individual interactions of the electron with the discrete Coulomb field quanta which bind the electron to orbit the nucleus, as Feynman proved (see quotations below). The triangular symbol is the divergence operator (simply the sum of the gradients in all applicable spatial dimensions, for whatever it operates on) which when squared becomes the laplacian operator (simply the sum of second-order derivatives in all applicable spatial dimensions, for whatever it operates on). We illustrate the Schroedinger equation in just one spatial dimension, x, above, since the terms for other spatial dimensions are identical.

Dirac's quantum field theory is needed because textbook quantum mechanics is simply wrong: the Schroedinger equation has a

*second-order*dependence on spatial distance but only a

*first-order*dependence on time. In the real world, time and space are found to be on an

*equal*footing, hence spacetime. There are deeper errors in textbook quantum mechanics: it

*ignores*the quantization of the electromagnetic field and instead treats it classically, when the field quanta are the whole distinction between classical and quantum mechanics (the random motion of the electron orbiting the nucleus in the atom is

*caused*by discrete field quanta interactions, as proved by Feynman).

Dirac was the first to achieve a relativistic field equation to replace the non-relativistic quantum mechanics approximations (the Schroedinger wave equation and the Heisenberg momentum-distance matrix mechanics). Dirac also laid the groundwork for Feynman's path integrals in his 1933 paper "The Lagrangian in Quantum Mechanics" published in

*Physikalische Zeitschrift der Sowjetunion*where he states:

"Quantum mechanics was built up on a foundation of analogy with the Hamiltonian theory of classical mechanics. This is because the classical notion of canonical coordinates and momenta was found to be one with a very simple quantum analogue ...

"Now there is an alternative formulation for classical dynamics, provided by the Lagrangian. ... The two formulations are, of course, closely related, but there are reasons for believing that the Lagrangian one is the more fundamental. ... the Lagrangian method can easily be expressed relativistically, on account of the action function being a relativistic invariant; while the Hamiltonian method is essentially nonrelativistic in form ..."

Schroedinger’s time-dependent equation is: Hy= iħ.dy /dt, which has the exponential solution:

y

_{t}= y

_{o}exp[-iH(t – t

_{o})/ħ].

This equation is accurate, because the error in Schroedinger's equation comes only from the expression used for the Hamiltonian, H. This exponential law represents the time-dependent value of the wavefunction for any Hamiltonian and time. Squaring this wavefunction gives the amplitude or relative probability for a given Hamiltonian and time. Dirac took this amplitude e

^{-iHT/ħ}and derived the more fundamental lagrangian amplitude for action S, i.e. e

^{iS/ħ}. Feynman showed that summing this amplitude factor over all possible paths or interaction histories gave a result proportional to the total probability for a given interaction. This is the path integral.

Schroedinger's incorrect, non-relativistic hamiltonian before quantization (ignoring the inclusion of the Coulomb field potential energy, V, which is an added term) is: H = ½

**p**

^{2}/m. Quantization is done using the substitution for momentum, p -> -iħ{divergence operator} as in

**Fig. 6**above. The Coulomb field potential energy, V, remains classical in Schroedinger's equation, instead of being quantized as it should.

The bogus ‘special relativity’ prediction to correct the expectation H = ½

**p**

^{2}/m is simply: H = [(mc

^{2})

^{2}+

**p**

^{2}c

^{2}]

^{2}, but that was falsified by the fact that, although the total mass-energy is then conserved, the resulting Schroedinger equation permits an initially localised electron to travel faster than light! This defect was averted by the Klein-Gordon equation, which states:

ħ

^{2}d

^{2}y/dt

^{2}= [(mc

^{2})

^{2}+

**p**

^{2}c

^{2}]y.

While this is physically correct, it is non-linear in only dealing with second-order variations of the wavefunction. Dirac’s equation simply makes the time-dependent Schroedinger equation (Hy = iħ.dy/dt) relativistic, by inserting for the hamiltonian (H) a totally new relativistic expression which differs from special relativity:

H = a

**p**c + b mc

^{2},

where

**p**is the momentum operator. The values of constants a and b can take are represented by a 4 x 4 = 16 component matrix, which is called the Dirac ‘spinor’. This is not to be confused for the Weyl spinors used in the gauge theories of the Standard Model; whereas the Dirac spinor represents massive spin-1/2 particles, the Dirac equation yields two Weyl equations for massless particles, each with a 2-component Weyl spinor (representing left- and right-handed spin or helicity eigenstates). The justification for Dirac’s equation is both theoretical and experimental. Firstly, it yields the Klein-Gordon equation for second-order variations of the wavefunction. Secondly, it predicts four solutions for the total energy of a particle having momentum p:

E = ±[(mc

^{2})

^{2}+ p

^{2}c

^{2}]

^{1/2}.

Two solutions to this equation arise from the fact that momentum is directional and so can be can be positive or negative. The spin of an electron is ± ½ ħ = ± h/(4p). This explains two of the four solutions! The electron is spin-1/2 so it has a spin of only half the amount of a spin-1 particle, which means that the electron must rotate 720 degrees (not 360 degrees!) to undergo one revolution, like a Mobius strip (a strip of paper with a twist before the ends are glued together, so that there is only one surface and you can draw a continuous line around that surface which is twice the length of the strip, i.e. you need 720 degrees turning to return it to the beginning!). Since the spin rate of the electron generates its intrinsic magnetic moment, it affects the magnetic moment of the electron. Zee gives a concise derivation of the fact that the Dirac equation implies that ‘a unit of spin angular momentum interacts with a magnetic field twice as much as a unit of orbital angular momentum’, a fact discovered by Dirac the day after he found his equation (see: A. Zee,

*Quantum Field Theory in a Nutshell,*Princeton University press, 2003, pp. 177-8.) The other two solutions are evident obvious when considering the case of p = 0, for then E = ± mc

^{2}. This equation proves the fundamental distinction between Dirac’s theory and Einstein’s special relativity. Einstein’s equation from special relativity is E = mc

^{2}. The fact that in fact E = ± mc

^{2}, proves the physical shallowness of special relativity which results from the lack of physical mechanism in special relativity. E = ± mc

^{2 }allowed Dirac to predict antimatter, such as the anti-electron called the positron, which was later discovered by Anderson in 1932 (anti-matter is naturally produced all the time when suitably high-energy gamma radiation hits heavy nuclei, causing pair production, i.e., the creation of a particle and an anti-particle such as an electron and a positron).

(To be continued when time allows. In the meanwhile, as linked on an earlier post, the introductory pages from my draft PDF paper can be found at http://nige.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/paper-draft-pages-1-5-2-oct-2010.pdf, although please note that there are some trivial mathematical symbol typos that are outside my control, e.g. the QuarkXpress software I used doesn't contain any apparent way of writing Psi with an overbar, so I've had to underline Psi instead. I also gave some comments about errors in "electroweak symmetry" on Tommaso's blog which are of relevance, posts on this blog discuss particle masses and the quantum gravity mechanism.)

**Above:**a quantitative prediction of the cosmological acceleration of the universe in 1996, two years ahead of the discovery, was ignored! Pseudo-physicists at the so-called

*Classical and Quantum Gravity*and also

*Physics Review Letters*think anything fundamental that doesn't agree with superstring liars must be wrong! Maybe the gravitons heat up or slow down planets? If so this should apply also to the well established off-shell Casimir radiation in the vacuum which would have dragged and slow the planets making them glow, slow down, and spiral into the sun millions of years ago. They didn't. Contrary to string theorists who are ignorant of the basics of quantum field theory, field quanta are off-shell particles, which impart kinetic energy to accelerate charges thus causing forces, without causing direct heating or drag, merely the Lorentz mass increase and the real FitzGerald-Lorentz contraction effect. Maybe rank-2 tensors prove spin-2 gravitons? Nope, rank-1 tensors are first order field line gradients, and rank-2 tensors are second-order equations of motion. You can use either rank-1 or rank-2 equations for electromagnetism or gravity; it depends not on spin but purely on whether the theory is formulated as field lines (rank-1 equations) or accelerations in spacetime (rank-2).

**Update (20 January 2011):**

Sadly, superstring theorist Dr Lubos Motl, a Facebook friend who is 100% right about global warming hype, left-wing dangers and political correctness, has called for the famous superstring theorist Professor Greene at Columbia University to fire superstring critic Dr Peter Woit. Dr Woit, whose blog and paper on representation theory and quantum field theory since 2002 has led me to my current approach to the problem of fundamental interactions and unification, has replied robustly: "It seems that some unemployed guy in Pilsen who reads this blog thinks Brian Greene is my employer and is upset that Brian is not having me fired. For the record, my position as “Senior Lecturer” in the math department is not tenured, but I have a long-term contract and whether it gets renewed at some point in the distant future will have nothing to do with what Brian thinks about this blog, or with what I think about his books. Actually, my impression is that if most string theorists could choose one well-known blog dealing with string theory to shut down, it wouldn’t be this one ..."

Elsewhere, Dr Woit writes: “The controversy over the multiverse is … the idea that string theory implies a multitude of completely separate universes with different physical laws. This is quite different than many-worlds, which is an interpretation of standard quantum mechanics, with one fixed set of physical laws.”

Dr Peter Woit, “Is the Multiverse Immoral?”: “One of the lessons of superstring theory unification is if that a wrong idea is promoted for enough years, it gets into the textbooks and becomes part of the conventional wisdom about how the world works. This process is now well underway with multiverse pseudo-science, as some theorists who should know better choose to heavily promote it, and others abdicate their responsibility to fight pseudo-science as it gains traction in their field.”

Friend says (January 29, 2011 at 8:00 pm): “I think that multiverses are a misinterpretation of the Path Integral used in QFT, etc. Instead of it predicting the actual existence of alternative paths/universes, it really predicts that it takes ALL possibilities to make just one universe. Thus it is impossible for multiverses to exist.”

{NC note: the “Friend” who wrote this comment, which goes on to another paragraph of abject speculation, is not me, although I have contributed comments under anonymity where I can’t otherwise contribute comments. The probability that “Friend” is Dr Woit writing an anonymous comment on his own blog, or a friend of his doing so, is not 0. However I don’t really know what Dr Woit thinks about Feynman’s 1985 book QED. My wild guess from reading Dr Woit’s 2002 arXiv paper on “Quantum Field Theory and Representation Theory” is that he hasn’t really spent time on Feynman’s 1985 book, doesn’t physically put too much stress on the “heuristic” picture of 2nd quantization/QFT as virtual particles following every path and interfering to cause “wavefunction” chaos; he works in a mathematics department and is fixed into a belief that sophisticated maths is good, only objecting to misrepresentations of mathematics for hype and funding by superstring theorists and others. “Friend”, in a later comment time-stamped 9:29pm, writes about another pet interest of Dr Woit’s: “how about the financial market;-) Unsatisfied with economic progress, they’ve invented extravagant financial theories of prime-lending rates and complicated security instruments. Funny, I’ve heard that some physicists have found work in the financial industry. Perhaps their theories work in some other universe.” Dr Baez replied to Friend: ‘That’s a nice analogy because it seems to have been caused by a desperate search for “high rates of return”.’}

John Baez says (January 29, 2011 at 8:45 pm): “Maybe a branch of science is ripe for infection by pseudoscience whenever it stops making enough progress to satisfy the people in that field: as a substitute for real progress, they’ll be tempted to turn to fake progress. One could expect this tendency to be proportional to the loftiness of the goals the field has set for itself… and to the difficulty its practitioners have in switching to nearby fields that are making more progress. But is this really true? …”

Thomas Larsson says (January 31, 2011 at 12:12 pm): "Medieval astronomers knew that the universe is a mechanical clockwork with at least 13 epicycles. The point is that Nature’s answers depend on how the question is posed. If you ask her about epicycles, she will answer with epicycles, even if that has little to do with the correct dynamics. And if you ask her about dark matter and dark energy, she will answer in terms of dark matter and energy. Perhaps this is the right framework. But perhaps it is not." Update:

## 0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home