Theoretical Physicist Matt Strassler argued for the un-naturalness of nature and wrote, “The naturalness argument boils down to this:

Quantum fields fluctuate;

Fluctuations carry energy, called “zero-point energy”, which can be calculated and is very large;

The energy of the fluctuations of a field depends on the corresponding particle’s mass;

The particle’s mass, for the known particles, depends on the Higgs field;

Therefore the energy of empty space depends strongly on the Higgs field

Unless one of these five statements is wrong (good luck finding a mistake — every one of them involves completely basic issues in quantum theory and in the Higgs mechanism for giving masses) then there’s a naturalness puzzle. (See http://profmattstrassler.com/2013/12/13/visiting-the-university-of-maryland/ )”

Are those five statements above not wrong? Quantum field theory (QFT) has done a great job in *advancing* the knowledge of physics. Is QFT not wrong? It is obviously not an *exact correct* description of Nature. If it is, it will at least be able to derive some (if not all) parameters of Nature, such as the Cabibbo/Weinberg angles and Alpha. In the Alpha equation below, it needs no QFT and does not encompass any QFT parts (see http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2012/04/alpha-fine-structure-constant-mystery.html ).

Beta = 1/alpha = 64 ( 1 + first order mixing + sum of the higher order mixing)

= 64 (1 + 1/Cos A(2) + .00065737 + …)

= 137.0359 …

A(2) is the Weinberg angle, A(2) = 28.743 degree

The sum of the higher order mixing = 2(1/48)[(1/64) + (1/2)(1/64)^2 + …+(1/n)(1/64)^n +…]

= .00065737 + …

Besides this simple failure, QFT is unable to address any issues below.

- The derivation of Standard Model particle zoo (string unification)
- The Planck data for dark mass and dark energy
- The cryptic relationships between the experimentally measured Standard Model constants (the theoretical base for the free parameters {the Cabibbo and Weinberg angles, Alpha, mass-charges, etc.})
- Superunification (Quantum / gravity unification)
- The Baryongenesis
- The rest mass rising mechanism
- Many others (lives, numbers, etc.)

By all means, QFT *was* a great tool in physics but is now useless for these unresolved problems above. Using such an outdated tool as the litmus test for Naturalness is a wrong choice. Nature did not have a *planning committee* or a *steering committed*. Nature created this universe with three steps (ready, get set, go), neither planning nor *trial-and error* (the fine-tuning). That is, Nature started with an axiomatic *point* and goes. Any physics model (the QFT or the whatnot) which cannot describe Nature with an axiomatic system must be not *exactly correct*. Thus, we have a *Naturalness Principle*.

Naturalness Principle — if model B is a model for Nature and an un-naturalness issue is developed in it, it is a *wrong* model for Nature. (see http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2012/04/axiomatic-physics-final-physics.html ). Note: this is discussed in detail in the book “Linguistics Manifesto” (ISBN 978-3-8383-9722-1, US copyright TX 7-290-840).

Please also read “CAN NATURE BE UNNATURAL?” at https://tienzengong.wordpress.com/2013/09/19/can-nature-be-unnatural/

## One thought on “Nonsense of the un-nature Nature”