Nonsense of the un-nature Nature


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 )”


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 ).


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.

  1. The derivation of Standard Model particle zoo (string unification)
  2. The Planck data for dark mass and dark energy
  3.  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.})
  4. Superunification (Quantum / gravity unification)
  5. The Baryongenesis
  6. The rest mass rising mechanism
  7. 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 Using such an outdated tool as the litmus test for Naturalness is a wrong choice.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 ).  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 



One thought on “Nonsense of the un-nature Nature

  1. Pingback: Measuring the ‘reality’ | The Great Vindications

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s