The dual behavior of quantum Fields and the big Bang

Question

Referee this paper: arXiv:1604.01253 by Malik Matwi

Please use comments to point to previous work in this direction, and reviews to referee the accuracy of the paper. Feel free to edit this submission to summarise the paper (just click on edit, your summary will then appear under the horizontal line)

(Is this your paper?)

---

Original Abstract; We modify the propagation for the quarks and gluons, with that we have finite results, without ultra violet divergence in perturbed interaction of the quarks and gluons, this makes it easily for the interaction renormalization, like the self energy. Then we search for a way to remove our modification, with fixing the Lagrange parameters. so we can ignore our modification. We relate the modification to interaction situation, this is, we need it only for interaction renormalization. we see for the free the modification is removed. then We try to give the modification terms modification physical aspects, for this we see the corresponding terms in the Lagrange. To do that we find the role of those terms in the Feynman diagrams, in self energies, quarks gluons vertex. We see we can relate the propagation modification to fields dual behavior, pairing particle with antiparticle appears as scalar particles with high mass. For the quarks we can interrupt these particles as pions.

Answer 1

I'm very happy to see sparks of science in Syria, but I have to say this is a very confused paper, and the mistakes are elementary. 

The author starts with a higher-derivative regularization of the propagator that takes the form of

$$\frac{1}{(k^2-i\epsilon)(1+a^2k^2)}.$$

I don't have an immediate gripe with this although it's well known such regulator is not guaranteed to respect renormalizablity and unitariry of QCD, as oppposed to dim-reg in which the two are concretely proven. But the author seems to be in spirit more concerned with the "physical" aspects, so I can let this go for the moment. However, later the author makes the hypothesis that the regulator is physical and makes no attempt to remove it, and interprets the second pole mass offered by $1+a^2k^2$ as a pion. This is very wrong, notwithstanding the completely sabotaged gauge invariance/renormalizablity/unitarity,  now you have two poles in an allegedly-particle propagator at free field level, that normally just means you don't really have a particle interpretation of your field theory, and to have a second particle at free propagator level, you need a second fundamental field. I guess the author confuses himself partly because he only comes to realize the existence of such a pole after a loop calculation on page 12, while in fact the pole is there at the very beginning. Plus, if one considers chiral symmetry breaking, the degrees of freedom just run wild if a pion is really what the author claims it to be.  

In addition, the author has a confused discussion on confinement. First he gets the definition of confinement wrong, confinement is a long distance phenomenon, while the author demonstrates a linear potential at short distance $r<a$, here (page10) he also confuses cutoff scale with energy scale and gives a wrong justisfication for the scale at which confinement happens, on top of that here he seems to be willing to freely tune $a \to 0$ while this is in contradiction with identifying $1/a$ as the physical mass of a pion. Also, the way he gets linear potential is basically expanding a Yukawa potential to $O(r)$, in such way he might as well claim massive $\phi^4$, or any interacting theory with a massive particle for that matter, to be confining.  And even if he had done everything right, it's destined to fail trying to prove confinement within perturbative QCD, since perturbation series is probably divergent (at best asymptotic), using perturbation theory to probe confinement, which is a strongly interacting effect, is doomed both in principle and practice.  

I didn't read the rest of the paper.

Comments

malik matwi

for the low distance confinement r<a, if the confinement survive at long distance, the the quarks of the protons and the neutrons in the same nucleus will be confinement in whole nucleus, and this is wrong.

---

malik matwi, also the dual behavior explaines how the confinement quarks of different baryons interacte

---

to satisfy the symmetries I related that modification to dual fields behavior, as I think the nature is scalar and it is not charged. I said in the abstract when the length a could not be removed then the perturbation is broken, and that depends on the coupling constant behavior.

the more details in page 10 when r<a, the total energy of the quarks become negative so the quarks disappear(condensation in hadrons)
for the confinement, here is defined in linear potential sigma *r it likes the string force, it is impossible to escape from it, so r<a
later I tried to say the varies in the length a is geodesic expanding, so r/a is invariant when a expands.

---

malik matwi

at first I tried to remove x1=x2 from the propagation

https://www.docdroid.net/TYzB01L/the-time-stop-in-the-quantum-fields-fluctuation.pdf.html

the propagation modification is legal according to remove x1=x2

---

at first I tried to remove x1=x2 from the propagation

https://www.docdroid.net/TYzB01L/the-time-stop-in-the-quantum-fields-fluctuation.pdf.html

the propagation modification is legal according to remove x1=x2

---

the propagation modification in my paper is exactly same the Pauli–Villars regularization for the scalar field propagation
http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic792163.files/15-regschemes.pdf

and

http://paperity.org/p/58839061/ambiguities-in-pauli-villars-regularization

but the difference is in the meaning of M and 1/a 
in Pauli–Villars regularization the cutoff scale M is a heavy particle mass.
while  in my paper the energy scale 1/a is a mass of paired particle-antiparticle only at low energy for the quarks at high energy 1/a is ignored while the mass M is taken at any energy.

your classifying my paper as confused is injustice.

---

the pairing particle antiparticle is like to say(for electrons photons interaction) that the long wave photons could not interact with the high energy electrons as the possibility of the interaction with the low energy electrons.
that is, the long wave photons see the high energy electrons and positrons as paired electrons-positrons.

---

at first I tried to satisfy the chiral symmetry, in that place, I thought that the chiral symmetry breaking is due to vacuum classical polarization, and this problem is solved by dual behavior of fields, some of these notes are in the first paper http://iiste.org/Journals/index.php/APTA/article/view/26837

---

at first I tried to satisfy the chiral symmetry, in that place, I thought that the chiral symmetry breaking is due to vacuum classical polarization, and this problem is solved by dual behavior of fields, some of these notes are in the first paper http://iiste.org/Journals/index.php/APTA/article/view/26837

---

notice(page 37): we assume that the universe was created in every point in two dimensions space XY then the explosion in Z direction. That is by the quarks, in each point in XY at the quarks were created and then they expanded in each point XY to the length a0 then the explosion in Z direction, the result is the universe in the space XYZ.

This assumption appears to be strange, I used it to calculate   

V_q/V_h=H_h/H_q=Sd_q/Sd_h (page 44)

We can make this assumption more legal, we assume, the quarks universal condensation in hadrons occurred in one direction let it Z direction, this means, to spend less energy for the condensation, the correspond force must effect only in one direction Z . We let X, Y, Z as proper distances.

---

@MK 

Answer 2

This paper apparently claims to: modify perturbative QCD to make it UV finite, derive free and confined phases, and build from this a cosmology that doesn't need a dark sector... Normally I would just glance at such a paper, but this one is from Syria. I don't see many (any!) QFT papers from Syria, right or wrong, and I think it might contribute in some small way to the recovery of that country, to engage with a work so ambitious as this.

Comments

I know one, Nidal Chamoun, who taught me. 

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/264979638_Neutrino_Mixing_and_Leptogenesis_in_mu-tau_Symmetry