[AntonioLao]

In certain sense, the success of QED depended on the logical validity of an imaginary Feynman rule as a way of avoiding the singular complex infinity located on one of the poles of a given Riemann complex sphere. It is also reasonable to suggest the same is true for the method of renormalization in eliminating various addends of infinity for a direct approach to convergence of infinite power series approximations.

Since the coupling constant of QED is a small dimensionless number less than unity approximately 1/137, all is well and good. The process of renormalization works beautifully! However, in QCD, the coupling constant is exactly unity. Although QCD became renormalized by the concept of asymptotic freedom, it is not clearly understood why it works? To simply say that the strong color force gets weaker as the quarks get closer to each other is tantamount to accepting a decreasing effectiveness of gluons. So, why need them in the first place? This reversal of scaling also put the question why should a scalar Higgs boson exist? All these became more questionable where and when complicated by accepting the existence of zero metric spinors and imaginary quantum vectors.

For an alternative approach, it is reasonable to suggest that zero quantum vectors cannot exist but quantum vectors of unit Planck length do. By a principle of proximity for these vectors where and when two of these are exactly directed toward each other they appear as a zero vector and approaching a pure scalar by losing some of their directional properties. Since directional properties are conserved, no quantum vectors can completely lose all eight directional invariance properties. At most, seven can be lost. This last singular stronghold becomes a description of real Feynman rule.

[Profpat]

Hi AntonioLao;

I saw the movie INFINITY about Richard Feynman.
he was not only a genius but also a romantic. I highly recommend it if you have not viewed it yet.

Best to you,

Pat

[AntonioLao]

Originally Posted by Profpat I highly recommend it if you have not viewed it yet

Thanks for your recommendation. I'll check it out tomorrow. Now I understand why I missed it. It's a 1996 release and between 1994-1998 were the hardest years for me when I got laidoff from a very highpaid job to practically zero income and have to struggle by doing menial works cleaning toilets, etc.

[Profpat]

Well I hope with your brain you're back to doing some work applicable to talents.

[AntonioLao]

Originally Posted by Profpat some work applicable to talents

You can say that is almost exactly what i'm doing now teaching 5 to 15 year olds math proficiency.

[Profpat]

Excellent, I think teaching is one of the highest level occupations one can hope for, though the pay may be low, the rewards are great.

[AntonioLao]

Originally Posted by Profpat though the pay may be low, the rewards are great.

You are absolute right! But one thing that surprises me is that it also help me to concentrate and focus on my research because I can't really teach something that I don't know about.

[Profpat]

You are right Antonio.

When I first started to study accounting that was one level. When I practiced it that was the 2nd level. Now I teach it and thats the 3rd level. The level that I'm not sure if I really understand it.

[AntonioLao]

Originally Posted by Profpat The level that I'm not sure if I really understand it

If I'm lucky I'll live long enough to reach the deepest level of understanding which is the level of absolute infinite consciousness.

[Profpat]

For that level you might want to try to trance yourself, or study the yoga sutras of Patanjali.