Various kinds of feedback have come to my recent "quantum spin" posting which summarizes my best current understanding of how the universe really works.
For example might ask: "Hey, does your new Lagrangian still explain the
parity problem which, after all, was crucial to the genesis of electroweak theory in the first place?"
I should stress that I have proposed "equal consideration" to the original Lagrangian
as modified in any of three ways: changing Q and phi to a twistor phi, or replacing V by f(V),
as in that posting; and replacing the general relativity master equation with the corresponding Moffat master equation (Moffat's theory of gravity.)
Parity asymmetry is no problem here. Look at the ansatz! The electron in this model would
be the mirror image of the positron, which has opposite electric and topological charge. The asymmetry of the electron itself under parity gives rise to apparent parity violation at the macroscopic level. Since charge itself is an emergent (topological) property of this system, to insert parity violation into the Lagrangian itself, before charge appears, would be to violate CP symmetry! And this applies to all variations of the Lagrangian!
But what about CP violation, as was first demonstrated in rates of spontaneous fluctuation between the K0 meson and its antiparticle (very slightly faster in one direction than in the other), and then starting in 1999 in other systems (K0 decay, and B and D mesons)?
The standard model of phyiscs does not really explain that either. I am mainly proposing this as
an upgrade to the usual standard model and quantum gravity, with only about 5% probability of being the ultimate answer. Rather, it is a new starting point. Many questions about gravity, dark matter, dark energy, cosmology, and CP violation (and things we have not yet seen in the laboratory) offer many options but no clear resolution as yet; more empirical work is needed.
Still, we can think about alternatives for CP violation.
The biggest issue about CP asymmetry is: why do we see so many more electrons and protons than
positrons and antiprotons?
There are many conventional possibilities, often debated, which I have not kept up with so much.
First, perhaps the asymmetry is just local; maybe there are equal numbers in the larger cosmos,
and maybe we see "patches" of one kind due to their mutual annihilation and other such symmetry breaking effects, analogous in a way to patches of magnetization. Second, IF baryon number is absolutely conserved (as SOME possible soliton properties would imply, with baryon a function of the topological charges), the "explanation" may simply be that the universe STARTED with a strongly nonzero baryon number, and that "explaining' this is like trying to explain why c and e and h are not zero. Third, if baryon number is NOT absolutely and rigidly conserved (as implied by some soliton properties which I suspect are more likely, given the RELATIVELY short-range nature of strong nuclear forces, and as Sakharov and the "Protvino project" assume), the we might invoke
some spontaneous symmetry breaking (SSB) in highly energetic processes at the time of the Big Bang (as Sakharov proposed) or SSB in rare but gradually decisive events under more normal conditions (e.g. very rare collisions, effects near black holes, or even stuff like what Baxter has written about in science fiction).
How does that relate to the more mundane K0 to antiK0 stuff? The frustrating part of
such CP violations so far as that we don't have a strong empirical basis yet for understanding where and how it happens, despite very important and noble efforts by the Babar experiments and such,
The effects are small enough that I could easily imagine they may be an effect of
weak background radiation we do not know of, which are still consistent with my Lagrangian, asymmetric as a consequence of what kinds of matter (mainly neutrons and protons) are primary sources of that background radiation (modulating it, whatever the fields and energy patterns are themselves). We really don't know, but it MIGHT all be within my Lagrangian or its variants.
That does raise the question, as with lots of neutrino stuff, how much certain empirical numbers
may vary as a function of where one looks in the solar system or in the galaxy.
Of course, dark matter and dark energy pose many other such questions. Moffat's theory of gravity offers one very clear way to explain all that -- more precisely to explain things without assuming that
dark energy or matter exist. One might ask: "Why didn't you just post the alternate Lagrangian using Moffat's term with a twistor Higgs field and f(V)?" Fair enough. I would right now, except for
other duties. (It does require reviewing Penrose's book and making sure the couplings are really right for a twistor field. There may even be subchoices, spinor coupling versus vector coupling,
all still in the realm of "classical bosonic theory." All quite well-defined mathematically,
with symmetries defined by the Lagrangian itself.) But in fact, I would not want to assert
that dark matter does not exist at this point; certainly these Lagrangians do allow for the possibility of
stuff like 'WIMPS," and certainly other theories of gravity beyond classical general relativity and Moffat's theory are legitimate areas for research.
All for now.