text:
# Regularisation : many recipes, but a unique principle : Ward identities and Normalisation conditions. The case of CPT violation in QED.

## 1 Introduction

In the past years, the interesting issue of a possible spontaneous breaking of Lorentz invariance at low energy has been considered : this issue also led to CPT breaking . In particular, the general Lorentz-violating extension of the minimal $`SU(3)\times SU(2)\times U(1)`$ standard model has been discussed : as many breaking terms are allowed, people look for possible constraints coming from experimental results as well as from renormalisability requirements and anomaly cancellation.

In that respect, there arose a controversy on a possible Chern-Simons like term generated through radiative corrections . This phenomenon was studied in QED, an abelian gauge theory, as a part of the standard model. We think that the controversy comes from some misunderstandings on regularisation and (re)normalisation of a given theory (see a review in ), and this paper intends to clarify the situation.

In the next Section, the basis facts are recalled, with emphasis on Ward identities, and the distinct three concepts of counterterms (finite or not), quantum corrections or spurious anomalies and physical radiative corrections are defined. In Section 3, breaking terms are added to the usual QED Lagrangian density, and one loop contributions are discussed. We check that, as soon as the theory is precisely defined through its symmetries ( Ward identities) and its physical parameters ( Normalisation conditions), there remains no ambiguity in the results. Then we prove a kind of non-renormalisation theorem that allows for a “minimally CPT broken” theory (Subsect.3.2). Finaly, the literature is discussed and some comments are also offered on the invoked difference between an invariance of the action that leaves the Lagrangian density non-invariant, and one that leaves the Lagrangian density invariant.

## 2 Quantum electrodynamics

The Lagrangian density is :

$$_0=\overline{\psi }(i\partial ̸me\mathit{})\psi \frac{1}{4}F_{\mu \nu }^2\frac{1}{2\alpha }(A)^2+\frac{1}{2}\lambda ^2A_\mu ^2,$$
(1)
where $`\alpha `$ is the gauge parameter and $`\lambda `$ an infra-red regulator photon mass. The classical field equations write :

$$(i\stackrel{}{\partial ̸}m)\psi (x)=e\mathit{}(x)\psi (x),\overline{\psi }(x)(i\stackrel{}{\partial ̸}m)=e\overline{\psi }(x)\mathit{}(x),$$
(2)
$$[\mathrm{}+\lambda ^2]A_\mu (x)(1\frac{1}{\alpha })_\mu (_\nu A^\nu (x))=e\overline{\psi }(x)\gamma _\mu \psi (x),$$
(3)
and the Feynman rules are :

$`<A_\mu (p)A_\nu (p)>_{class.}`$ $`=`$ $`D_{\mu \nu }^0(p,p)_{class.}={\displaystyle \frac{i}{p^2\lambda ^2}}(g_{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{p_\mu p_\nu }{p^2}})+{\displaystyle \frac{i\alpha }{p^2\alpha \lambda ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{p_\mu p_\nu }{p^2}}`$
$`<\psi (p)\overline{\psi }(p)>_{class.}`$ $`=`$ $`S_0(p,p)_{class.}={\displaystyle \frac{i}{\mathit{}m}}`$ (4)
$`<\overline{\psi }(p)\psi (q)A_\rho ((p+q))>_{class.}^{prop.}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^\rho (p,q,(p+q))_{class.}=ie\gamma _\rho .`$
The Ward identity resulting from gauge invariance ensures that the non-transverse part of the 2-photon proper Green function $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu \nu }(p,p)^{class.}=i(g_{\mu \nu }p^2p_\mu p_\nu )+i\lambda ^2g_{\mu \nu }\frac{i}{\alpha }p_\mu p_\nu `$ is not renormalised, i.e. the parameters $`\alpha `$ and $`\lambda ^2`$ are ( unphysical) tree level parameters.

By power counting, the primitively divergent graphs are here $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu \nu }(p,p)_{transverse},\mathrm{\Sigma }(p,p)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^\rho (p,q,(p+q)),`$ respectively the transverse photon and electron 2-points proper Green functions and the photon-electron proper vertex function. All corresponding parameters (positions and residues of the poles in propagators, couplings at zero momenta,..) - but for the unphysical, non renormalised ones $`\alpha `$ and $`\lambda ^2`$ \- require normalisation conditions, a point which has often been missed since the successes of minimal dimensionnal regularisation scheme . In perturbative quantum expansion, this requires addition of definite counterterms into the Lagrangian density : the question of their being finite or not being merely a question of personal taste. For example, in the original BPHZ  substraction scheme, a definite Taylor expansion with respect to external momenta is subtracted from the Feynman integrand so that the integration over loops momenta becomes possible : some finite counterterms are then needed to implement the wanted normalisation conditions (of course, they will depend on some renormalisation scale $`\mu `$ used to fix the normalisation conditions). In other schemes, infinite counterterms (plus finite ones of course !) are defined after some regularisation of the divergent integrals in order to achieve the same aim. In the BRS approach, the number of primitive divergences and corresponding counterterms is given by the dimension of the Fadeev-Popov 0-charge sector of the cohomology space of the Slavnov operator corresponding to the isometries that define the theory .

The second problem is related to the symmetries of the classical action : the physical meaningfulness of the quantum extension requires that the symmetries still hold at the quantum level, which is possible as soon as the coresponding Ward identity has no anomaly. As is well known, this may involve the addition of finite counterterms to the Lagrangian density ( the so-called quantum corrections or spurious anomalies). In particular, each time one regularises a theory without respecting its symmetries, such non-symmetric quantum corrections are needed, and moreover the classical currents have to be redefined (renormalised) in order that their conservation should lead to the correct Ward Identity (the correct ”contact terms”……). A pedagogical example may be found in the second reference in . In the BRS approach, the absence of anomaly corresponds to an empty Fadeev-Popov charge-1 sector of the cohomology space of the upper mentioned Slavnov operator.

Finally, the success of a perturbative theory lies in its ability to compute with precision some quantities such as S matrix elements whose classical values acquire radiative corrections, for example the Bremsstrahlüng in annihilation processes : $`e^++e^{}\mathrm{photon}+\mathrm{final}\mathrm{state}X,`$ or the magnetic moment of the electron which is found to be 2 in the classical theory with Lagrangian (1) and gets some definite corrections in higher orders in the electric charge, or the Lamb-shift that results from higher loop contributions to the photon self-energy $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu \nu },`$ e.t.c…

One should not confuse these three concepts : Lagrangian counterterms (finite or not) required to get a definite perturbative expansion with definite values for the physical parameters of the theory ; Lagrangian finite spurious anomalies or quantum corrections required to compensate for the use of a non symmetry preserving regularisation scheme ; calculable radiative corrections to physical processes.

For instance, in QED the electromagnetic current is conserved, thanks to the gauge invariance of the theory ; so one obtains the Ward identity :

$`p^\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu ;..\nu _i..}^{L+1;\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}N}(p,p_i;q_j;q_j^{})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\alpha }}(p^2\alpha \lambda ^2)p_{1\nu _1}\delta _L^1\delta _N^0+`$ (5)
$`+e{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{N}{}}}[\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{}\nu _i\mathrm{}}^{L;\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}N}(p_i;..q_j\mathrm{},q_k+p,..;q_j^{})`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{..\nu _i\mathrm{}}^{L;\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}N}(p_i;q_j;..q_j^{}..,q_k^{}+p,..)]`$
where $`L`$ is the number of external photons ( of momenta $`p_i:i=1,2,..L)`$ and $`N`$ the number of incoming and outgoing electrons ( of momenta $`q_j^{}:j=1,2,..N),`$ all momenta being ingoing ones. In particular, for $`L=1,N=0`$ this gives the announced non-renormalisation of the longitudinal part of the photon propagator $`\frac{i}{\alpha }(p^2\alpha \lambda ^2).`$ This Ward identity is best rewritten on $`\mathrm{\Gamma },`$ the generating functional for proper Green functions :

$$_\mu ^x\frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }}{\delta A_\mu (x)}ie[\overline{\psi }_\alpha (x)\frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }}{\delta \overline{\psi }_\alpha (x)}\psi _\beta (x)\frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }}{\delta \psi _\beta (x)}]=\frac{1}{\alpha }[\mathrm{}+\alpha \lambda ^2](_\mu A^\mu ).$$
(6)
Then, if one uses the BPHZ scheme that breaks gauge invariance, the addition of finite counterterms into the Lagrangian and a redefinition of the electromagnetic current is required in order for the Ward Identity (6) to be satisfied to all orders of perturbation theory. On the contrary, Pauli-Villars or dimensional regularisation only need symmetric counterterms (the usual Z factors).

In the same spirit, a softly broken axial symmetry exists at the classical level ; but it does not survive quantisation because of the axial anomaly. This one is readily seen, for example within dimensional regularisation , to result from the impossibility of defining in an algebraically consistent way (in complex D dimensions) a matrix $`\gamma ^5`$ that anticommutes with all Dirac matrices $`\gamma ^\mu :\gamma ^\mu \gamma _\mu =D`$ . So, when computing

$$_\mu [\overline{\psi }\gamma ^\mu \gamma ^5\psi ](x)$$

with the help of the electron field equations, an “evanescent” contribution  appears :

$$[\overline{\psi }\widehat{\gamma }^\mu \stackrel{}{D_\mu }\psi ](x)$$

where $`2\widehat{\gamma }^\mu =\{\gamma ^\mu ,\gamma ^5\}`$ and $`D_\mu `$ denotes the covariant derivative $`_\mu +ieA_\mu .`$ Moreover the axial current has also to be redefined, a point often missed (see for example controversies on Adler Bardeen theorem in super-Yang-Mills between 1982 and 1985  and a recent paper by Jacquot ).

## 3 QED with odd-CPT Lorentz violating terms

As explained in the introduction Section, let us now consider QED (equ.1) with possible presence of CPT-odd, Lorentz violating terms :

$`_1(x)`$ $`=`$ $`b^\mu \overline{\psi }(x)\gamma _\mu \gamma ^5\psi (x),\mathrm{where}b^\mu \mathrm{is}\mathrm{a}\mathrm{fixed}\mathrm{vector},`$
$`_2(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}c^\mu ϵ_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }F^{\nu \rho }(x)A^\sigma (x),\mathrm{where}c^\mu \mathrm{is}\mathrm{a}\mathrm{fixed}\mathrm{vector}.`$ (7)
Other breakings could be considered (see a discussion in the first paper of ), but we simplify and require charge conjugation invariance, which selects $`_1(x)`$ and $`_2(x).`$ Note for further reference that experiments on the absence of birefringence of light in vacuum put very restrictive limits on the value of $`c^\mu ,`$ typically for a timelike $`c^\mu ,c^0/m10^{38}`$ .

Let us consider the classical Lagrangian density $`_0+_1+_2.`$ In order to avoid the difficulties resulting from the new poles in the propagators, we take into account the smallness of the breakings and include them into the interaction Lagrangian density as super-renormalisable couplings. Moreover, we define the photon and electron masses by the same normalisation conditions as in ordinary Q.E.D., $`e.g.`$

$$<\psi (p)\overline{\psi }(p)>^{prop.}_{\mathit{}=m,b=c=0}=0,\mathrm{}$$

According to standard results in renormalisation theory, these breakings add new terms in the primitively divergent functions and require 2 new normalisation conditions to fix their parameters $`b^\mu `$ and $`c^\nu :`$

$`b^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{4}}Tr[\gamma ^\mu \gamma ^5<\psi (p)\overline{\psi }(p)>^{prop.}]_{p=0},`$
$`c^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}ϵ^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }{\displaystyle \frac{}{p^\sigma }}<A_\nu (p)A_\rho (p)>^{prop.}_{p=0}.`$ (8)
Note that, contrary to $`_1(x),`$ the $`_2(x)`$ term also breaks the local gauge invariance of the Lagrangian density, even if the action remains gauge invariant. If fields and the gauge parameter function $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(x)`$ vanish sufficiently rapidly at infinity, there will be no difference ; however, the literature on this subject  emphasizes the difference, and we want to clarify this point. We shall prove that the variation of $`_2(x)`$ in a local gauge transformation being linear in the quantum field, no essential difference occurs.

So it is tempting to separate the discussion into two cases :

* QED with the two CPT odd, Lorentz breaking, C conserving terms : $`_1(x)`$ and $`_2(x).`$
* QED with the sole breaking term $`_1(x)`$ : is it a consistent quantum theory ?

### 3.1 Lagrangian of QED with CPT-odd, Lorentz and gauge breaking terms.

Starting from the Lagrangian density $`_0+_1+_2,`$ let us analyse the Ward identity corresponding to the gauge invariance of the action. The classical field equations are now :

$$(i\stackrel{}{\partial ̸}m\mathit{}\gamma ^5)\psi (x)=e\mathit{}(x)\psi (x),\overline{\psi }(x)(i\stackrel{}{\partial ̸}m\mathit{}\gamma ^5)=e\overline{\psi }(x)\mathit{}(x),$$
(9)
$$[\mathrm{}+\lambda ^2]A_\mu (x)(1\frac{1}{\alpha })_\mu (_\nu A^\nu (x))ϵ_{\mu \alpha \beta \delta }c^\alpha F^{\beta \delta }(x)=e\overline{\psi }(x)\gamma _\mu \psi (x);$$
(10)
then equations (9) ensure that the vector current $`[\overline{\psi }\gamma _\mu \psi ](x)`$ is conserved, and equation (10) the fact that the “scalar” field $`_\nu A^\nu (x)`$ is a free field of squared mass $`\alpha \lambda ^2`$ .

After addition of adequate counterterms, these equations of motion may always be extended to the quantum level , and, as a consequence, the same is true for the vector current conservation and the free-character of the longitudinal photon $`_\nu A^\nu (x).`$

Let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ be the classical action

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }=d^4x[_0+_1+_2],$$

the Ward identity writes :

$`{\displaystyle d^4x\left\{\frac{1}{e}_\mu \mathrm{\Lambda }(x)\frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }}{\delta A_\mu (x)}+i\mathrm{\Lambda }(x)[\overline{\psi }(x)\frac{\stackrel{}{\delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }}{\delta \overline{\psi }(x)}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }\stackrel{}{\delta }}{\delta \psi (x)}\psi (x)]\right\}}=`$ (11)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^4x\left\{\frac{1}{e\alpha }_\mu A^\mu (x)\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Lambda }(x)+\frac{\lambda ^2}{e}A^\mu (x)_\mu \mathrm{\Lambda }(x)+\frac{1}{2e}ϵ_{\alpha \beta \delta \mu }c^\alpha F^{\beta \delta }(x)^\mu \mathrm{\Lambda }(x)\right\}}`$
$``$ $`W_x\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu {\displaystyle \frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }}{\delta A_\mu (x)}}ie[\overline{\psi }(x){\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{}{\delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }}{\delta \overline{\psi }(x)}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }\stackrel{}{\delta }}{\delta \psi (x)}}\psi (x)]={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\alpha }}[\mathrm{}+\alpha \lambda ^2]_\mu A^\mu (x).`$
The last equation is exactly the same as the one for ordinary QED (6) : so, to select the desired action, one needs an extra symmetry such as Lorentz invariance if one wants ordinary QED (1), or some non-renormalisation theorem if one wants to consistently suppress the $`_2`$ term through a normalisation condition (Subsec. 3.2).

As soon as we use a regularisation that respects the symmetries (gauge, Lorentz covariance and charge conjugation invariance), the perturbative proof of renormalisability reduces to the check that the $`𝒪(\mathrm{})`$ quantum corrections to the classical action $`\mathrm{\Gamma }:\mathrm{\Gamma }_1=\mathrm{\Gamma }|_{class.}+\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Delta },`$ constrained by the Ward identity (11) :

$$W_x\mathrm{\Delta }_\mu \frac{\delta \mathrm{\Delta }}{\delta A_\mu (x)}ie[\overline{\psi }(x)\frac{\stackrel{}{\delta }\mathrm{\Delta }}{\delta \overline{\psi }(x)}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{}{\delta }}{\delta \psi (x)}\psi (x)]=0,$$
(12)
may be reabsorbed into the classical action through suitable renormalisations of the fields and parameters of the theory . Thanks to the quantum action principle , $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is a charge conjugation invariant integrated local polynomial in the fields, their derivatives and the parameters of the theory, of dimension 4 (recall that the photon field and the parameters $`m,b^\mu ,c^\nu `$ have dimension 1, the electron field dimension 3/2) : then the general solution of (12) is readily shown to be of the same form as the classical action $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ (without the gauge fixing and photon mass terms) $`Q.E.D.`$

The breakings (3) introduce two operators which may be defined through a modification of the classical action : to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ we add two source terms for the C = +1, dimension 3 insertions

$$J_\mu ^5=[\overline{\psi }\gamma _\mu \gamma ^5\psi ](x)\mathrm{and}K_\mu ^5=[\frac{1}{2}ϵ_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }F^{\nu \rho }A^\sigma ](x):\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}=\mathrm{\Gamma }+d^4x[\alpha ^\mu (x)J_\mu ^5(x)+\beta ^\mu (x)K_\mu ^5(x)].$$

Then, as soon as the renormalisation is properly done, the operators being bilinear in the quantum fields, the Ward identity (11) holds true, to all orders of perturbation theory (all orders in $`\mathrm{},e,b^\mu ,c^\nu ,m`$), for the Green functions with one insertion of either of these operators :

* action on (11) of $`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta \alpha ^\lambda (y)}}`$ for the gauge invariant axial current $`J_\mu ^5(y),`$ the right-hand side vanishing : $`W_x{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }}{\delta \alpha ^\lambda (y)}}_{\alpha =\beta =0}=0,`$
* action on (11) of $`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta \beta ^\lambda (y)}}`$ for the non gauge invariant operator $`K_\lambda ^5(y),`$ the right-hand side reducing itself to a tree contribution as the variation is linear in the photon field : $`W_x{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }}{\delta \beta ^\lambda (y)}}_{\alpha =\beta =0}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}ϵ_{\lambda \nu \rho \sigma }F^{\nu \rho }(y)_y^\sigma \delta (yx).`$

All Green functions are of course computed with the complete Lagrangian density $`_0+_1+_2.`$ Of course, as for ordinary QED, the axial current is not coupled to the fields of the model, and its quantum non-conservation due to the axial anomaly is not dangerous. However, should one consider the CPT breaking extensions of the standard $`SU(3)\times SU(2)\times U(1)`$ model, the generalisation of the Adler-Bardeen non renormalisation theorem would be necessary in order for the one loop cancellation of the axial anomaly to stay to all orders.

As particular consequences of the previous discussion, the complete proper 2-photon Green function $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu \nu }(p,p)`$ satisfies

$$p^\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu \nu }(p,p)=p^\nu \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu \nu }(p,p)=0,\mathrm{up}\mathrm{to}\mathrm{the}\mathrm{classical}\mathrm{longitudinal}\mathrm{contribution},$$
(13)
the one with one axial-current insertion verifies :

$`p^\mu <A_\mu (p)A_\nu (q)[\overline{\psi }\gamma ^\rho \gamma ^5\psi ]((p+q))>^{prop.}`$ $`=`$
$`q^\nu <A_\mu (p)A_\nu (q)[\overline{\psi }\gamma ^\rho \gamma ^5\psi ]((p+q))>^{prop.}`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (14)
and the one with a $`K_\mu ^5`$ insertion

$`p^\mu ^{}<A_\mu ^{}(p)A_\mu (q)[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}ϵ_{\rho \nu \sigma \lambda }F^{\nu \sigma }A^\lambda ]((p+q))>^{prop.}`$ $`=`$
$`q^\mu ^{}<A_\mu (p)A_\mu ^{}(q)[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}ϵ_{\rho \nu \sigma \lambda }F^{\nu \sigma }A^\lambda ]((p+q))>^{prop.}`$ $`=`$ $`iϵ_{\mu \rho \sigma \lambda }p^\sigma q^\lambda .`$ (15)
Note that the validity of these equations is not a question of personal taste or choice : if the renormalisation is correctly done, they do hold true as a consequence of the gauge invariance of the action (moreover, as we shall show, in the absence of (3.1,3.1), the finiteness of the CPT-odd part of the photon self energy will remain accidental).

We now illustrate these results by a one-loop calculation. We first need a regularisation to give a meaning to the loops integrals involved in those Green functions. Any consistent one is as good as any other, but it is simpler to consider regularisations that respect the invariances of the classical theory, here gauge invariance. A question arises about Lorentz non-invariance : a priori there is no longer symmetric integration and averaging formulas for $`l^\mu l^\nu `$ (where $`l`$ is a loop momentum variable) : any computation will become fairly hard ; in particular, linear divergences would stay <sup>1</sup><sup>1</sup>1 For instance as :
$$_\mathrm{\Lambda }^\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}\frac{xdx}{\sqrt{(x+p)^2+m^2}}=\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }+2pp\mathrm{log}\frac{4\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}}{m^2}+𝒪(1/\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}/\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}).$$
and require extra subtractions and counterterms. However, as discussed in , the spirit of the spontaneously broken Lorentz invariance is that, except for the vacuum expectation values $`b^\mu `$ and $`c^\nu `$ of some fields, Lorentz invariance holds : Colladay and Kostelecky speak of true “observer Lorentz invariance”. So we shall use the Lorentz preserving consistent dimensional regularisation of t’Hooft and Veltmann <sup>2</sup><sup>2</sup>2 Let us emphasize that if one uses correct (anti-)commutation relation of Dirac matrices $`\gamma ^\mu `$ and $`\gamma ^5`$(Breitenlhoner and Maison ), there will be no ambiguity in the results and a minimal subtraction can be safely done (it corresponds to some implicit but definite normalisation conditions).  and, in particular, check at the one-loop order that the correction to the self-energy of the photon of first order in $`b^\mu `$ unambiguously vanishes at $`p^2=0,`$ in agreement with the theorem in the appendix of .

Note that gauge invariance (13) ensures, as in standard Q.E.D., that the 4-photon Green function is not primitively divergent . Then $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$, the standard counterterms of Q.E.D., should be added to $`_0.`$ Let us now compute the $`b^\mu `$ and $`c^\nu `$ dependent counterterms, to one-loop order.

#### 3.1.1 The one-loop electron self-energy

To first order in the small breaking parameters $`b^\mu `$ and $`c^\mu ,`$ a one-loop calculation gives :

$`i<\psi (p)\overline{\psi }(p)>^{prop.}=[\mathit{}m\mathit{}\gamma ^5](1+\alpha I_{\mathrm{}})3mI_{\mathrm{}}3\mathit{}\gamma ^5I_{\mathrm{}}+`$
$`+`$ $`\mathrm{regular}(\mu ^2\mathrm{independent})\mathrm{terms},\mathrm{where}I_{\mathrm{}}={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}e^2}{16\pi ^2}}[{\displaystyle \frac{2}{4D}}(C+\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{4\pi \mu ^2}})];`$
$`C`$ is the Euler constant and $`\mu ^2`$ the scale needed in the dimensional scheme,

$$\frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}\mu ^{(4D)}\frac{d^Dk}{(2\pi )^D}.$$

In such a calculation <sup>3</sup><sup>3</sup>3 We used $`\gamma _\mu \gamma ^\mu =D`$ and $`k_\mu k_\nu =k^2g_{\mu \nu }/D:`$ this allows shifting of internal momenta and ensures gauge invariance. Other prescription would lead to different finite counterterms (spurious anomalies). This point is sometimes missed, in particular in reference  ( after eq. 7), leading to differences proportional to $`4D`$ which give extra finite contributions, when involved into divergent integrals., as there is no need for traces of Dirac matrices, there is no unconsistency in using a fully anticommuting $`\gamma ^5`$ matrix. So we have the standard Q.E.D. renormalisations of the fermionic field (wave function and mass) and a $`c^\mu `$ dependent renormalisation of the $`b^\mu `$ parameter in $`_1.`$

Higher orders in $`b^\mu `$ and $`c^\nu `$ are given by convergent integrals, then contribute as regular ($`\mu ^2`$ independant) functions at D = 4, and do not change the result (3.1.1). Of course, should one implement the normalisation condition (3), extra finite counterterms renormalizing $`_1`$ should be required. Indeed, Lorentz covariance and (3.1.1) ensures that

$`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{4}}Tr\left[\gamma ^\mu \gamma ^5<\psi (p)\overline{\psi }(p)>^{prop.}\right]_{p=0}^{𝒪(\mathrm{})}`$ $``$ $`(\alpha b^\mu +3c^\mu )I_{\mathrm{}}+`$
$`+`$ $`b^\mu a_1[{\displaystyle \frac{b^2}{m^2}},{\displaystyle \frac{c^2}{m^2}},{\displaystyle \frac{b.c}{m^2}}]+c^\mu a_2[{\displaystyle \frac{b^2}{m^2}},{\displaystyle \frac{c^2}{m^2}},{\displaystyle \frac{b.c}{m^2}}].`$
Note also that, as we choose to fix the wave function and the mass of the electron by the usual normalisation conditions at vanishing $`b^\mu `$ and $`c^\nu ,`$ no finite new counterterms, such as $`b^\alpha b^\beta [\overline{\psi }\gamma _\alpha _\beta \psi ]/m^2,`$ will be required. At this point, additive renormalisation requires a $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Delta }_1(c,b)`$ counter-lagrangian.

#### 3.1.2 The one-loop photon self-energy

In the same way, the self energy of the photon may be expanded in powers of $`b^\mu `$ (up to one-loop order, $`_2`$ does not modify the photon self energy, except at the tree level). The $`b^\mu `$ independant contribution comes from ordinary QED, the $`b^\mu `$ linear one being given by the two “triangle-like” graphs with a zero-momentum “axial vertex” :

$`I_{\mu \nu \alpha }(p)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{}e^2b^\alpha {\displaystyle \frac{d^4q}{(2\pi )^4}\frac{Tr[\gamma _\mu (\mathit{}+m)\gamma _\nu (\mathit{}+\mathit{}+m)\gamma _\alpha \gamma ^5(\mathit{}+\mathit{}+m)]}{(q^2m^2)[(q+p)^2m^2]^2}},`$
$`\mathrm{and}`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{}e^2b^\alpha {\displaystyle \frac{d^4q}{(2\pi )^4}\frac{Tr[\gamma _\mu (\mathit{}+m)\gamma _\alpha \gamma ^5(\mathit{}+m)\gamma _\nu (\mathit{}+\mathit{}+m)]}{[q^2m^2]^2((q+p)^2m^2)}}=`$
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{}e^2b^\alpha {\displaystyle \frac{d^4q}{(2\pi )^4}\frac{Tr[\gamma _\nu (\mathit{}+\mathit{}+m)\gamma _\mu (\mathit{}+m)\gamma _\alpha \gamma ^5(\mathit{}+m)]}{[q^2m^2]^2((q+p)^2m^2)}}\stackrel{(qqp)}{=}I_{\nu \mu \alpha }(p),`$
as soon as shift of loop momenta is allowed and thanks to the cyclicity of the trace of a product of matrices (this last property is independant of the dimension of the matrices and should hold in any consistent dimensional regularisation). The only algebraic properties we need for the calculation in D-dimension are the algebraically consistent ones  :

* as previously emphasized, $`\gamma _\mu \gamma ^\mu =D`$ and $`k_\mu k_\nu =k^2g_{\mu \nu }/D,`$
* the trace of $`\gamma ^5`$ times an odd number of Dirac matrices vanishes,
* the trace of $`\gamma ^5`$ times an even number of Dirac matrices can be reduced with the Clifford algebra to the quantity $`Tr[\gamma _\mu \gamma _\nu \gamma _\alpha \gamma _\beta \gamma ^5];`$ consistency enforces $`Tr[\gamma _\alpha \gamma _\beta \gamma ^5]=Tr[\gamma ^5]=0.`$

Using Feynman parameters to combine the denominators in (3.1.2), the first triangle contribution gives

$$\frac{\mathrm{}e^2}{8\pi ^2}b^\alpha p^\beta Tr[\gamma _\mu \gamma _\nu \gamma _\alpha \gamma _\beta \gamma ^5]\times (A+B)$$

where the divergent part comes from :

$$A=_0^1𝑑x[x(46x)(4D)x(2x)]\frac{(4\pi \mu ^2)^{2D/2}d^Dq^{}}{\pi ^{D/2}}\frac{q^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}/D}{[q^2+x(1x)p^2m^2]^3},$$

and $`B,`$ a convergent one, may be evaluated at $`D=4:`$

$$B=_0^1𝑑x[x^2(1x)^2p^2+x(2x)m^2]\frac{d^4q^{}}{\pi ^2}\frac{1}{[q^2+x(1x)p^2m^2]^3}.$$

As $`{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑xx(46x)=0,`$ the divergent part vanishes and, after Wick rotation and integration on $`q^{},`$ one is left with the finite quantity :

$$A+B=\frac{i}{2}_0^1𝑑x\left[x(23x)\mathrm{log}\frac{x(1x)p_E^2+m^2}{4\pi \mu ^2}x(2x)\frac{x^2(1x)^2p_E^2x(2x)m^2}{x(1x)p_E^2+m^2}\right].$$

An integration by parts on $`x`$ for the $`\mathrm{log}`$ term finaly gives :

$$A+B=\frac{i}{2}p^2K(p^2)=ip_E^2_0^1𝑑x\frac{x^2(1x)}{x(1x)p_E^2+m^2}\stackrel{p^20}{}i\frac{p^2}{12m^2},$$

a finite result, which moreover vanishes for $`p^2=0.`$ The complete one-loop 2-photon proper Green function is :

$`<A_\mu (p)A_\nu (p)>_{transverse}^{prop.}`$ $`=`$
$`i(g_{\mu \nu }p^2p^\mu p^\nu )[1`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}I_{\mathrm{}}+\mathrm{regular}(\mu ^2\mathrm{independant})\mathrm{terms}]`$
$`ϵ_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }p^\sigma [2c^\rho +b^\rho {\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}e^2}{2\pi ^2}}p^2K(p^2)]`$ , $`p^2K(p^2)\mathrm{is}\mathrm{analytic}\mathrm{for}p^2<4m^2,`$ (19)
$`p^2K(p^2)=1`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{log}[\rho +\sqrt{1+\rho ^2}]}{\rho \sqrt{1+\rho ^2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{p_E^2}{6m^2}}\mathrm{when}p_E^20(\mathrm{with}\rho =\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{p_E^2}{4m^2}}}).`$
Note that, here also, contributions with higher order dependence on $`b^\mu `$ are given by convergent integrals (then contributing as $`\mu ^2`$ independent terms), thanks to gauge invariance ( the unique logarithmically divergent polynomial term $`b^\alpha b^\beta \mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu ,\alpha \beta }`$ cannot be transverse on $`p^\mu `$ and $`p^\nu ).`$

A few remarks are in order to understand the results :

* The finiteness does not come from a cancellation between the two “triangle-like” graphs : on the contrary, each of the triangle being superficially linearly divergent, its divergent part is a dimension-1 polynomial in masses and external momentum $`p.`$ The only possible structure (in any regularisation that respects Lorentz covariance) is $`ϵ_{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }p^\beta ,`$ then the divergence is at most a logarithmic one ; moreover, thanks to Bose symmetry ($`\mu \nu ,pp`$), it doubles itself when the two triangles are added.
* Then, to understand the convergence, it is necessary to use gauge invariance and the Ward identity (3.1) for the operator $`J_\alpha ^5.`$ First, note that the $`𝒪(b^\alpha )`$ term is given by the axial vertex $`<A_\mu (q)A_\nu (p)J_\alpha ^5((p+q))>^{prop.}`$ for $`q+p=0.`$ Second, the divergent part of this vertex is a dimension-1 polynomial in masses and external momenta $`p`$ and $`q:Aϵ_{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }(pq)^\beta ,`$ thanks to Bose symmetry, constrained by gauge invariance (3.1), then it vanishes. Third, the value of this vertex, thus given by convergent integrals, is uniquely fixed, independently of the regularisation used, as soon as the vector current conservation is ensured (see the nice ”old” discussion in Adler’s 1970 lectures ), and of course the same occurs for the photon self energy correction $`b^\alpha [I_{\mu \nu \alpha }(p)+I_{\nu \mu \alpha }(p)].`$
* As argued by Coleman and Glashow , due to analyticity, “ from the once well known theory of Feynman-diagram singularities ”, this Chern-Simons like contribution will vanish at $`p+q=0,p^2=0.`$ Q.E.D.

The finiteness $`afortiori`$ holds for higher orders in $`b^\mu `$ : the only superficial divergence could come from a $`b^\alpha b^\beta \mathrm{\Pi }_{\alpha \beta ;\mu \nu }(p,p),`$ but the corresponding dimension zero polynomial divergence has to be transverse with respect to the photon momenta $`p^\mu ,`$ so it must vanish. Moreover, should one implement the normalisation condition (3), no extra finite counterterm renormalizing $`_2`$ should be required. Indeed, Lorentz covariance and a generalisation of Coleman and Glashow’s argument ensure that

$$\frac{1}{12}ϵ^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }\frac{}{p^\sigma }<A_\nu (p)A_\rho (p)>^{prop.}_{p=0}^{𝒪(\mathrm{})}=0$$

(consider the proper Green function of two photons $`A^\alpha (p)`$ and $`A^\beta (q)`$ with one insertion of $`b^\mu J_\mu ^5((p+q)),`$ computed with the complete Lagrangian density $`_0+_1+_2,`$ i.e. to all orders in $`b^\nu ,`$ and the corresponding Ward identity (3.1)). Note also that, as we choose to fix the wave function of the photon by the usual normalisation conditions at vanishing $`b^\mu `$ and $`c^\nu ,`$ no finite new counterterm, such as $`b^2[F_{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }]/m^2`$ e.t.c., will be required.

At this point, additive renormalisation requires no $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Delta }_2(c,b)`$ counter-lagrangian.

#### 3.1.3 The one-loop photon-electron vertex

Finally, simple power counting shows that the vertex function $`<\psi (p)\overline{\psi }(q)A_\mu ((p+q))>^{prop.}`$ has no $`b^\alpha `$ or $`c^\beta `$ dependent divergence : so, as we choose to fix the electron-photon vertex by the usual normalisation condition at vanishing $`b^\mu `$ and $`c^\nu ,`$ the Q.E.D. counter-lagrangian $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ ensures finiteness and correct normalisation conditions.

#### 3.1.4 Higher-loop orders

To summarise, to one-loop order, given the classical Lagrangian $`_0+_1+_2,`$ renormalisation only requires the counterterms $`\mathrm{}(\mathrm{\Delta }_0+\mathrm{\Delta }_1):`$ if $`b^\mu `$ is renormalised to $`b_1^\mu (b,c),`$ no $`\mathrm{}_2`$ correction has appeared. The Chern-Simons like term is not renormalised - even if the $`c^\mu `$ parameter is rescaled by a $`Z_3^1`$ factor, to compensate for the usual photon field renormalisation $`\sqrt{Z_3}.`$ Does this stay in higher orders ?

Let us suppose that, up to N-loop order, renormalisation has been done with counterterms $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0+\mathrm{\Delta }_1`$ and that the only dependence on $`b^\nu `$ and $`c^\nu `$ of the Lagrangian plus counterterms is through the classical $`_2`$ term and $`b_N^\mu (b,c)[\overline{\psi }\gamma _\mu \gamma ^5\psi ](x),b_N^\mu (b,c)`$ being an order-N polynomial in $`\mathrm{}.`$

* One of the primitively divergent Green functions is the electron-photon vertex. As previously argued, its divergence and normalisation condition are the same as for ordinary Q.E.D., and so taken into account by the counterterm $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0.`$
* To (N+1)-order, the $`b^\mu ,c^\nu `$ dependent part of the divergence of the self-energy of the electron ( subdivergences being properly subtracted) is proportional to $`b^\mu \gamma _\mu \gamma ^5`$ and $`c^\mu \gamma _\mu \gamma ^5.`$ Moreover, as

$`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{4}}Tr[\gamma ^\mu \gamma ^5<\psi (p)\overline{\psi }(p)>^{prop.}]_{p=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}}^{𝒪(\mathrm{}^{N+1})}`$ $`=`$ $`b^\mu a_{N+1}[{\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^2}{m^2}}]+c^\mu b_{N+1}[{\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^2}{m^2}}]+`$
$`+b^\mu \alpha _{N+1}[{\displaystyle \frac{b^2}{m^2}},{\displaystyle \frac{c^2}{m^2}},{\displaystyle \frac{b.c}{m^2}}]`$ $`+`$ $`c^\mu \beta _{N+1}[{\displaystyle \frac{b^2}{m^2}},{\displaystyle \frac{c^2}{m^2}},{\displaystyle \frac{b.c}{m^2}}],`$ (20)
the normalisation conditions (3) require only a $`_1`$ like counterterm.
* On the one hand, the derivative with respect to $`b^\alpha `$ of the regularised photon self-energy at (N+1)-loop order is given  by :

$$\frac{}{b^\alpha }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu \nu }^{(N+1)}(p,p)=i\left[\frac{b_N^\beta }{b^\alpha }<A_\mu (p)A_\nu (p)[d^4x\{\overline{\psi }\gamma _\beta \gamma ^5\psi \}(x)]>^{prop.}\right]^{(N+1)}=$$

$$=i\underset{l=0}{\overset{l=N}{}}\left[\frac{b_N^\beta }{b^\alpha }\right]^{(l)}\left[<A_\mu (p)A_\nu (p)[d^4x\{\overline{\psi }\gamma _\beta \gamma ^5\psi \}(x)]>^{prop.}\right]^{(N+1l)}.$$

+ First, this quantity is finite : the proof is the same as the one given in Subsection (3.1.2), based on the vanishing of a dimension-one, Lorentz covariant 3-tensor $`a_{\mu \nu \beta },`$ polynomial in masses, parameter $`b^\alpha ,`$ external momenta $`p`$ and $`q,`$ transverse with respect to $`p^\mu `$ and $`q^\nu ,`$ and associated to the divergence of any n-loop order $`(nN+1)`$ axial (unintegrated) vertex $`<A_\mu (p)A_\nu (q)[\overline{\psi }\gamma _\beta \gamma ^5\psi ]((p+q))>^{prop.},`$ with subdivergences properly subtracted.
    + Second, we look for possible finite counterterms required by the normalisation conditions (3) ; following Coleman and Glashow’s argument <sup>4</sup><sup>4</sup>4 The existence of an anomaly for the axial current conservation law does not enter the game as we used only vector current conservation., analyticity and gauge invariance of the n-loop order axial (unintegrated) vertex, i.e. vector current conservation, enforce its proportionality to some $`p^aq^bG_{ab;\mu \nu \alpha }^{(n)}(p,q,b,m),n,`$ giving after integration $`p^ap^bG_{ab;\mu \nu \alpha }^{(n)}(p,p,b,m).`$

On the other hand, the derivative with respect to $`c^\alpha `$ of the regularised photon self-energy at (N+1)-loop order is given  by :

$$\frac{}{c^\alpha }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu \nu }^{(N+1)}(p,p)=i\left[<A_\mu (p)A_\nu (p)[d^4x\{\frac{1}{2}ϵ_{\alpha \rho \sigma \lambda }F^{\rho \sigma }A^\lambda \}(x)]>^{prop.}\right]^{N+1}$$

$$i\underset{l=0}{\overset{l=N}{}}\left[\frac{b_N^\beta }{c^\alpha }\right]^{(l)}\left[<A_\mu (p)A_\nu (p)[d^4x\{\frac{1}{2}ϵ_{\alpha \rho \sigma \lambda }F^{\rho \sigma }A^\lambda \}(x)]>^{prop.}\right]^{(N+1l)}.$$

In that equation, the vertex insertions are at least at one loop order, so the same argument as before holds, thanks to the Ward identity (3.1).

As a consequence, to (N+1)-loop order, the quantity $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}ϵ^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }{\displaystyle \frac{}{p^\sigma }}<A_\nu (p)A_\rho (p)>^{prop.}_{p=0}`$ is given by its value for vanishing $`b^\alpha `$ and $`c^\beta .`$ Then the normalisation conditions (3) may be ensured without any $`\mathrm{\Delta }_2`$ counterterm.
* The $`b^\mu `$ and $`c^\nu `$ independent part of the electron and photon self-energy being correctly renormalised by the counterterm $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0,\mathrm{\Delta }_0+\mathrm{\Delta }_1`$ ensures the correct renormalisation up to order (N+1). Q.E.D.

So, to all orders of perturbation theory, the theory described by $`_0+_1+_2`$ is a quantum consistent theory, with an (infinite) renormalisation of the photon field, electron mass, electric charge and $`b^\mu `$ parameter, and no $`_2`$ renormalisation.

### 3.2 Gauge invariant QED with a CPT-odd, Lorentz breaking term.

Consider now a possible situation without $`_2`$ in the classical lagrangian, $`i.e.`$ with a value zero for the parameter $`c^\mu `$ defined by the normalisation condition (3). The analysis of the previous Subsection shows that $`_2`$ is not renormalised : then, its absence at the classical level is stable against perturbative expansion, to all-loop order, and the theory described by $`_0+_1`$ is a quantum consistent theory, with an (infinite) renormalisation of the photon field, electron mass, electric charge and $`b^\mu `$ parameter.

## 4 Discussion and summary

We have exemplified the fact that, as soon as a theory is correctly defined (not only by a Lagrangian density such as $`_0+_1+_2,`$ but by some symmetry requirement such as gauge invariance of the action and appropriate normalisation conditions (3), the quantum corrections are unambiguous.

The opposite conclusion often given in the literature , results from an unsufficient definition of the model and some unprecised arguments :

* Jackiw and Kostelecky  never introduce any regulator. Then some of their relations are delicate ones : see for example for a divergent integral ( after equ.12), the commutation of a derivation with respect to external momentum and the integration. If the integral in their equation (11), which is twice our tensor $`I_{\mu \nu \alpha }(p),`$ is computed with dimensional regularisation, a result $`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\theta }{\mathrm{sin}\theta }}1\right]`$ is found, and not simply $`{\displaystyle \frac{\theta }{\mathrm{sin}\theta }}`$ (with $`p^2=4m^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta /2).`$
* Moreover, in the absence of normalisation conditions or Ward identities fixing some ambiguities, the difference of two equivalent linearly divergent integrals gives an ambiguous logarithmic divergent one. Even when one uses a symmetric integration that suppresses the linearly (and eventually the logarithmicaly) divergent part, the finite part remains ambiguous. The “surface term” that comes from a shift in the integration momentum in a linearly divergent integral is a regulator dependent quantity : if one redoes the calculation in the appendix A5-2 of Jauch and Rohrlich standard book  with the dimensional scheme, one easily checks that no ”surface term” occurs after a shift of the integration momenta ). Recall that this possibility of shifting internal momenta is needed to preserve gauge invariance in loop calculations (see for example \[19, subsect.17.9\]).
* If the gauge invariance constraint (3.1) is not imposed, the finiteness of the “triangles” appears as purely accidental <sup>5</sup><sup>5</sup>5 The vector current conservation (13) only imposes the transversality of the (divergent part of the) photon self energy, which does not excludes a $`ϵ_{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }b^\alpha p^\beta `$ infinite contribution.  and would not stay in higher orders. So, some authors rightly conclude that the corresponding one-loop finite contribution is ambiguous . Note that in the main text of , Jackiw correctly summarizes the discussion of his Section 4 by the sentence “An arbitrary value persists only when no symmetry is enforced”, but he gave his paper a misleading title :“When radiative corrections are finite but undetermined”. Such unexpected finiteness also occurs in other situations, for exemple in the so-called complex sine-Gordon model : as was shown in  the origin lies, not in some isometry of the theory, but in the physical property of non-production for the S-matrix.
* Although local gauge invariance is lost at the level of the Lagrangian density, the breaking is linear in the quantum fields, and then the invariance of the action ensures the validity of the usual Ward identity that corresponds to vector current conservation. So, the difference advocated by Jackiw and others between a term in the Lagrangian density locally gauge invariant and one giving a gauge invariant contribution to the action is not relevant for the present case, as, but for the tree level, such Green functions with insertion satisfy the same usual Ward identity (11).
* Finally, it is difficult to see the difference advocated in  between a first order (in $`b^\mu )`$ perturbative calculation and what is claimed to be a “non-perturbative unambiguous value”, but is, as a matter of fact, obtained with exactly the same triangle integrals as everyone. More precisely, after the expression given in \[4, equation (5)\] for a complete (non-perturbative) contribution of the breaking to the 2-photon one-loop Green function, it is argued that, as the linear divergences cancel among the two terms of the integral, there will be no “momentum routing” ambiguity, and then a unique value will be obtained, for example by an expansion in the parameter $`b^\mu .`$ As we previously explain, this argument is uncorrect. Moreover, in  the computation is also done to all orders in the breaking parameter $`b^\mu `$ and it is explicitely verified that higher orders do not contribute to a possible correction to $`c^\mu .`$

Note also that the Lagrangian density $`_0+_2`$ would not lead to a coherent theory as an (infinite) counterterm $`_1`$ appears at the one-loop order (3.1.1).

To summarize, we have proven that a theory with a vanishing tree level Chern-Simons like breaking term is consistent as soon as it is correctly defined : thanks to the gauge invariance of the action, the normalisation condition $`c^\mu =0`$ may be enforced to all orders of perturbation theory. A $`_2`$ term, bilinear in the gauge field, appears in facts as a minor modification of the gauge fixing term as $`_\nu A^\nu `$ remains a free field : then, as part of the “gauge term”, it is, as usual, not renormalised .

Of course, the 2-photon Green function receives definite radiative corrections $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}e^2}{12\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{p^2}{m^2}}ϵ_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }p^\sigma b^\rho +\mathrm{}`$ Recall the case of the electric charge : physically measurable quantities occur only through the $`p^2`$ dependence of the photon self-energy (as the Lamb-shift is a measurable consequence of a non-measurable charge renormalisation). Unfortunately, as Coleman and Glashow explained, the absence of birefringence of light in vacuum, $`i.e.`$ the vanishing of the parameter $`c^\nu ,`$ gives no constraint on the value of the other one $`b^\mu .`$


format: text

text:
# Putting Together A Cyclical Baryonic Universe

## 1 Unexplained Gravitation Loses

General relativity has been most successful in explaining the universe except in extreme density conditions: the big bang and black holes. Galaxies are constructed similarly despite their origins being physically too fair apart to be in casual contact (the horizon problem). Initial spacetime was Minkowskian-the expansion energy exactly matched the gravitational energy (the flatness problem). The hot synthesis of light elements occurred in only $`45\%`$ of the matter present. Extrapolation of general relativity in the big bang and black holes to or near singularities has not been successful in solving the universe problems. There is no evidence that the universe ever reached Planck energies. In the ’Road to Relativity’ Einstein felt the gravitational tensors were ’rock solid’ but stress-energy tensors were made of ’wood’.

Neutron stars have crusts, a surface region with densities $`<10^{14}g/cm^3`$. Here in beta equilibrium, there are neutrons, nuclei and electrons. Relativistic degenerate electrons comprise most of the pressure. The baryon density is near nuclear saturation density $`n_00.16fm^3`$. The general presumption has been that the core should be contain even more relativistic gravitational matter. Applying general relativity to a static spherical symmetric metric gives

$$ds^2=e^{2\mathrm{\Phi }\left(r\right)}c^2dt^2+e^{2\mathrm{\Lambda }\left(r\right)}dr^2+r^2d\theta ^2+r^2sin^(2)\theta d\varphi ^2$$
(1)
where $`\varphi `$ is the azimuthal angle, $`\theta `$ is the polar angle and the radial coordinate $`r`$ is defined such that at the origin the circumference of a circle is $`2\pi r`$. Using a Schwarzschild at the star surface, the boundary condition mandates

$$\mathrm{\Phi }\left(r=R\right)=\frac{1}{2}ln\left(1\frac{2GM}{Rc^2}\right)$$
(2)
$$\mathrm{\Lambda }\left(r=R\right)=\frac{1}{2}ln\left(1\frac{2GM}{Rc^2}\right)$$
(3)
If one assumes a perfect fluid to oversimplify calculations, this leads to the Tolman-Oppenheimer-Volkov (TOV) equations:

$$\frac{dP}{dr}=\frac{Gm\rho }{r^2}\left(1+\frac{P}{\rho c^2}\right)\left(1+\frac{4\pi r^3P}{mc^2}\right)\left(1\frac{2Gm}{rc^2}\right)^1$$
(4)
$$\frac{dm}{dr}=4\pi r^2\rho $$
(5)
Here $`P=P\left(r\right)`$, $`\rho =\rho \left(r\right)`$ and the mass wihin the radius $`r`$ is $`m\left(r\right)`$. In that the TOV equations are relativistic, the pressure $`P`$ should also add to gravitation especially at the core. At this boundary condition, $`m\left(0\right)=0`$, $`\rho \left(0\right)=\rho _c`$. With general relativity the pressure terms in the TOV equations will add much gravitation. It has been found that squeezing protons to 0.3 fm (femtometer) yields an enormous resistive pressure of $`10^{35}`$ pascals. As they note, this is more pressure than in a neutron star core. The following examples are going to show that gravitation is reduced both in neutron star cores and black holes. We will then explain how highly squeezed nucleons will reduce or eliminate gravitation.

In neutron stars: There is the unreasonable effectiveness of the post-Newtonian approximation in strong gravitational fields of neutron stars. This approximation assumes that gravitational fields in and around bodies are weak and the motions of matter are slow compared to the speed of light. Thus

$$\left(v/c\right)^2GM/\tau c^2p/\rho c^2<<0.1$$
(6)
where $`v,Mand\tau `$ are velocity, mass and separation of the system. Within masses $`p`$ and $`\rho `$ are the pressure and density and $`Gandc`$ are Newton’s gravitational constant and the speed of light. What is used in post-Newtonian calculation is the ’reduced’ Einstein equation

$$\left(^2/\left(ct\right)^2+^2\right)h^{\alpha \beta }=16\pi \left(G/c^4\right)\tau ^{\alpha \beta }$$
(7)
where $`h^{\alpha \beta }`$ is the deviation of the space-time metric $`g_{\alpha \beta }`$ from the flat Minkowski space-time metric $`\eta _{\alpha \beta }`$. They are related by the equation $`h^{\alpha \beta }\eta ^{\alpha \beta }\left(g\right)^{1/2}g^{\alpha \beta }`$. If gravity is weak everywhere, then the gravitational tensor potential $`h^{\alpha \beta }`$ must be small and can approximate the highly nonlinear equations of general relativity.

In 1974 the binary pulsar PSR $`1913+16`$ was discovered. Each neutron star had a mass $`1.4M_{}`$ in a quite relativistic orbital system with a mean speed $`200km/sec`$. Strangely, it was found that the rate of decay of the orbit was in agreement with the post-Newtonian quadripole formula. More recently, the relativistic double pulsar $`J\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0737}3039`$ performed according to the post-Newtonian calculations despite being in very strong gravitational fields. An effacement process had been postulated that the gravitational binding energy reduces the gravitational mass of each pulsar by $`1020\%`$ compared to its rest mass.

A low mass Xray binary AXJ1745.62901 has steadily been losing extra orbital momentum over a 20 year period. The high rate of orbital period decrease is $`\dot{P}_{orb}=4.03\pm 0.32\times 10^{11}s/s`$. This is over an order of magnitude greater than expected loses due to gravitational waves, magnetic breaking, or conservative mass transfer. The data included unexplained ’jitter’ of $`1020`$ seconds advancing or retarding the orbital period. Orbital loss explanations from accretion, a third body mass or an unrealistic $`.001M_{}`$ in the outer disc were rejected.

Looking at neutron stars and black hole formation, there is an gap between the largest neutron star of $`1.97M_{}`$ and the smallest black holes $`>4M_{}`$. Black holes begin to form at densities

$$\rho =\left(c^6\right)/\left(G^3M^2\right)$$
(8)
Since the constants $`c^6/G^3=6.272\times 10^{84}grams^3/cm^3`$, $`10^9M_{}`$ of water will collapse to a black hole. The smallest black hole of $`4M_{}`$ will form at highest densities.

There is the variation of Newton’s Gravitational constant G with the length of day . G is integral part of Newton’s gravitational law between two massive bodies: $`Force=Gm_1m_2/r^2`$ as well as the General Relativity of Einstein $`R_{ab}\left(1/2\right)g_{ab}R=8\pi GT_{ab}`$ where $`m_1`$ and $`m_2`$ are massive bodies and $`r`$ is the separation distance between. $`R_{ab}`$ and $`R`$ are the Ricci tensor and scalar, respectively and $`T_{ab}`$ is the stress-energy tensor. They analyzed $`13`$ measurements of $`G`$ and found that it was greater than $`6.674\times 10^{11}m^3kg^1s^2`$ when the days were longer (more solar radiation). It was less than when the days were shorter. This change in gravitation seems related to the increases or decreases in kinetic energy of particles.

Our galaxy shows evidence of energy and gravitational loss from the super-massive black hole after billions of years. There is a lopsided thickness in the outer disk of the Milky Way. This is about twice as large in one side as the other, despite the spherically symmetric distribution of galactic dark matter.

There is the mysterious survivor of an encounter with our Milky Way Super-massive Black Hole. As far back as 2006 a G2 ’cloud’ was found accelerating toward our galactic center mass $`3\times 10^6M_{}`$. The closest approach took place about February 2014. By Sept. 2014 G2 cloud was mysteriously moving away from the black hole. It even failed to trigger a flare up of accretion activity.

There is the amazingly weak magnetic field of a $`9M_{}`$ black hole in the binary V404 Cygni system. A burst of radiation was studied from a flare. It contained charged particles with electrons and protons in the black hole magnetic field. By calculating how quickly the burst dimmed, a team of astronomers found the magnetic field to be $`461\pm 12`$ gauss, the strength of several bar magnets and almost 3 orders of magnitude less than theory predicted.

## 2 The Case Against Singularities

Supposedly physical infinities are the singularities found in black holes and where the big bang started. If the universe started at or near a singularity and expanded, there should remain evidence of many of the following missing high energy phenomena. Monopoles are formed $`>10^{14}`$ GeV. Antimatter is formed $`>38`$ MeV. Domain walls would be the size of $`10^{28}h^1`$ cm. and have a mass $`4\times 10^{65}\mathrm{\Lambda }^{1/2}\left(\sigma /100GeV\right)^3`$ grams or many orders of magnitude over the present Hubble volume. Its prescence would cause a large defect in the CBR. Assuming the universe started as a fireball, the production of geometric flatness $`\left(a_{,t}/a\right)^2=k/a^2+\mathrm{\Lambda }/3+\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}8}\pi \rho _ma_o^3/3a^3+\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}8}\pi \rho _ra_o^4/3a^4`$ with $`k=0`$ has required an unproven inflaton scalar $`\varphi `$, leaving most other problems unsolved. Fireballs can’t make high correlations in galaxies with the velocity-brightness relation, corresponding rotations and all galactic parameters related to the central black hole size(see below). Considering the small size of the Higgs Boson (125 GeV), the big bang could not produce any cold dark nonbaryonic matter unless strange quarks were involved. Nucleosynthesis (the highest big bang energy confirmed) occurred after the end of quark-hadron boundary, requiring $`95\%`$ cold dark matter.

This paper has shown examples of black holes and neutron stars losing gravitation. What kind of black hole singularity can lose gravitational energy? Where are all the black holes of $`1,2,3M_{}`$? Why can’t large collapsing stars reach the densities to make them? They certainly won’t have evaporated like microscopic black holes. How can neutron stars lose gravitational energy when their cores are under $`8\times `$ nuclear density? Why are neutron stars limited to $`2M_{}`$? Why is the range $`23M_{}`$ unstable? It seems the formation of $`4M_{}`$ black holes are the highest density that can be reached. Neutron stars have a mobile non-gravitational core which is heavy enough to cause a ’wobble’ in the orbit.

## 3 Expaining Gravitation Loses

Gravitational masses may be treated as pinpoint sources. However, it defies logic that the gravitational properties of an infinitely collapsing mass would be the same as normal matter. For gravitational losses, matter must be highly squeezed and not a gas of noninteracting particles (perfect fluid) nor a Quark-Gluon Plasma. Particles must be packed so tightly by $`10^{16}gm/cm^3`$ that there is no motion at all.

On constructing the stress-energy tensor, the matter 4-velocity $`𝐮=(dt,0,0,0)`$, possibly adding only the observer 4-velocity. The 4-momentum is

$$𝐩=m𝐮=(m\gamma ,m\mathrm{\Delta }x\gamma ,m\mathrm{\Delta }y\gamma ,m\mathrm{\Delta }z\gamma )$$
(9)
where $`E=m\gamma `$, $`\gamma =1`$ nonrelativistic and $`\mathrm{\Delta }x,\mathrm{\Delta }y,\mathrm{\Delta }z=0`$. A volume element $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ composed of basis vectors $`e_x,e_y,e_z`$ have zero magnitudes as there is no flow of 4-momentum. An observer in his Lorentz frame will measure mass-energy density in $`gm/cm^3T_{00}=T(e_0,e_0)`$, with the observers 4-velocity $`𝐮`$ replaced by $`e_0`$. If the box is at rest in the observers frame, all matter kinetic and quantum energy will be sufficiently damped except possibly quantum spin. Space-time interaction will cease, $`T_{00}=0`$. To construct a volume in spacetime with a parallelopipid, use four different vectors for edges $`𝐀,𝐁,𝐂,𝐃`$. The vectors in standard Lorentz frame are $`𝐀=(\mathrm{\Delta }t,0,0,0)`$, $`𝐁=(0,\mathrm{\Delta }x,0,0)`$, $`𝐂=(0,0,\mathrm{\Delta }y,0)`$ and $`𝐃=(0,0,0,\mathrm{\Delta }z)`$. A 4-volume is

$$\mathrm{\Omega }=ϵ_{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta }A^\alpha B^\beta C^\gamma D^\delta =𝐀𝐁𝐂𝐃$$
(10)
A volume integral of a tensor S defined over a four dimensional region $`𝒱`$ of spacetime, calculated in a Lorentz frame

$$M_{\beta \alpha }^\alpha =S_{\beta \gamma }^\alpha 𝑑t𝑑x𝑑y𝑑z$$
(11)
The energy density measured in such a volume $`E=m\gamma /V=0`$ as is the density of the 4-momentum $`d𝐩/dV=0`$ per 3 dimentional volume in an observers Lorentz frame. In the following, $`j,k=(1,2,or\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3})`$ in what really is a symmetric tensor. $`T^{j,0}=0`$ is the momentum density, j component. $`T^{0,k}=0`$ is the energy flux, k component. $`T^{j,k}=0`$ is the j component of force from matter and fields acting around $`x^k`$. This keeps the tensor divergence $`𝐓=0`$ as nothing is moving.

For rotations of immobile squeezed nucleons, let S be a spacelike hypersuface with arbitrary event $`𝒜`$ and coordinates $`x^\alpha \left(𝒜\right)a^\alpha `$ using globally inertial coordinates. Total angular momentum on S about $`𝒜`$ can be defined as

$$J^{\mu \nu }_S𝒥^{\mu \nu \alpha }d^3\underset{\alpha }{}$$
(12)
and will add to total momentum only if present. Here

$$𝒥^{\mu \nu \alpha }\left(x^\mu a^\mu \right)T^{\nu \alpha }\left(x^\nu 𝒜^\nu \right)T^{\mu \alpha }$$
(13)
If S is a hypersurface of constant time t then

$$J^{\mu \nu }=𝒥^{\mu \nu 0}𝑑x𝑑y𝑑z$$
(14)
In the systems rest frame, let $`P^0=M`$, $`P^j=0`$ and at the center of mass

$$x_{cm}^j=\frac{1}{M}x^jT^{00}d^3x.$$
(15)
For a large mass, intrinsic angular momentum is defined angular momentum about any event $`(a^0,x_{cm}^j)`$ on the world line of the center of mass. Here components $`S^{0j}=0`$ and

$$S^{jk}=ϵ^{jkl}S^l.\text{ and }S\left(xx_{cm}\right)\times 𝑑𝐩/𝑑VS^{\mu \nu }d^3x$$
(16)
The intrinsic angular momentum 4-vector $`S^\mu `$ has components in the rest frame (0,S)

$$S^{\mu \nu }=U_\alpha S_\beta ϵ^{\alpha \beta \mu \nu }$$
(17)
The 4-velocity center of a large highly squeezed mass $`𝐔_\beta 𝐏_\beta /M=0`$. Angular momentum is composed of intrinsic and orbital parts. An arbitrary event $`a`$ whose perpendicular distance from the center of mass world line is $`Y^\alpha `$ making $`𝐔_\beta Y^\beta =0`$. The total angular momentum $`J^{\mu \nu }`$ about $`𝒜`$ is both the intrinsic part

$$\left(S^{\mu \nu }=𝐔_\alpha 𝐒_\beta ϵ^{\alpha \beta \mu \nu }\right)$$
(18)
and the orbital part

$$\left(L^{\mu \nu }=Y^\mu P^\nu Y^\nu P^\mu \right)$$
(19)
With the angular momentum about $`𝒜`$ and the 4-momentum known (zero is this case) one can calculate the vector from $`𝒜`$ to the center of mass world line.

$$Y^\mu =J^{\mu \nu }P_\nu /M^2$$
(20)
In a swarm of identical particles with event $`𝒫`$ inside the swarm, $`m_A`$ is the rest mass. $`𝐮_A`$ is the 4-velocity, and $`𝐩_A`$ is the 4-momentum. $`N_A`$ is the number of particles per unit volume, as measured in the particles own rest frame. The number flux vector

$$𝐒_AN_A𝐮_A$$
(21)
The particles have ordinary velocity $`v_A`$, zero in packed supranuclear densities. $`𝐮_A^o`$ is the the Lorentz correction for volume and velocity $`1/\left(1v_A\right)^{1/2}`$. The 4-momentum density is

$$𝐩_AS_A^o=m_Au^uN_Au_A^o$$
(22)
Consequently the 4-momentum density has components

$$T_A^{uo}=p_A^uS_A^o=m_AN_Au_A^uu_A^o$$
(23)
The flux of the $`\mu `$ component of momentum with perpendicular projection $`e_j`$ is

$$T_A^{\mu j}=p_A^\mu S_A^j=m_AN_Au_A^\mu u_A^j$$
(24)
Here suprascripts $`(\mu ,o)`$ and $`(\mu ,j)`$ of the frame independent equation

$$𝐓_A=m_AN_A𝐮_A𝐮_A=𝐩_A𝐒_A$$
(25)
By summing over all categories, the total number flux vector and stress energy tensor are obtained for all particles in the swarm. If $`𝐮_A=0`$, these will be zero.

$$𝐒=\underset{A}{}N_A𝐮_A\text{ and }𝐓=\underset{A}{}m_AN_A𝐮_A𝐮_A=\underset{A}{}𝐩_A𝐒_A$$
(26)
The total momentum flux accross a closed 3-dimensional surface must vanish $`T^{\mu 0}d^3\sigma _a=0`$. There is no flux and no sinks and there is no momentum at these supranuclear densities.

Thorne’s hoop conjecture states a black hole forms only when a given amount of mass-energy collapses through its own Schwarzschild radius $`R_S=2M`$, thus achieving compactness $`M/R>0.5`$. A sufficient large collapsing shell is necessary. If one starts with collapsing black hole nucleons maximally squeezed to $`0.3`$ fm radius (each with internal repulsive pressures $`10^{35}`$ pascals and probably much more together), they can not be packed to more than $`10^{16}gm/cm^3`$ density. As noted above, due to complete core gravitational loss, collapsing matter can not overcome these internal pressures. This is the core of black holes. Not near Planck energies. Like neutron star cores, black holes will begin to lose gravitation by $`5\times 10^{14}gm/cm^3`$. Once the core begins to form, its little to no gravitational energy and virtual incompressiblity blocks further gravitational collapse. It takes a total of $`4M_{}`$, including the non-gravitational core to produce a black hole. The presence of a nongravitational core will reduce $`M_{gravitation}`$ but otherwise not affect gravitational waves in black hole-black hole coalescence. The numerical Einstein equations have been found to match the data in black hole-black hole coalescence GW 150914 . Black hole gravitational loss would not be evident unless there was a binary black hole system. This constrains semianalytical models, two independent precessing spins and spin weighted quadripole modes. Component spins in magnitude and direction were not constrained. Using the conformally related metric $`\overline{\gamma }_{ij}`$ and the conformal factor $`e^\varphi `$, the Hamiltonian constraint is

$$0==\overline{\gamma }^{ij}\overline{D}_i\overline{D}_je^\varphi e^\varphi /8\overline{R}+e^{5\varphi }/8\stackrel{~}{A}_{ij}\stackrel{~}{A}^{ij}e^{5\varphi }/12K^22\pi e^{5\varphi }\rho $$
(27)
The only other source equation is a momentum constraint with precessing spin $`S^i=\rho hWu_i`$ is the momentum density.

$$0==\overline{D}_j\left(e^{6\varphi }\stackrel{~}{A}^{ji}\right)2/3e^{6\varphi }\overline{D}^jK8\pi e^{6\varphi }S^i$$
(28)
Therefore these equations will start to fail at neutron star core densities. All singularities are mathematical but not physical. Black holes will collapse until $`G_{\mu \nu }\mathrm{𝟎}`$. Likewise, the prior universe matter (pre-big bang) collapsed till $`G_{\mu \nu }\mathrm{𝟎}`$. For a black hole in Schwarzschild geometry,

$$ds^2=\left(1M/r\right)dt^2+\left(12M/r\right)^1dr^2+r^2d\theta ^2+r^2sin^2\theta d\varphi ^2$$
(29)
where $`M_{gravitational}0`$ very slowly, more so for the largest masses.

In neutron stars, gravitational losses must begin in their cores with density ranges $`10^{1415}gm/cm^3`$. With a normal stressed medium having velocities $`\left|𝐯\right|<<1`$ with respect to a specific Lorentz frame, the spacial components of the momentum are $`T^{0j}=m^{jk}v^k`$. Here

$$m^{jk}=T^{\overline{0}\overline{0}}\delta ^{jk}+T^{\overline{j}\overline{k}}$$
(30)
Here $`T^{\overline{\mu }\overline{\nu }}`$ are components of the stress energy tensor in the rest frame of the medium. Inside a neutron star core, where velocities are known low, and probably zero $`T^{\overline{0}\overline{0}}=0T^{\overline{j}\overline{k}}`$.

After a collapse is halted, the most highly squeezed particles in the core will act as an energy sink. Geometrized units will be employed such that $`c=1=G`$. From the second law of thermodynamics

$$Tds=d\left(\rho V\right)+pdV=d\left[V\left(\rho +p\right)\right]Vdp$$
(31)
here $`s`$ is the entropy of the matter and $`Va^3`$ is the co-moving volume. Integrating gives $`dp=\left(\rho +p\right)/TdT`$. Substituting this into the above gives two equations,

$$d/dt\left[\left(V\left(\rho +p\right)\right)/\left(T\right)\right]=\left(VE_s\right)/\left(T\right)$$
(32)
and

$$𝑑s=d\left[\left(V\left(\rho +p\right)\right)/\left(T\right)\right]$$
(33)
The shell entropy change is $`\dot{s}_2=E_sV/T_2`$ and the core is $`\dot{s_1}=E_sV/T_1`$. Normally the energy and entropy increment would follow the temperature differential to a lower temperature as with radiation and dust or with a scalar field and radiation.

$$\dot{s}_{total}=\dot{s_2}+\dot{s_1}=E_sV\left(1/T_21/T_1\right)$$
(34)
Quantum effects cause some strange properties. Temperature is a function of the velocity or kinetic energies of the particles, $`T^oK=m\overline{v}^2/3`$.

$$𝑑\rho =\left(\left(\rho +p\right)/\left(n\right)dnnTds\right)$$
(35)
Thus the core temperature and entropy will be reduced in highly squeezed particles by gravitational caused confinement. Due to quantum gravity effects, core matter, with the most highly squeezed particles, will act like an continuous energy sink and drain surrounding shell matter of most energies. Thus cold dark matter originated in shell baryons. The big bang hot core was about $`45\%`$ of the total mass. There is still baryon conservation $`dn/d\tau =nu`$. Energy conservation will still occur. Only $`d\left(nsV\right)/d\tau 0`$. Quantum gravity effects will put matter in better order, that is with less entropy and kinetic energy. These effects will also solve the following:

Between $`>2M_{}`$ and $`<4M_{}`$ neutron stars must be unstable due to noncollapsing cores causing collapsing matter to bounce (explode). It has been postulated that the bouncing will occur when inner core mass

$$M_{IC}Y_e^2\left(1+\eta S^2\right)$$
(36)
has the specific entropy $`S3`$. Here $`\eta =0.1`$ and $`Y_e`$ the electron/baryon ratio. The quantities are related through electron capture, neutrino transport and equalization of trapped neutrinos. Core collapse separates a star into subsonic collapsing inner core and supersonic outer core regions. The prompt shock fails to blow up the star and stalls due to neutrino energy losses and incoming collapsing matter. Despite neutrino heating of collapsing layers, violent sloshing motions and rotations-known as standing accretion shock instability, explosions are uncertain even on the biggest computers. A virtually incompressible inner core of highly squeezed nucleons is able to solve the long standing problem of shock revival with a bounce causing a supernova.

An energy loss will affect the measured supernova distances of co-moving galaxies, shown in Fig. 1.

The 3-geometry $`d\sigma ^2=g_{ij}(t,x^t)dx^idx^j`$ of each hyperspace is assumed to be the same due to homogeneity of the universe. The initial hyper-surface $`S_I`$ 3-geometry is $`\gamma _{ij}x^Kg_{ij}(t_I,x^K)`$. At time $`t_I`$ on surface $`S_I`$, they are separated by the proper distance

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma \left(t_I\right)=(\gamma _i,\mathrm{\Delta }x^i\mathrm{\Delta }x^j)^{1/2}.$$
(37)
At some later time $`t_f`$, they will be separated by some other proper distance $`\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma \left(t_f\right)`$. When spacetime is isotropic, then the ratio $`\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma \left(t_f\right)/\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma _(t_I)`$ will be related to the universe scale factor $`a\left(t_f\right)`$ at time $`t_f`$. The Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy probe combined with the Hubble Space Telescope resulted in a very small value for the cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=3.73\times 10^{56}cm^2`$ which corresponds to $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }\right)/\left(3H_0^2\right)=0.721\pm .015`$. Here $`H_0=70.1\pm 1.3km/sec/Mpc`$. The loss in gravitational energy will cause galaxies no longer to be co-moving and to move away from the Hubble flow. The greater distances measured between them is known as dark energy.

A limiting density with energy loss will solve the conflict in black holes between general relativity and quantum theory. The conundrum is ”Blacks holes: Complementary or Firewalls?”. The smallest black hole $`4M_{}`$, has the temperature of the black body Hawking radiation

$$T=\left(\mathrm{}c^3\right)/\left(8\pi GMk_B\right)=1.54\times 10^8K$$
(38)
and power dissipation

$$P=\left(\mathrm{}c^6\right)/\left(15360\pi G^2M^2\right)=5.63\times 10^{30}Watts$$
(39)
This minuscule energy is maximal for a newly formed $`4M_{}`$ black hole and will diminish further as it ages without accretion. Thus an infalling observer encounters nothing unusual at the horizon. Information will be released to the outside observer only when the black hole loses all its gravitational energy due to squeezing effects. No information encoding in Hawking radiation is necessary.

## 4 A Cyclical Universe

The Friedmann equation assumes a perfect fluid. It will be valid only hours into the big bang when large shell fragments captured hot core gases forming protogalaxies. The equations describing the scale factor evolution originate in the Ricci tensor. The 0-0 component of the Einstein equation is the Friedmann equation needing energy changes. In a Friedmann universe, radiation density is inversely related to the fourth power of the scale factor $`\rho _ra^4`$ and matter follows the third power $`\rho _ma^3`$.

$$\left(a_{,t}/a\right)^2=k/a^2+\mathrm{\Lambda }/3+\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}8}\pi \rho _ma_o^3/3a^3+\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}8}\pi \rho _ra_o^4/3a^4$$
(40)
Here $`a_o`$ is our present day universe and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is Einstein’s term for energy of empty space. The question has long been why the initial geometry of the universe was flat or $`k=0`$ in the the above equation. If all the initial radiation $`\rho _r`$ was embedded in the matter and participated in the subsequent expansion and gravitation of a fairly large mass $`r_{radius}10^{11}`$ cm., then the flatness problem is explained. Due to the matching of gravitation and expansion energies ($`k=0`$ above), it is most unlikely anything but nucleons and leptons stopped the prior universe collapse or restarted the expansion. There was no free radiation prior to the big bang. The energetic core photons participated in the re-expansion and nucleosynthesis. The small dark energy value attributed to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is actually due to later galactic black hole gravitational loss as explained. Our universe cycles as follows as shown in Fig. 2.

During the universe contraction phase, there is a growing super-max black hole. All matter and photons inside its gravitational radius ($`r_+10^{26}`$cm.) will follow null geodesics into the inside matter. Their energy will be slowly transferred to highly squeezed core particles. The collapsing universe will eventually force all remaining matter and radiation into the growing $`r_+`$. With the loss of gravitational energy and entropy, a subsequent universe bounce will not increase in size from the previous cycle. By bounce time, the gravitational radius has decreased to zero, $`r_+0`$. The very energetic core electrons and nucleons, loaded with radiation, powered the re-expansion as well as resulting gravity and nucleosynthesis. Nucleosynthesis thus occurred only in the core, leaving the shell as cold dark matter. If all the matter in the universe were in one super-mass, its radius would be $`10^{12}cm.`$ Its $`45\%`$ core released photons with an initial temperature $`10^{17}`$ degrees in a Planck spectrum. The cold baryonic shell surrounding the hot core absorbed and did not reflect hot core photons. It comprised a cavity close to the characteristic of a perfect black body with resulting radiation in thermal equilibrium as shown in Fig. 3.

Whether released from a small hole or the massive break up of the shell, subsequent light emission would have a Planck spectrum with temperature fluctuations $`10^5`$. The energy density was

$$u_\nu \left(T\right)=(8\pi \nu ^2/c^3)(h\nu /(e^{h\nu /k_BT}1\left)\right)$$
(41)
where $`k_B`$ is Boltzmann’s constant. The first term on the right represents the number of electromagnetic modes of the standing waves at frequency $`\nu `$ per volume of cavity. The second term represents the average energy per mode at this frequency. The primordial spectrum of curvature perturbations can be represented as a power spectrum

$$𝒫\left(k\right)k^{n_s1}$$
(42)
WMAP showed that the power spectrum $`n_s=0.963\pm .014`$, which is nearly scale free. The heights of the acoustic peaks are related to the related to the densities of the hot and cold (CDM) baryons. The bulk modulus is reduced by increasing baryon fraction which adds inertia but not pressure to the plasma. In the middle of the oscillations, the over-density increases the compression peaks $`(1,3,5\mathrm{})`$. The measured $`\mathrm{\Omega }_bh^2=0.02258\pm .00056`$ is consistent with nucleosynthesis. The angular scale of the acoustic peaks are related to $`r_s/d_a`$, which is the sound horizon co-moving distance divided by the angular distance back to the last scattering. This allows the spacetime curvature from the first acoustic peak to be measured. It was found to be flat to within $`0.5\%`$, all consistent with a bounce model.

A 78 megahertz radio signal in the sky was caused by an unexpectedly strong interaction of primordial hydrogen with cold dark matter . This signal in the cosmic radio frequency spectrum measuring up to $`600mK`$ (milliKelvins) is a clear sign of scattering of baryons with cold dark matter particles. With just baryon-cold dark matter cooling the signal could not be more than $`200mK`$. Its observed brightness related to the CMB in mK

$$T_{21}0.023K\times x_{HI}\left(z\right)\left[\left(\frac{0.15}{\mathrm{\Omega }_m}\right)\left(\frac{z+1}{10}\right)\right]^{0.5}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_b}{0.02}\right)\left(1\frac{T_R\left(z\right)}{T_S}\right)$$
(43)
$`x_{HI}`$ is the mass fraction of neutral non-ionized hydrogen. $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$ is the cosmic mean matter density and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_b`$ is the baryon part. $`T_S`$ is the 21 cm. spin-flip transition of hydrogen at z. $`T_R`$ is background radiation temperature. The brightness temperature will be much enhanced from $`200mK`$ in prior models to $`600mK`$ if the cold dark matter is also neutral hydrogen. The cross-section for baryon-dark matter collisions $`\sigma _c`$. $`\sigma _1`$ is the cross-section assuming the relative velocity of $`1`$ km/sec. The dependence of the cross-section on velocity is assumed $`v^4`$. The cross section increases greatly with decreasing velocity.

$$\sigma \left(v\right)=\sigma _c\left(\frac{v}{c}\right)^4=\sigma _1\left(\frac{v}{1km/sec}\right)^4$$
(44)
In order for the brightness temperature to be reached, a baryon size particle must be present. A brightness temperature of $`500mK`$ implies $`\sigma _1>5\times 10^{21}cm^2`$ and a cold dark matter particle $`m_\chi <1.5GeV`$. $`300mK`$ implies a particle $`m_\chi <4.3GeV`$. A particle $`m_\chi <0.5GeV`$ would be unable to cool baryons sufficiently and make a maximum signal of log\[$`T_{21}mK`$\] $`2.22.3`$ or $`160170mk`$ at best. With cold dark matter as atomic hydrogen $`HI`$, this enhancement is explained. The loss of Gaussian curve can be explained by early star formation in primordial galaxies producing small amounts of UV, X-ray or $`\gamma `$-ray radiation tending also to inhibit further star formation. Decoupling here is different from standard models as the hot gas is held in much lower orbits from most cold dark matter. A low gas temperature would enhance the Jeans mass necessary for early star formation. The dissipation of hot-cold baryonic relative velocities will also increase star formation. The initial capturing of energetic hot core baryons in lower black hole orbits with cold shell baryons in higher orbits will be explained below. Baryon inflo in dark matter halos was completed hours after the big bang.

## 5 Current Problems in Galaxy Formation

Large scale structure in the universe has long been assumed to grow from gravitational instabilities originating in primordial random Gaussian fluctuations. Galaxy growth then necessitates a number of essentially random stochastic processes involving mergers, accretion, gas expulsion and feedback from adjacent structures. Galaxies do congregate in clusters, along filaments and are absent from regions called voids. On the cluster and super cluster level, galaxies seem to have a somewhat random spacing. However on the galactic level, they are highly correlated in circular velocity, light emission, direction of rotation, etc.

Current concepts in galaxy formation and growth are summarized as follows. A dark matter halo forms from random over-densities and acquires more matter through accretion or mergers. The gas then settles into a rotational supported disk. Within the disk-intrastellar medium(ISM), self regulation occurs through cooling and feedback. This causes ejection of a fraction of the disk’s halo through winds. Gas flowing to the center of the galaxy may accrete onto a central black hole. This unbinds other ISM gas through winds or jets. The halo number densities reflect the underlying dark matter with correlation function. Once the gas has cooled and collapsed to high density, star formation begins. Besides slow accretion, global instability such as bars, spiral waves and galaxy mergers can send gas to the super-massive black hole. Torques due to instabilities can send much gas to the galactic center. Galaxy evolution is critically dependent from feedback from stars and black hole.

A review of the standard galaxy formation paradigm with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }CDM`$ picture adds some observation. There is a ubiquity of massive galactic outflows. These are driven by feedback phenomena such as ionizing radiation from young stars and black hole accretion as well as supernova winds. It also lists problems that still plague this paradigm. The cusp-core discrepancy involves excessive dark matter at the center of dwarf galaxies in simulations. Higher mass galaxies with a peak rotational velocity $`>100km/s`$ have flat central dark matter profiles. These have less inner distribution of dark matter than expected. Also dark matter and baryons follow similar profiles and may have tight coupling on a galactic scale. The angular momentum catastrophe in simulations has a large fraction of low angular momentum dark matter and baryons accumulating in all galactic halos. There is no understanding of the mechanisms that give a flat dark matter profile. They comment that if sufficient energy could be given to dark matter particles in the center of the halo, they would migrate outward and the cold dark matter scenario could make normal galaxies.

Hot big bang models also suffer from the following problems.

Galactic halo structures grew by attracting surrounding matter. The fate of these halos is determined either by radiative cooling or gravitational heating. In low mass halos, cooling predominates, which allows cold gas to fall into the center and become disks and stars. The cooling problem is most acute in galaxies. At the end of their lives, massive stars return $`3040\%`$ of their mass to the ISM. If even a small fraction of this mass is accreted, it would result in much larger black holes than are present. Gravitational heating dominates once a halo mass of about $`10^{12}M_{}`$ is reached. Cold gas is no longer able to accrete onto galaxies. The only way galaxies within halos can grow at this stage is by mergers.

Pure disk galaxies form bulges after the mergers. Yet some samples of giant galaxies have found over half are large pure disk type, without any evidence of mergers.

The intergalactic medium of the Perseus cluster was found to have a uniform iron enrichment of about one third that of our sun . Uniform metal enrichment must have occurred prior to the formation of the cluster and its supernovas.

In galaxies with bulges, the mass of the central black hole correlates with the mass of the bulge and also the average spread of velocities of the bulge stars. This includes ellipticals which have bulges but no disks . Why did the gas that formed bulge stars settle near the black hole? Part increased the black hole mass and part led to explosions that blew the gas away and suppressed star formation. What is the reason for the inward movement of matter to the black hole in some galaxies and to the pseudo-bulge in others? Accepted theory has both galaxies with and without bulges growing by accreting matter during the period that the massive early stars were forming. These early stars would not have settled in disks because they could not be slowed enough to reside in disks. Galactic bulges do contain old stars but there is no reason these old stars avoided bulge-less galaxies. There is no evidence that they are in diffuse stellar halos either. Evidently they played little role in galaxy formation.

The mass distribution of spiral galaxies is evenly spread from its dark matter outer limits to its inner baryonic areas. Dark matter played a strong role in the disk and stars but not its black hole. In pure disk galaxies with pseudo-bulges, the central black hole does not correlate with the pseudo-bulge.

There is extremely inefficient star formation in metal poor galaxies. The universe’s original Pop III stars must have formed very slowly in the initially metal poor galaxies. They had to use their fuel and collapse to form initial black holes extremely rapidly.

There is evidence that galactic size and brightness have not increased since $`Z1.25`$. Plots for many elliptical and the disk galaxies show the radius vs. $`1+z`$ in log-log plots yield a flat line. In otherwords there is no change of average galactic radius or brightness with time.

## 6 Baryonic Galaxy Formation

Galactic properties have been shown to be a function of only one variable: the central black hole mass. For most galaxies, there is a uniform history for galactic evolution. There is a synchronization timescale $`\left(\tau _s1.5Gyr\right)`$ where galaxies of fixed mass and red-shift go through a deterministic sequence of star formation, quasar accretion and eventual quiescence. This sequence negates the importance of stochastic processes. Protogalaxies must form in the very initial stages of the radiation dominant era. Radiation would not be able to destroy structures containing black holes with orbiting hot hydrogen and helium gases. The integrated Sachs-Wolf effect

$$\mathrm{}^2C_{\mathrm{}}^{ISW}72\pi ^2/25\mathrm{}_0^{r_{LS}}𝑑rrg^2\left(r\right)𝒫_{}\left(\mathrm{}/r\right)T^2\left(\mathrm{}/r\right)$$
(45)
was designed for photons descending into and emerging from a gravitational well. Here $`𝒫_{}\left(k\right)`$ is the primordial co-moving curvature spectrum. $`r_{LS}`$ is the co-moving radius to the last scattering surface. $`g`$ is the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ growth suppression factor. $`T\left(k\right)`$ is the transfer function for suppression during radiation domination. $`k^{}`$ is the conformal time derivative of the co-moving wave number. Note it does not include effects of orbiting hot gases with electrons obscuring matter imprints on the CMBR photons. Thus structures much larger than the currently allowed $`10^4M_{}`$ could have been present in the last scattering surface without enlarging the isotropy from $`10^5`$. Starting from a big bang shell and hot core, early galaxy formation and high inter-galactic correlations become simplified. The shell laid down a fairly even cold dark matter density $`\rho _{DM}`$. The DM halo mass distribution for galactic systems ranging from dwarf discs and spheroidals to spirals and ellipticals has been found essentially constant. This result also spans almost the whole galaxy magnitude range $`M_B`$ from $`8`$ to $`22`$ and gaseous to stellar mass fraction range of many orders of magnitude.

$$log\left(\mu _{0D}/M_{}pc^2\right)=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2.15}\pm 0.25$$
(46)
where $`\mu _{0D}`$ is the central surface density and is defined as $`r_0\rho _0`$. $`r_0`$ is the halo core radius and $`\rho _0`$ is the central density. This same finding was supported by another group . Since all dark matter lies within a halo orbiting the primordial black holes, its total density field is

$$\rho \left(𝐱\right)=\mathrm{\Sigma }_idmd^3x\delta (mm_i)\delta (𝐱𝐱_i)mu(𝐱𝐱|m)$$
(47)
where $`i`$ is the different halos, $`u=\rho /M`$ is the normalized density profile and $`M`$ is the halo virial mass. Within the original dark matter halos, massive black holes coalesced. The dark matter from the center to periphery of early type galaxies has been evaluated from a galactic stellar mass $`M_{}10^{10}M_{}`$ to the more massive galaxies $`10^{12}M_{}`$. N-body simulations predict the the dark matter density profile $`\rho _{DM}\left(r\right)`$ should be independent of halo mass. In the NFW profile it is described by two power laws. In the outer regions it is $`\rho _{DM}\left(r\right)r^3`$ and in the center $`\rho _{DM}\left(r\right)r^\alpha `$. Here $`\alpha `$ can vary $`1`$ or $`1.5`$ depending on the model. What has actually been found is a variation around the inverse gravitational square law ($`\alpha =2`$), as the halos are orbiting the primordial black holes. Galaxies larger than $`3\times 10^{10}M_{}`$ have lower slopes than $`\alpha 2`$ due to accretion of halo mass from smaller satellite galaxies. Smaller satellite galaxies under $`3\times 10^{10}M_{}`$ have larger slopes due to loss of outlying halo matter. The rotation of the larger galaxies above this break point has been found highly correlated and perpendicular to the filament that they are located . The rotation of $`65`$ galactic black holes has been found aligned using their radio galactic jets . The rotation of the smaller galaxies has been found parallel to the cosmic web that they belong as shown in Fig. 4. The hot core blast wave, which followed after the dark matter-black hole foundation, crossed these structures in a mostly perpendicular direction. The already formed larger black holes, with rotation already in the plane of their filaments, did not have their rotation direction changed during the capturing process. The smaller galaxies, in orbit around the larger galaxies as satellites, were forced to change their rotation into the plane of the filament.

The deeper the gravitational wells, the higher the velocity and more orbiting mass that could be captured. The capturing process described here is divided by distance from the primordial black holes $`M`$. Outside the immediate area of black hole influence, capturing of hot core matter $`m`$ streaming through the area of influence of each black hole is due to the amount of energy each particle possesses. Large kinetic energies result in hyperbolic or parabolic type orbits with the ability to escape any given gravitational well. Matter that is captured has the potential energy greater than the kinetic,

$$GmM/r>l^2/mr^2+1/2m\dot{r}^2$$
(48)
and $`e<1`$. Expanding the total kinetic energy $`E`$ in the equation for $`e`$,

$$e=\sqrt{1+\left(2l^2\left(l^2/mr^2+\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}/2m\dot{r}^2GmM/r\right)\right)/mk^2}$$
(49)
Orbiting matter has $`e<1`$ and real. If we let its angular momentum $`l=mr\dot{\theta }^2`$ and $`k=mMG`$, the equation for $`e`$ becomes

$$e=\sqrt{1+(r^6\dot{\theta }^4+\dot{r}^2r^4\dot{\theta }^22GMr^3\dot{\theta }^2)/(M^2G^2})$$
(50)
Using $`\dot{\theta }=\dot{r}/r`$, the equation for $`e`$ becomes

$$e=\sqrt{1+\left(2r^2\dot{r}^4\right)/\left(M^2G^2\right)\left(2r\dot{r}^2\right)/\left(MG\right)}$$
(51)
As $`GM=\dot{r}^2r`$, then the galactic well will deepen as $`M\dot{r}^2`$ or $`Mr`$. The last term in equation above becomes $`\dot{r}^8/M^2G^2`$. When this term is dominant, it will allow capturing matter with $`\dot{r}`$ to increase as the fourth power as the galactic black hole $`M`$ increases, $`\dot{r}M^4`$. This explains the Tully-Fisher and similar correlations. The black hole capturing cross sectional area, $`M_{csa}M_{gravity}`$ since both scale as $`r^2`$.

With the two stage gravitational formation process, angular momentum is preserved. Halo parameters are related to the luminous mass distribution since all rotating mass was captured by a given size black hole. An entirely baryonic model explains why the circular orbital speed from luminous matter, which dominates the inner regions, is so similar to dark matter at larger radii. With many stars in the center areas, initial conditions for dark and luminous matter no longer have to be closely adjusted to produce a flat rotation curve. The hot core matter of a certain velocity can be captured by the similarly sized black holes, explaining why there are similar circular speeds in all galaxies of a given luminosity no matter how the luminous matter is spaced. The depth of the gravitational well determines the circular speed and luminosity of captured matter. The hot and cold matter discrepancies are detectable only at accelerations below $`10^8cm/sec^2`$ since they are all baryons. Much of the missing bayonic matter has been found in the intergalactic medium.

## 7 Discussion

General relativity has been extrapolated in black holes and the big bang to enormous energies and densities without consideration of loss of space in particles. Using evidence of huge resistive pressures in the stress-energy tensor $`T_{\mu \nu }\mathrm{𝟎}`$, very simple ’quantum gravity’ can be produced. The gravitational loss in neutron stars can’t be explained any other way. General relativity remains valid throughout the universe, once loss of space in nucleons is included. This caused the initial in-homogeneous big bang configuration of matter. A cold shell and hot core produced the Planck spectrum radiation. The cold shell dispersion led to the great wall, filaments and voids. The basis of all galaxies formed simultaneously as cold dark shell matter formed black holes which captured subsequent hot core gases into protogalaxies. These formed stars ionized the intergalactic medium from $`z=611`$. The fact that the Higgs Boson is $`125`$ GeV and not larger, eliminates nonbaryonic matter as dark matter. The pre-big bang matter was composed of highly squeezed ordinary nucleons. It was definitely not a plasma or a singularity.

Gravitation is described by the Riemann metric. No negative energies are required nor is a vacuum energy necessary for empty space. The fact that initial universe had flat space time despite the apparent early radiation energy dominance has been explained. Since the origin of the big bang is a bounce, it should recollapse into the big crunch $`100`$ billion years. The resulting neutrons will eventually decompose into the protons and electrons for hydrogen and helium during the next cycle. Black holes must continuously accrete mass-energy to maintain their gravitational strength. Gravity is not caused by matter itself but rather by the motion of matter particles. Galaxies are made in a two stage process. First the big bang shell laid down all halos and super-massive black holes. Then hot core gases were captured according to the size of each gravitational well.

Acknowledgments This article is based on research I posted on the internet astrophysics archives while in NJIT Physics. Some of it was done in collaboration with John Rollino of Rutgers University Physics, Newark N.J. 07102 I wants to thank Erik Schnetter for helpful advice.