Demonstrates UD theory's consistency with QED in the low-energy regime, indicating it complements existing models.
This paper demonstrates the consistency of UD theory with quantum electrodynamics (QED) in the microscopic low-energy regime. From the UD axioms, the fundamental mass scale is exactly m_0 = 1/(2πe^π) in natural units. In Planck units (M_P = 1), the dimensionless ratio is m_0/M_P = 1/(2πe^π) ≈ 0.00688, an exact consequence of the UD axioms. All four aspects U_U, U_D, D_D, D_U have masses determined by m_0, of order M_P. At energies E ≪ M_P, these heavy fields cannot be produced as real particles. They can only appear as virtual particles in loop diagrams, and their propagators are suppressed by 1/m_0^2 ~ 1/M_P^2. Integrating out the heavy fields from the UD action yields an effective Lagrangian at low energies: L_eff = L_QED + (c_5/M_P)O_5 + (c_6/M_P^2)O_6 + ... Taking the electron anomalous magnetic moment a_e = (g-2)/2 as an example, we compute the one-loop diagram with a heavy field exchanged between the electron and the photon. Using standard techniques and the UD constants, the correction satisfies the upper bound: δa_e^UD ≤ 3.54×10⁻²⁴. The current experimental precision is Δa_e^exp ≈ 2.8×10⁻¹³ (CODATA 2022). The UD correction is at most eleven orders of magnitude below experimental precision, completely unobservable. We also discuss other low-energy observables:- Lamb shift: UD correction ~ 10⁻¹¹ eV (precision ~ 10⁻⁶ eV)- Muon g-2: UD correction ≤ 7.31×10⁻²² (precision 4.6×10⁻¹⁰), cannot explain the 4.2σ discrepancy- High-energy colliders: E/M_P ~ 10⁻¹⁶, effects completely negligible This explains why QED has been so successful over the past seven decades: the fundamental scale of UD theory is the Planck scale, and all corrections are suppressed by powers of E/M_P. No deviation from QED is expected at currently accessible energies. The UD theory is fully consistent with all existing QED tests.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Dan Zhu (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: