No, and according to QED it occurs because the $$\gamma \,\rightarrow\, e^{+} e^{-}$$ and $$\gamma e^{\pm} \,\rightarrow\, e^{\pm}$$ interactions occur. As for the $$\gamma e e$$ interaction, we know that it is a) one of the few possible interactions consistent with special relativity, renormalisability, and lower-bounded energy, and b) implied by U(1) gauge symmetry.
If you're going to complain about a mainstream physical theory, at least complain about what the theory actually has to say and not some silly strawman of it.
I am. And in case you didn't notice, you just reiterated the silly assertion that pair production occurs because pair production occurs.
In case you didn't notice, I actually said something very different. You had to
quote me out of context to make it appear like I was stating a tautology, and
even the part you do quote isn't a tautology. It explains that pair production, i.e. the reaction $$\gamma \gamma \,\rightarrow\, e^{+} e^{-}$$, is composed out of more
primitive interactions, one of which is $$\gamma \,\rightarrow\, e^{+} e^{-}$$.
Note that I did
not say that the $$\gamma \,\rightarrow\, e^{+} e^{-}$$ interaction occurs because the $$\gamma \,\rightarrow\, e^{+} e^{-}$$ interaction occurs. That
would have been a tautology had I said something that amounted to that. But I didn't.
Seriously, just how mind-numbingly obtuse and dishonest can you get? When you quote me out of context like this, you are a simple copy-and-paste away from me lighting it up like a billboard for everyone to see.
And what, precisely, would I be denying?
I've explained what's wrong with it. And yes, I will ridicule it. it's called
reductio ad absurdum.
No. Reductio ad absurdum is a form of argument where you show that a number of axioms together leads to a logical contradiction, from which you conclude that one of the axioms must be wrong.
You gave no such argument. All you did was take QED and call it names. That is
not a rational form of argument.
On the basis that they offer a tautology instead of an explanation.
The only tautology you identified was a strawman of your own invention. Nobody pretends that "pair production occurs because pair production occurs" is a valid logical argument, and nobody except you attributes it to QED.
As you should have picked up on by now, pair production is not even considered a fundamental interaction in QED. It's rather the $$\gamma e e$$ coupling that would better fit that description. Depending on how you want to think about it, you can either take the $$\gamma e e$$ coupling as a postulate that is simply part of the
definition of QED, or you can take it as a consequence of
U(1) gauge symmetry and take
that as a postulate that is part of the definition of QED. In neither case is it a tautology. A postulate is simply where our understanding of the fundamentals of a theory ends.
Oh that's all right then, on top of everything else we can throw conservation of energy out of the window.
Huh? You again seem to casually forget that QED is a quantum theory. Energy conservation in a quantum theory means that the probability distribution of a quantum state over the various eigenstates of the Hamiltonian is invariant in time. QED, of course, necessarily satisfies this form of energy conservation -- the only one we think rigorously and fundamentally holds -- trivially by construction as a quantum theory.
The type of (classical) energy conservation you are holding to has not been considered fundamental or accurate since quantum physics was invented. Same with momentum, incidentally.
More generally, the Standard Model has been extensively tested in accelerators and is consistent with
all known experimental data. So if you think the Standard Model violates some deeply held principle of yours,
that principle is not supported by any evidence.
It works so well because the leading half of the photon behaves somewhat like a partial positron.
Evidence? Model of this behaviour, and demonstration that it is consistent, within error bars, with say everything in the
particle physics booklet?
