Notices
Results 1 to 49 of 49

Thread: Graviton

  1. #1 Graviton 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    84
    We cannot detect following particles: the Higgs boson(s), sparticles, other –inos, gravitons, gravitational waves, and so on. The Everlasting Theory presented on

    http://www.cosmology-particles.pl

    shows that the above particles are not in existence. The ground state of the Einstein spacetime is the gas composed of the non-rotating binary systems of neutrinos. It is very difficult to detect such binary systems – we should measure mass with accuracy about 10^-67 kg. The binary systems of neutrinos are the carriers of the photons and gluons. The strong field and the rotating binary systems of neutrinos have internal helicity whereas the electromagnetic field has not. This leads to conclusion that there is 1 type of photons (the left- and right-handed photons behave the same) and 8 gluons. The photons and gluons are the rotational energies of the binary systems of neutrinos so they are the massless particles (their carriers have mass).
    There are in existence in the Einstein spacetime the carriers of the gravitons i.e. the non-rotating binary systems of binary systems of neutrinos with parallel spins i.e. their spin is equal to 2. But due to their internal structure, they can create the transverse waves only i.e. when they rotate, they behave as two entangled photons. Gravitational energy is emitted due to the flows in the Einstein spacetime composed of the non-rotating carriers of the not existing gravitons. The spin of the carriers of the not existing gravitons (spin=2) and the number of gluons (8) lead to the four-neutrino symmetry and to the two families of neutrinos only. The illusion of the existence of the third family of neutrinos follows from the fact that the neutrino ‘oscillations’ are not transformations of neutrinos but the exchanges of the free neutrinos for the neutrinos in the binary systems of neutrinos the Einstein spacetime consists of.
    There are only the 7 parameters. There are the hundreds theoretical results consistent with experimental data. This theory solves the basic unsolved problems within the SM. I calculated the physical constants from the initial conditions. The ET leads to the speeds of neutrinos consistent with the data obtained in the MINOS and OPERA experiments and with the data concerning the supernova 1987A explosion. There is about the reasons of the big bang and origin of the dark energy and dark matter.
    Contents of the electronic book ISBN 978-83-933105-0-0 is as follows.
    Abstract 2
    1 Experimental Data and Program of Ultimate Theory 3
    2 Phase Transitions of Newtonian Spacetime, Neutrinos,
    Nucleons, Electrons, Pions and Muons 10
    3 Interactions 26
    4 Structure of Particles (continuation) 43
    5 Liquid-like Plasma 53
    6 New Cosmology 55
    7 Four-shell Model of Atomic Nucleus 72
    8 Mathematical Constants 78
    9 Fractal Field 82
    10 New Big Bang Theory 86
    11 New Quantum Chromodynamics 89
    12 Proton and Loops as Foundations of Theory of Chaos 95
    13 Theoretical Curve for the Kaon-to-Pion Ratio 100
    14 The Cross Section for Production of the W Boson 102
    15 Neutrino Speed in the Everlasting Theory 104
    Recapitulation 106
    Definitions 108

    Conclusion
    We will never detect DIRECTLY the postulated gravitons and gravitational waves. Gravity acts in different way but, of course, the General Theory of Relativity is correct. Sometimes there are the wrong interpretations. The carriers of photons and gluons are moving with the speed c. The free neutrinos are moving with speeds higher than the c – the maximum neutrino speed is 1.000072c.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    224
    Quote Originally Posted by Sylwester Kornowski View Post
    We cannot detect following particles: the Higgs boson(s), sparticles, other –inos, gravitons, gravitational waves, and so on. The Everlasting Theory presented on

    http://www.cosmology-particles.pl

    shows that the above particles are not in existence. The ground state of the Einstein spacetime is the gas composed of the non-rotating binary systems of neutrinos. It is very difficult to detect such binary systems – we should measure mass with accuracy about 10^-67 kg. The binary systems of neutrinos are the carriers of the photons and gluons. The strong field and the rotating binary systems of neutrinos have internal helicity whereas the electromagnetic field has not. This leads to conclusion that there is 1 type of photons (the left- and right-handed photons behave the same) and 8 gluons. The photons and gluons are the rotational energies of the binary systems of neutrinos so they are the massless particles (their carriers have mass).
    There are in existence in the Einstein spacetime the carriers of the gravitons i.e. the non-rotating binary systems of binary systems of neutrinos with parallel spins i.e. their spin is equal to 2. But due to their internal structure, they can create the transverse waves only i.e. when they rotate, they behave as two entangled photons. Gravitational energy is emitted due to the flows in the Einstein spacetime composed of the non-rotating carriers of the not existing gravitons. The spin of the carriers of the not existing gravitons (spin=2) and the number of gluons (8) lead to the four-neutrino symmetry and to the two families of neutrinos only. The illusion of the existence of the third family of neutrinos follows from the fact that the neutrino ‘oscillations’ are not transformations of neutrinos but the exchanges of the free neutrinos for the neutrinos in the binary systems of neutrinos the Einstein spacetime consists of.
    There are only the 7 parameters. There are the hundreds theoretical results consistent with experimental data. This theory solves the basic unsolved problems within the SM. I calculated the physical constants from the initial conditions. The ET leads to the speeds of neutrinos consistent with the data obtained in the MINOS and OPERA experiments and with the data concerning the supernova 1987A explosion. There is about the reasons of the big bang and origin of the dark energy and dark matter.
    Contents of the electronic book ISBN 978-83-933105-0-0 is as follows.
    Abstract 2
    1 Experimental Data and Program of Ultimate Theory 3
    2 Phase Transitions of Newtonian Spacetime, Neutrinos,
    Nucleons, Electrons, Pions and Muons 10
    3 Interactions 26
    4 Structure of Particles (continuation) 43
    5 Liquid-like Plasma 53
    6 New Cosmology 55
    7 Four-shell Model of Atomic Nucleus 72
    8 Mathematical Constants 78
    9 Fractal Field 82
    10 New Big Bang Theory 86
    11 New Quantum Chromodynamics 89
    12 Proton and Loops as Foundations of Theory of Chaos 95
    13 Theoretical Curve for the Kaon-to-Pion Ratio 100
    14 The Cross Section for Production of the W Boson 102
    15 Neutrino Speed in the Everlasting Theory 104
    Recapitulation 106
    Definitions 108

    Conclusion
    We will never detect DIRECTLY the postulated gravitons and gravitational waves. Gravity acts in different way but, of course, the General Theory of Relativity is correct. Sometimes there are the wrong interpretations. The carriers of photons and gluons are moving with the speed c. The free neutrinos are moving with speeds higher than the c – the maximum neutrino speed is 1.000072c.
    For the sake of clarity, could you be a bit more specific and concise about your claims,
    streams of abstract data to make a point, do not sit well with an ordered mind


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    84
    Quote Originally Posted by nokton View Post
    For the sake of clarity, could you be a bit more specific and concise about your claims,
    streams of abstract data to make a point, do not sit well with an ordered mind
    All you need is in my electronic book on my website The Ultimate Theory of The Universe by Sylwester Kornowski

    Can you specify what you want to know?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Comet Dust Collector Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    2,848
    So in other wodrs, this is SPAM
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    84
    Quote Originally Posted by MeteorWayne View Post
    So in other wodrs, this is SPAM
    No. Can you specify what you want to know? There are described hundreds phenomena.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,371
    This forum does not exist to drive traffic to your personal site. if you want to discuss something it should be done here with evidence brought here and presented for discussion.
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    84
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    This forum does not exist to drive traffic to your personal site. if you want to discuss something it should be done here with evidence brought here and presented for discussion.
    You are right. I try. There is the initial post and I am waiting for questions.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,371
    No, you were asked to clarify your initial post, and as a response you said to go read your book.
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    84
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    No, you were asked to clarify your initial post, and as a response you said to go read your book.
    No. There is also following sentence:
    "Can you specify what you want to know?"
    The initial post is very long. A clarification of very long post should be very, very long but I will try.

    There are four phase transitions of the Newtonian spacetime so there are the five levels of nature:
    1.
    The tachyon gas (v >>> c) i.e. the inertial mass is eternal.
    2.
    During the inflation the tachyon gas partially transforms into the closed strings (v >> c). There appears the h.
    3.
    Neutrinos (1.000072c > v > c) consist of the closed strings. It is very easy to calculate this speed within the ET.
    4.
    Particles greater than neutrino and carrying mass consist of the binary systems of neutrinos (v = c) i.e. of the Einstein spacetime components. The size of neutrinos is close to the Planck critical length so there appears the new physics i.e. the G, c, e.
    5.
    The objects before the soft big bangs suited to life (after the inflation).

    The formula E=mc^2 says that energy and matter are equivalent. We cannot say that energy is transformed/transmuted/turned/converted into mass. Mass is a sum of continuous physical volumes (for example a closed string) whereas energies are the motions of the continuous physical volumes. Nature or we cannot change/transmute the energies/motions into mass/continuous-physical-volumes and vice versa. This means that nature or we cannot transmute motions into inertial mass and vice versa. So why the formula E=mc^2 is correct? This is due to the properties of the Einstein spacetime which is the arena for the above formula. The Einstein spacetime must have mass density not equal to zero and there must be possible some flows in such spacetime. Photons and gluons are massless because they are the rotational energies of the Einstein spacetime components. In experiments, we detect the energies of the gluons and photons, not the mass of the Einstein spacetime which carries the gluons and photons. Massless photons and gluons can create massless loops. Pressure inside such loops is lower than the mean pressure in the Einstein spacetime. This causes the additional inflows of the Einstein spacetime components, which have mass, into the loops. This is the reason why inside the loops appears the mass.
    Recapitulation
    An energy vortex is a catalyst for inflows into it the masses accumulated in the Einstein spacetime. Such phenomena lead to the Einstein formula E=mc^2.
    Virtual particles can carry negative or positive mass. Virtual particles, which carry negative mass, are the regions in the Einstein spacetime which have lower mass density than the mean density of the Einstein spacetime.
    This is not true to claim that there is in existence free pure energy i.e. the massless energy. Photons and gluons cannot be in existence without the Einstein spacetime. There is still the question: energy/motions/oscillations of what?
    Energy cannot be in existence without inertial mass i.e. continuous-physical-volumes (the pieces of space – the tachyons).

    All objects greater than neutrino consists of the binary systems of neutrinos (spin = 1) and binary systems of binary systems of neutrinos i.e. the neutrino quadruples (spin = 2).
    The number of gluons and the spin of the carrier of the non-existing gravitons (spin = 2 = 4*1/2) lead to two families of neutrinos only. The third family follows from wrong interpretation of the neutrino ‘oscillations’. Inside the fermions are the tori composed of the neutrino quadruples (spin = 2). They could be the carriers of the rotational energy i.e. of the gravitons. But the tori of neutrinos are moving in the Newtonian spacetime in such way the resistance was smallest i.e. the spins rotate around the direction of motion. Such rotation leads to the transverse waves. This means that the gravitons, which should create the longitudinal waves, in fact, behave as two entangled photons i.e. as two transverse waves. We can see that gravitational energy cannot be emitted via gravitons i.e. gravitons are not in existence. Gravitational energy is emitted via the NON-ROTATING neutrino quadruples. From them consist of the tori/masses.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by Sylwester Kornowski View Post
    We cannot detect following particles: the Higgs boson(s), sparticles, other –inos, gravitons, gravitational waves, and so on. The Everlasting Theory presented on

    http://www.cosmology-particles.pl

    shows that the above particles are not in existence. The ground state of the Einstein spacetime is the gas composed of the non-rotating binary systems of neutrinos. It is very difficult to detect such binary systems – we should measure mass with accuracy about 10^-67 kg. The binary systems of neutrinos are the carriers of the photons and gluons. The strong field and the rotating binary systems of neutrinos have internal helicity whereas the electromagnetic field has not. This leads to conclusion that there is 1 type of photons (the left- and right-handed photons behave the same) and 8 gluons. The photons and gluons are the rotational energies of the binary systems of neutrinos so they are the massless particles (their carriers have mass).
    There are in existence in the Einstein spacetime the carriers of the gravitons i.e. the non-rotating binary systems of binary systems of neutrinos with parallel spins i.e. their spin is equal to 2. But due to their internal structure, they can create the transverse waves only i.e. when they rotate, they behave as two entangled photons. Gravitational energy is emitted due to the flows in the Einstein spacetime composed of the non-rotating carriers of the not existing gravitons. The spin of the carriers of the not existing gravitons (spin=2) and the number of gluons (8) lead to the four-neutrino symmetry and to the two families of neutrinos only. The illusion of the existence of the third family of neutrinos follows from the fact that the neutrino ‘oscillations’ are not transformations of neutrinos but the exchanges of the free neutrinos for the neutrinos in the binary systems of neutrinos the Einstein spacetime consists of.
    There are only the 7 parameters. There are the hundreds theoretical results consistent with experimental data. This theory solves the basic unsolved problems within the SM. I calculated the physical constants from the initial conditions. The ET leads to the speeds of neutrinos consistent with the data obtained in the MINOS and OPERA experiments and with the data concerning the supernova 1987A explosion. There is about the reasons of the big bang and origin of the dark energy and dark matter.
    Contents of the electronic book ISBN 978-83-933105-0-0 is as follows.
    Abstract 2
    1 Experimental Data and Program of Ultimate Theory 3
    2 Phase Transitions of Newtonian Spacetime, Neutrinos,
    Nucleons, Electrons, Pions and Muons 10
    3 Interactions 26
    4 Structure of Particles (continuation) 43
    5 Liquid-like Plasma 53
    6 New Cosmology 55
    7 Four-shell Model of Atomic Nucleus 72
    8 Mathematical Constants 78
    9 Fractal Field 82
    10 New Big Bang Theory 86
    11 New Quantum Chromodynamics 89
    12 Proton and Loops as Foundations of Theory of Chaos 95
    13 Theoretical Curve for the Kaon-to-Pion Ratio 100
    14 The Cross Section for Production of the W Boson 102
    15 Neutrino Speed in the Everlasting Theory 104
    Recapitulation 106
    Definitions 108

    Conclusion
    We will never detect DIRECTLY the postulated gravitons and gravitational waves. Gravity acts in different way but, of course, the General Theory of Relativity is correct. Sometimes there are the wrong interpretations. The carriers of photons and gluons are moving with the speed c. The free neutrinos are moving with speeds higher than the c – the maximum neutrino speed is 1.000072c.
    If I understand your idea correctly - and I'm not sure I do - you are proposing a background field of neutrino pairs to be present throughout the universe. I see some problems with this :
    1. Such a background field would permit an observer to define an absolute frame of reference throughout the universe, which violates general relativity
    2. Even though neutrino mass is very small, its presence would make a very large contribution to the total mass of the universe
    3. If your neutrinos come in binary systems, how are those bound together ?
    Just as an aside, I believe gravitational waves will be observable - refer to :

    Gravitational wave - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    How would you account for that ?

    Am I right in saying that the Energy-Momentum tensor of a vacuum is no longer zero under your proposal, i.e. the Schwarzschild Metric isn't a valid solution for a vacuum in the presence of a non-rotating spherical mass ?
    Last edited by Markus Hanke; December 4th, 2011 at 05:20 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    84
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    If I understand your idea correctly - and I'm not sure I do - you are proposing a background field of neutrino pairs to be present throughout the universe. I see some problems with this :
    1. Such a background field would permit an observer to define an absolute frame of reference throughout the universe, which violates general relativity
    No. There are two spacetimes. The binary systems of the superluminal closed strings the NEUTRINOS CONSIST OF, produce the divergently moving jets in the Newtonian spacetime (it is the gas composed of the tachyons) i.e. the binary systems of neutrinos the Einstein spacetime consists of produce the gradients in the Newtonian spacetime. These gradients are imprinted on the Einstein spacetime. This means that the gradients are 'attached' to masses.

    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    2. Even though neutrino mass is very small, its presence would make a very large contribution to the total mass of the universe
    Yes and no. The Einstein spacetime arose during the period of inflation. The Universe arose as a left-handed vortex in the Einstein spacetime. This means that due to the evolution of such vortex, there were produced mostly the nucleons because they have the left-handed internal helicity. Such is the origin of the particle-antiparticle asymmetry in our Universe. The size of the Einstein spacetime is much greater than the size of the expanding Universe because there was the time gap between the period of inflation and the ‘soft’ big bang of the vortex. The size of the Einstein spacetime is greater also of the range of the gravitational interactions of our Universe. We can calculate this range within my theory. This means that the ground state of the Einstein spacetime does not make a contribution to the total mass of the Universe. The local mass densities in the Einstein spacetime in its ground state are the same. Similarly, a lack of potential difference does not induce current in an electronic conductor. The evolution of the vortex, which arose before the ‘soft’ big bang, leads to the dark energy and the dark and visible matter in our Universe.


    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    3. If your neutrinos come in binary systems, how are those bound together ?


    The neutrinos in the binary systems of neutrinos are entangled because they exchange the superluminal binary closed strings the neutrinos consist of.

    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Just as an aside, I believe gravitational waves will be observable - refer to :
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Gravitational wave - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    How would you account for that ?

    Am I right in saying that the Energy-Momentum tensor of a vacuum is no longer zero under your proposal, i.e. the Schwarzschild Metric isn't a valid solution for a vacuum in the presence of a non-rotating spherical mass ?


    Gravitational energy is emitted via the non-rotating binary systems of binary systems of neutrinos. Their spin is equal to 2. Such quadruples have mass but they do not create gravitational waves. When such quadruples rotate then we observe the two coupled electromagnetic waves.
    As I explained above, in my theory the Energy-Momentum tensor for the ground state of the Einstein spacetime (the ‘vacuum’) is zero. My theory shows that the fundamental Einstein equations applied in the General Relativity are valid.
    Due to the properties of the two spacetimes, we cannot change mass of neutrinos whereas we can change mass of particles composed of the binary systems of neutrinos. This means that momentum of a neutrino can be changed ONLY via an increase in its speed. This is the reason why there appear the superluminal neutrinos.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by Sylwester Kornowski View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    If I understand your idea correctly - and I'm not sure I do - you are proposing a background field of neutrino pairs to be present throughout the universe. I see some problems with this :
    1. Such a background field would permit an observer to define an absolute frame of reference throughout the universe, which violates general relativity
    No. There are two spacetimes. The binary systems of the superluminal closed strings the NEUTRINOS CONSIST OF, produce the divergently moving jets in the Newtonian spacetime (it is the gas composed of the tachyons) i.e. the binary systems of neutrinos the Einstein spacetime consists of produce the gradients in the Newtonian spacetime. These gradients are imprinted on the Einstein spacetime. This means that the gradients are 'attached' to masses.

    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    2. Even though neutrino mass is very small, its presence would make a very large contribution to the total mass of the universe
    Yes and no. The Einstein spacetime arose during the period of inflation. The Universe arose as a left-handed vortex in the Einstein spacetime. This means that due to the evolution of such vortex, there were produced mostly the nucleons because they have the left-handed internal helicity. Such is the origin of the particle-antiparticle asymmetry in our Universe. The size of the Einstein spacetime is much greater than the size of the expanding Universe because there was the time gap between the period of inflation and the ‘soft’ big bang of the vortex. The size of the Einstein spacetime is greater also of the range of the gravitational interactions of our Universe. We can calculate this range within my theory. This means that the ground state of the Einstein spacetime does not make a contribution to the total mass of the Universe. The local mass densities in the Einstein spacetime in its ground state are the same. Similarly, a lack of potential difference does not induce current in an electronic conductor. The evolution of the vortex, which arose before the ‘soft’ big bang, leads to the dark energy and the dark and visible matter in our Universe.


    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    3. If your neutrinos come in binary systems, how are those bound together ?


    The neutrinos in the binary systems of neutrinos are entangled because they exchange the superluminal binary closed strings the neutrinos consist of.

    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Just as an aside, I believe gravitational waves will be observable - refer to :
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Gravitational wave - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    How would you account for that ?

    Am I right in saying that the Energy-Momentum tensor of a vacuum is no longer zero under your proposal, i.e. the Schwarzschild Metric isn't a valid solution for a vacuum in the presence of a non-rotating spherical mass ?
    Gravitational energy is emitted via the non-rotating binary systems of binary systems of neutrinos. Their spin is equal to 2. Such quadruples have mass but they do not create gravitational waves. When such quadruples rotate then we observe the two coupled electromagnetic waves.
    As I explained above, in my theory the Energy-Momentum tensor for the ground state of the Einstein spacetime (the ‘vacuum’) is zero. My theory shows that the fundamental Einstein equations applied in the General Relativity are valid.
    Due to the properties of the two spacetimes, we cannot change mass of neutrinos whereas we can change mass of particles composed of the binary systems of neutrinos. This means that momentum of a neutrino can be changed ONLY via an increase in its speed. This is the reason why there appear the superluminal neutrinos.
    Sylwester, thank you for that. Unfortunately you have me really confused now on a number of points; perhaps you could clear these up for me :

    1. You say that your neutrino pairs are present everywhere in the universe; we know that neutrinos have non-zero mass and spin 1/2 - these would definitely count into the terms of the energy-momentum tensor, so please explain to me how T(v,u)=0 in your vacuum ?
    2. For your neutrino pairs to be quantum-entangled they must first have interacted in some way. Can you explain this further ?
    3. All neutrinos are spin 1/2 particles, how can a neutrino-neutrino pair have spin 2 ? .
    4. Is that neutrino-pair field of yours at rest in a vacuum ?
    5. How do you account for anti-particles ?
    6. Why is your neutrino-pair field not experimentally observable if it is present everywhere ?

    I am trying to get a clearer picture here of what it is you are proposing.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    84
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    1. You say that your neutrino pairs are present everywhere in the universe; we know that neutrinos have non-zero mass and spin 1/2 - these would definitely count into the terms of the energy-momentum tensor, so please explain to me how T(v,u)=0 in your vacuum ?
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    6. Why is your neutrino-pair field not experimentally observable if it is present everywhere ?


    The Einstein spacetime in its ground state consists of the non-rotating binary systems of neutrinos. This means that such binary systems cannot transfer rotational energy to a detector. The neutrinos consist of the binary systems of superluminal closed strings. They interact gravitationally (directly via the Newtonian spacetime and indirectly via the Einstein spacetime) or can be entangled due to the exchanges of the superluminal binary systems of the closed strings. But to detect the non-rotating binary systems of neutrinos we must measure the mass with accuracy about 10^-67 kg whereas to detect the particles responsible for the entanglement we must measure the mass with accuracy in approximation 10^-87 kg. Such accuracy is today impossible. Today, we can measure mass with accuracy about 10^-50 kg. In my theory, the binary systems of neutrinos are the carriers of the photons and gluons – they are the rotational energies of the Einstein spacetime components i.e. they are the massless ‘particles’. We can see that today the detectors can detect the rotational energies, i.e. the photons, only. The massless photons can be entangled (this is the observational fact) but no one can detect the particles responsible for this phenomenon. In my theory, the photons are entangled because the carriers of the photons, i.e. the binary systems of neutrinos, are entangled. My theory shows why today no one can detect the particles responsible for the phenomenon. We can see that there is the physics beyond the General Relativity (there are the superluminal particles). Due to the properties of the Newtonian spacetime, the neutrinos can change their mass only when they are entangled so energy associated with such changes is the INTERNAL energy of an entangled system. Such energy is never a free energy in the today Universe.

    Recapitulation
    For the today detectors the Einstein spacetime in its ground state looks as smooth and non-existing medium. But the mainstream theories show that in the Einstein spacetime there must be produced the virtual particle-antiparticle pairs. Such pairs cannot appear in truly empty volume (the nothingness leads to nothingness only). The entangled photons and OPERA experiments (i.e. the detected superluminal neutrinos) show that there is physics beyond the General Relativity. The General Relativity is the complete theory for the particles composed of the entangled binary systems of neutrinos whereas this theory says almost nothing about internal structure of neutrinos and internal structure of the Einstein spacetime.

    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    2. For your neutrino pairs to be quantum-entangled they must first have interacted in some way. Can you explain this further ?


    Neutrinos can interact gravitationally and can interact due to the exchanges of the superluminal binary systems of closed strings. The closed strings the neutrinos consist of have internal helicity so they transform the chaotic motions of the tachyons in the Newtonian spacetime into the divergently moving tachyons. The divergently moving tachyons collide with the tachyons the Newtonian spacetime consists of. Such collisions produce gradient in the Newtonian spacetime i.e. inertial-mass density of the Newtonian spacetime is lower and lower near and near the neutrinos. This causes that the gravitational forces are always the attractive forces.

    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    3. All neutrinos are spin 1/2 particles, how can a neutrino-neutrino pair have spin 2 ? .


    The binary systems of neutrinos with parallel spins are the carriers of the photons and gluons and their spin is equal to 1. The non-rotating binary systems of binary systems of neutrinos with parallel spins, i.e. the quadruples of neutrinos, are the carriers of the gravitational energy and their spin is equal to 2 (4*1/2).

    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    4. Is that neutrino-pair field of yours at rest in a vacuum ?
    5. How do you account for anti-particles ?


    We cannot say about motion of a spacetime in relation to the truly empty volume i.e. in relation to nothingness. We can say only about motions of same regions of the Einstein spacetime in relation to other regions of this spacetime. The dark energy is the ‘thickened’ Einstein spacetime. Such dark energy must expand to equalize the mass densities in all regions of the Einstein spacetime.

    In my theory, the universes arise similarly as particles i.e. as the vortex-antivortex pairs produced in the Einstein spacetime. Due to evolution of the two components of a vortex-antivortex pair, in one vortex are produced mostly particles (for example, our Universe) whereas in the antivortex are produced mostly antiparticles. The vortices in a pair can interact due to the entanglement i.e. via the superluminal particles and due to the gravitational interactions. This means that distances between the components of a universe-antiuniverse pair can be very large, for example tens or hundreds billion light-years.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Sorry, but I still have several fundamental problems with your idea :

    1. I don't get the relationship between your field of neutrino pairs and space-time ? You seem to be under the impression that a field such as yours can be regarded as a geometric space ?
    2. Pairs of neutrinos ( or any fermions ) in the same quantum-mechanical - state such as you describe - would violate the Pauli Exclusion Principle
    3. If any two particles interact gravitationally in a manner as described in your model, they would immediately loose their quantum entanglement state
    4. I must correct you when it comes to spin additions - neutrinos have anti-symmetric wave functions, which means you cannot just add their spins linearly; combinations rules for quantized angular momenta apply
    5. I must say it again - the presence of a non-vanishing background field such as yours ( it doesn't matter how small its energy contribution is, or whether it is measurable ) would allow a global inertial frame of reference to be defined, which violates general relativity.
    6. Even if we disregard point (5), the neutrino field leads to a non-vanishing energy momentum tensor in vacuum, which means the Schwarzschild metric is no longer a vacuum solution of the Einstein Field Equations. This is contrary to observational evidence.

    Do you have formal qualifications in theoretical physics ? I am under the impression that you don't really understand some basic concepts in GR and quantum mechanics.
    When I get a chance I will sit down and read through your paper, however, that will have to wait till after Christmas, I am quite busy at the moment.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    84
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    1. I don't get the relationship between your field of neutrino pairs and space-time ? You seem to be under the impression that a field such as yours can be regarded as a geometric space ?
    2. Pairs of neutrinos ( or any fermions ) in the same quantum-mechanical - state such as you describe - would violate the Pauli Exclusion Principle


    As I wrote in previous posts, there is physics beyond the GR and QP. Today, the Newtonian spacetime has too low inertial mass densities to be a scene for the quantum effects. This spacetime is the classical spacetime. The same concerns the neutrinos so also the binary systems of neutrinos. Due to the tremendous energy, not mass, frozen inside neutrinos (there are the superluminal binary systems of closed strings), they are the very stable particles i.e. they behave today as the classical particles also. The quantum effects appear on the higher level of nature and they are characteristic for the excited states of the Einstein spacetime. The c is the natural speed of the binary systems of neutrinos in the Newtonian spacetime which is ‘attached’ to masses. This leads to the postulate applied in the GR. The particles which carry mass greater than the mass of neutrinos consist of the binary systems of neutrinos. Such particles do not violate the Pauli Exclusion Principle. The same concerns the neutrinos and binary systems of neutrinos because neutrinos differ by weak charge and/or internal helicity and/or direction of spin.

    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    3. If any two particles interact gravitationally in a manner as described in your model, they would immediately loose their quantum entanglement state


    Entanglement of neutrinos is not due to their gravitational interactions but due to the exchanges of the superluminal binary systems of closed strings the neutrinos consist of.

    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    4. I must correct you when it comes to spin additions - neutrinos have anti-symmetric wave functions, which means you cannot just add their spins linearly; combinations rules for quantized angular momenta apply


    My theory shows that TODAY the neutrinos are the classical particles so wave functions are useless to describe their behaviour.

    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    5. I must say it again - the presence of a non-vanishing background field such as yours ( it doesn't matter how small its energy contribution is, or whether it is measurable ) would allow a global inertial frame of reference to be defined, which violates general relativity.


    There is the physics beyond the GR. The superluminal neutrinos show that it is true. We cannot define the internal structure of the Einstein spacetime on base of the GR. The GR describes the excited states of the Einstein spacetime ONLY. Energy contribution from the ground state of the Einstein spacetime is exactly equal to zero because the tremendous superluminal energy (the lacking dark energy) is frozen inside neutrinos.

    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    6. Even if we disregard point (5), the neutrino field leads to a non-vanishing energy momentum tensor in vacuum, which means the Schwarzschild metric is no longer a vacuum solution of the Einstein Field Equations. This is contrary to observational evidence.


    There is no energy in the ground state of the Einstein spacetime which we could transform into mass or other energy.

    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Do you have formal qualifications in theoretical physics ?


    Yes. I am physicist. We must change our vision of nature. The detected superluminal neutrinos show that many interpretations in the GR and quantum physics are incorrect.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Let me get this straight :

    "(...) My theory shows that TODAY the neutrinos are the classical particles so wave functions are useless to describe their behavior. (...)"

    Yet you claim all manner of quantum mechanics play a major role in your model, like the entanglement of the neutrinos, their spins etc etc ??
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    [FONT=Times New Roman]
    Quote Originally Posted by [/FONT
    Yes. I am physicist. (...)
    Excellent, so we might as well skip all the general talk - please write down the Lagrangian for your neutrino field ( or better still : the path integral and partition function ), so that we can see what is actually going on in your model. I have only had a very quick browse through your paper, but couldn't see much in the way of the maths needed to properly analyze your theory. You never derived any field equations, gave a path integral, or field operators, or anything concrete at all. Pretty strange, since you claim to be a physicist.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by Sylwester Kornowski View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    1. I don't get the relationship between your field of neutrino pairs and space-time ? You seem to be under the impression that a field such as yours can be regarded as a geometric space ?
    2. Pairs of neutrinos ( or any fermions ) in the same quantum-mechanical - state such as you describe - would violate the Pauli Exclusion Principle
    As I wrote in previous posts, there is physics beyond the GR and QP. Today, the Newtonian spacetime has too low inertial mass densities to be a scene for the quantum effects. This spacetime is the classical spacetime. The same concerns the neutrinos so also the binary systems of neutrinos. Due to the tremendous energy, not mass, frozen inside neutrinos (there are the superluminal binary systems of closed strings), they are the very stable particles i.e. they behave today as the classical particles also. The quantum effects appear on the higher level of nature and they are characteristic for the excited states of the Einstein spacetime. The c is the natural speed of the binary systems of neutrinos in the Newtonian spacetime which is ‘attached’ to masses. This leads to the postulate applied in the GR. The particles which carry mass greater than the mass of neutrinos consist of the binary systems of neutrinos. Such particles do not violate the Pauli Exclusion Principle. The same concerns the neutrinos and binary systems of neutrinos because neutrinos differ by weak charge and/or internal helicity and/or direction of spin.

    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    3. If any two particles interact gravitationally in a manner as described in your model, they would immediately loose their quantum entanglement state


    Entanglement of neutrinos is not due to their gravitational interactions but due to the exchanges of the superluminal binary systems of closed strings the neutrinos consist of.

    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    4. I must correct you when it comes to spin additions - neutrinos have anti-symmetric wave functions, which means you cannot just add their spins linearly; combinations rules for quantized angular momenta apply


    My theory shows that TODAY the neutrinos are the classical particles so wave functions are useless to describe their behaviour.

    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    5. I must say it again - the presence of a non-vanishing background field such as yours ( it doesn't matter how small its energy contribution is, or whether it is measurable ) would allow a global inertial frame of reference to be defined, which violates general relativity.


    There is the physics beyond the GR. The superluminal neutrinos show that it is true. We cannot define the internal structure of the Einstein spacetime on base of the GR. The GR describes the excited states of the Einstein spacetime ONLY. Energy contribution from the ground state of the Einstein spacetime is exactly equal to zero because the tremendous superluminal energy (the lacking dark energy) is frozen inside neutrinos.

    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    6. Even if we disregard point (5), the neutrino field leads to a non-vanishing energy momentum tensor in vacuum, which means the Schwarzschild metric is no longer a vacuum solution of the Einstein Field Equations. This is contrary to observational evidence.


    There is no energy in the ground state of the Einstein spacetime which we could transform into mass or other energy.

    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Do you have formal qualifications in theoretical physics ?


    Yes. I am physicist. We must change our vision of nature. The detected superluminal neutrinos show that many interpretations in the GR and quantum physics are incorrect.
    To this I have the following to say :

    1. You did not answer my questions re: the relationship between your neutrinos and space-time. Superluminal closed strings ? Newtonian space-time with inertial mass density too low for quantum effects ? You don't sound like a physicist at all to me.
    2. Classical particles with quantum behavior - not very physical either
    3. You completely avoided my question regarding inertial frame on your field
    4. "(...) There is no energy in the ground state of Einstein space-time(...) " - sorry, but that's just plain wrong. Doesn't sound like you even understand what you are talking about.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    84
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Yet you claim all manner of quantum mechanics play a major role in your model, like the entanglement of the neutrinos, their spins etc etc ??


    I wrote that my theory shows that TODAY the neutrinos are the classical particles so wave functions are useless to describe their behavior. Then you wrote the above sentence.
    Markus, I can see your irritation. You do not read my posts with concentrated attention. At first you must assume that the GR and QP are the incomplete theories because we cannot unify these theories. There are also the superluminal neutrinos which we cannot describe within these two theories because of the postulate applied in these theories i.e. that the c is the upper limit for speed of massless particles and particles carrying mass. Within the mainstream theories we cannot describe also the internal structure of the neutrinos and the Einstein spacetime.
    What is basic property of a quantum particle? Such particle can disappear in one place of the Einstein spacetime and appear in another one, and so on. Such behaviour leads to distribution of energy and/or mass in the Einstein spacetime. This means that the quantum particles we can describe via the wave functions. The quantum physics (the QP) shows that there is lack of dark energy equal in approximation 10^120 times higher than the observed. My theory shows that today the lacking dark energy is frozen inside the neutrinos i.e. inside the NON-ROTATING binary systems of neutrinos the Einstein spacetime consists of. Due to the superluminal binary systems of closed strings the neutrinos consist of, the frozen energy in a neutrino is 0.6*10^119 times higher than mass of this neutrino. TODAY, this energy cannot be a free energy so today there is no contribution from this energy to energy momentum tensor in vacuum. The tremendous energy frozen inside each neutrino causes that neutrinos are the very stable particles. Today they cannot disappear in one place of the Einstein spacetime and appear in another one, and so on, because the more fundamental Newtonian spacetime has TO LOW inertial-mass density. Just today, the neutrinos are the classical particles. The neutrinos behaved as the quantum particles during the period of inflation when inertial-mass density of the Newtonian spacetime was tremendous i.e. about 10^100 times higher than today. Today, the mass-density of the Einstein spacetime is sufficiently high the particles composed of the Einstein spacetime components or carried by the components (i.e. the binary systems of neutrinos) could behave as the quantum particles.

    Recapitulation
    In the period of inflation, the ground state of the Einstein spacetime was the quantum state whereas TODAY it is the classical state i.e. TODAY the GR is the more fundamental theory than the quantum physics. Today the both spacetimes, i.e. the Newtonian and Einstein spacetimes are the gases. Pressures in these spacetimes also today are tremendous (about 10^180 Pa in the Newtonian spacetime and about 10^45 Pa in the Einstein spacetime). The properties of the two spacetimes (7 parameters only) lead to the postulates applied as the initial conditions in the GR and QP so BOTH these theories are correct but many interpretations are incorrect. We know all needed equations to describe nature. There was lack of theory which leads from the properties of the two spacetimes to the postulates applied in the two above mentioned basic theories. My theory is the lacking part of the ultimate theory. My theory describes the internal structure of the spacetimes, fields and BARE particles (they are not point particles or vibrating FLEXIBLE string) and their interactions, the internal structure of the precursors of the DNAs also. See my book.

    BTW: The internal structure of the binary systems of neutrinos leads to the precursors of the DNAs. There appear the double helices (why double, why helices?), the four different binary systems of neutrinos (why four?; why there are the four bases in the DNAs), the triplets of the binary systems of neutrinos (why the codons/triplets in the DNAs contain 3 bases?), and so on. My theory shows that the structure of the precursors of the DNAs follows from the four different interactions and that the precursors of the DNAs appeared after the period of inflation but before the ‘soft’ big bang. Today the precursors of the DNAs are everywhere in our Universe.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    I am sorry to say that once again you have completely failed to address the concerns I had raised regarding your model. There is much conjecture and concepts that have no grounding in established scientific theories ( "(...) the lacking dark energy is frozen inside the neutrinos(...)" ), but no concrete maths to back up any of your claims.
    If you have a serious desire to engage in a meaningful discussion, I need you to at least provide an appropriate formulation of your neutrino field - please write down your Lagrangian integral so that we can see what the field equations and energy conditions would look like. Alternatively a path integral/partition function or (explicit) field operators are fine too.
    You are the author of your model, and if you are really a theoretical physicist as you claim to be then this should be no problem for you.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    84
    Markus, I see that you still do not understand my position. Do you read my book? My theory concerns the periods of the quantum and classical particles when they are the stable objects (i.e. the periods are equal to the spinning periods) so my theory is the lacking CLASSICAL part of the ultimate theory. Such theory we can apply to all known particles. Interactions of such objects we can describe via the Newton’s second law, special relativity, Uncertainty Principle (in my book you can find the new interpretation of this principle) and the exclusion principles. In such theory the wave functions are not needed. Within such theory we can calculate all the coupling constants (the running couplings also). Within such classical theory we can calculate classically (such calculations are very simple), for example, magnetic moments of electron and muon, the Lamb-Retherford shift or frequency of the radiation emitted by the hydrogen atom under a change of the mutual orientation of the electron and proton spin in the ground state. The obtained results are better than the results obtained within the QED (see Table 9 in my book). The Schrodinger equation is not needed. This equation is useful, for example, to describe the interactions of atoms via electrons for PERIODS LONGER THAN THE PERIOD OF SPINNING OF ELECTRON. The same concerns the other quantum particles but not neutrinos because today they are the classical particles. In contrary to the GR (this is the correct theory but many interpretations are incorrect) and the QP (this theory is partially incorrect), my theory never leads astray. From seven parameters only I obtained a few hundred theoretical results consistent with experimental data (see my book). My theory is not an alternative theory for the GR and QP. But we know that these theories are incomplete so there is my theory. You cannot compare the math applied in the GR and QP with the math applied in my theory because the initial conditions and the applied methods differ very much.
    Physics/nature is very simple when we apply the correct initial conditions (for example, the assumption that the c is the maximum speed is incorrect) and the permissible simplest methods. In my theory is at least three times less parameters than in the Standard Model, my theory describes more phenomena than the mainstream theories, the applied methods are much simpler and my theory gives the better results i.e. the distances between my theoretical results and the experimental data are smaller.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    I really don't know what you are saying to me.
    If your model is a classical one ( which makes no sense if you are talking about neutrinos, but that's beside the point now ), then the Lagrangian I ask you for would be a simple one, and would yield simple field equations. Why is this so hard ? If you are a physicist, you know very well that the Lagrangian formulation applies to both quantum and classical systems.
    No, I haven't read your book yet, I told you I won't get a chance until after Christmas.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    84
    We can assume that the zero-energy point is for the ground state of the Einstein spacetime because the energy frozen inside neutrinos and the mass of non-rotating binary systems of neutrinos cannot be a free energy as, for example, mass and energy of an electron or energy of photon or gluon. The speed of the binary systems of neutrinos cannot change also, it is the c. This means that the kinetic energy and potential cannot change. Particles and fields composed of the binary systems of neutrinos ‘see’ the ground state of the Einstein spacetime as the truly empty volume. The ground state of the Einstein spacetime DOES NOT CHANGE the Einstein equations applied in the GR and QP. The Lagrangian is equal to zero. Lagrangian is not equal to zero for, for example, the dark energy because the dark energy increases the mean mass density of the Einstein spacetime.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    So your field's Lagrangian is zero. Right.Look, this thread is really leading nowhere. If you are so serious about your model you can submit it for peer review. Just don't say you haven't been warned about what will happen.Good luck,Markus
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    84
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    So your field's Lagrangian is zero. Right.Look, this thread is really leading nowhere. If you are so serious about your model you can submit it for peer review. Just don't say you haven't been warned about what will happen.Good luck,Markus


    Markus, you try within the methods applied in the GR describe the internal structure of the Einstein spacetime. This is impossible! Why? The GR starts from assumption that the c is the maximum speed. Today, due to the OPERA experiment we know that it is untrue. How you want to obtain superluminal speeds and describe PROPERTIES of tachyon gas within theory in which the c is the maximum speed? Today we know that the GR is the incomplete theory but to describe the lacking phenomena we MUST apply different methods than the applied within the GR. My theory describes the new methods which lead to the internal structure of the Einstein spacetime and of the BARE particles. Most important are the phase transitions of the Newtonian and Einstein spacetimes which lead to the 4 very stable objects i.e. to my closed strings, the neutrinos, cores of baryons and the objects before the ‘soft’ big bangs.

    Of course, we can write the Einstein formula m(relativistic) = m(rest)/sqrt(1-vv/cc) for tachyons but my theory shows that such formula leads astray.

    Recapitulation
    We need new methods (new theory) to describe the internal structure of the two spacetimes and bare particles. Such new theory leads to conclusion that Lagrangian for the GROUND STATE of the Einstein spacetime is equal to zero but in this spacetime is frozen tremendous energy and the VIRTUAL particle-antiparticle pairs can be created.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by Sylwester Kornowski View Post
    The GR starts from assumption that the c is the maximum speed. Today, due to the OPERA experiment we know that it is untrue.
    We don't know any such thing.

    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Sylwester, I am not trying anything. I simply wanted to point out where I think your model is in conflict with established physical principles - it was meant as constructive criticism; take it aboard as such and do not be offended by my comments.
    Btw, I do understand your basic ideas - your model has many similarities to that of a "Superfluid Vacuum".
    Believe me, I am perfectly aware that our Standard Model is less than perfect in many respects, and that new physics beyond both SM and GR will be needed to fully explain the universe as a whole. I personally favour approaches like Causal Dynamical Triangulation, which construct space-time geometrically from first principles, but I do not claim that this will indeed turn out to be the right answer. No one knows.
    The other thing I would say to you is - be careful with those OPERA results. It is still early days, and more independent verification is needed. At the moment we cannot be quite sure that these pesky little neutrinos really were moving superluminally. You cannot really use this as verification of your model yet.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    84
    Defenders of the old order will say it at all times. My theory leads to the superluminal neutrinos within ONE COHERENT MODEL. The theoretical results are as follows.

    The calculated neutrino speed for the MINOS experiment is 1.000050(21)c. The maximum neutrino speed is 1.000071c. The calculated time-distance between the fronts of the neutrino and photon beams for the OPERA experiment is 58.4 ns whereas the neutrino speed is 1.0000169(70)c i.e. maximum neutrino speed is 1.0000239c. The calculated time-distance between the fronts of the neutrino and photon beams, observed on the Earth, for the supernova SN 1987A is 3 hours whereas the neutrino speed is 1.0000000014(6)c.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Sylwester Kornowski View Post
    The GR starts from assumption that the c is the maximum speed. Today, due to the OPERA experiment we know that it is untrue.
    We don't know any such thing.
    This is wrong anyway. Relativity only says that c is the same for all observers, regardless of their frame of reference. It being the maximum speed only follows on from there as a secondary consequence.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by Sylwester Kornowski View Post
    Defenders of the old order will say it at all times. My theory leads to the superluminal neutrinos within ONE COHERENT MODEL. The theoretical results are as follows.

    The calculated neutrino speed for the MINOS experiment is 1.000050(21)c. The maximum neutrino speed is 1.000071c. The calculated time-distance between the fronts of the neutrino and photon beams for the OPERA experiment is 58.4 ns whereas the neutrino speed is 1.0000169(70)c i.e. maximum neutrino speed is 1.0000239c. The calculated time-distance between the fronts of the neutrino and photon beams, observed on the Earth, for the supernova SN 1987A is 3 hours whereas the neutrino speed is 1.0000000014(6)c.
    Not really, because the processes that produce the neutrinos are distinct from the supernova's photon emissions. The first thing that happens during a supernova is the collapse of the star's core ( this is where neutrinos are generated ), and only minutes or hours later, when the shockwave from that event reaches the star's surface, are visible photons emitted. They are distinct events that don't happen at the same time, hence the difference.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    84
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    This is wrong anyway. Relativity only says that c is the same for all observers, regardless of their frame of reference. It being the maximum speed only follows on from there as a secondary consequence.
    Markus, you are right. Moreover, I wrote that we can write the Einstein formulae for tachyons also.


    E^2 + z^2*c^4 = p^2*c^2

    E = z*c^2/sqrt(vv/cc - 1)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    84
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Not really, because the processes that produce the neutrinos are distinct from the supernova's photon emissions. The first thing that happens during a supernova is the collapse of the star's core ( this is where neutrinos are generated ), and only minutes or hours later, when the shockwave from that event reaches the star's surface, are visible photons emitted. They are distinct events that don't happen at the same time, hence the difference.
    My theory shows that such model of supernova is incorrect. The photon and neutrino beams are emitted simultaneously.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by Sylwester Kornowski View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Not really, because the processes that produce the neutrinos are distinct from the supernova's photon emissions. The first thing that happens during a supernova is the collapse of the star's core ( this is where neutrinos are generated ), and only minutes or hours later, when the shockwave from that event reaches the star's surface, are visible photons emitted. They are distinct events that don't happen at the same time, hence the difference.
    My theory shows that such model of supernova is incorrect. The photon and neutrino beams are emitted simultaneously.
    No you are wrong. The emission of neutrinos and visible light during a supernova are distinct processes :

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SN1987A

    The
    dynamics of a supernova don't even have anything to do with your theory.
    Last edited by Markus Hanke; December 8th, 2011 at 11:46 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Last edited by Markus Hanke; December 8th, 2011 at 11:47 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    84
    Markus, the authors of the theory of supernovae assumed that speed of neutrinos is equal to the c so they ‘produced’ the delay to explain why the front of the neutrino beam was on the Earth in approximation 3 hours before the front of the photon beam.

    My theory shows that just before the explosion of a supernova there is the gravitational collapse which transforms the protons into the neutron core/star i.e. the emitted gravitational energy, i.e. the non-rotating binary systems of binary systems of neutrinos (spin = 2), increases the mass of the protons. There are not emitted gravitons and gravitational waves. I explained it in my previous posts. Next, there are the beta decays of the neutrons and nuclear fusions of the nucleons. These two processes appear simultaneously. This means that neutrinos and photons appear on the surface of the neutron star, and inside this star, simultaneously. There is no delay. Such is the correct theory of the supernovae.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by Sylwester Kornowski View Post
    Markus, the authors of the theory of supernovae assumed that speed of neutrinos is equal to the c so they ‘produced’ the delay to explain why the front of the neutrino beam was on the Earth in approximation 3 hours before the front of the photon beam.

    My theory shows that just before the explosion of a supernova there is the gravitational collapse which transforms the protons into the neutron core/star i.e. the emitted gravitational energy, i.e. the non-rotating binary systems of binary systems of neutrinos (spin = 2), increases the mass of the protons. There are not emitted gravitons and gravitational waves. I explained it in my previous posts. Next, there are the beta decays of the neutrons and nuclear fusions of the nucleons. These two processes appear simultaneously. This means that neutrinos and photons appear on the surface of the neutron star, and inside this star, simultaneously. There is no delay. Such is the correct theory of the supernovae.
    Sylwester, you are of course entitled to your beliefs. I for my part do not subscribe to "conspiracy theories" of scores of scientists allegedly making up stuff for decades; the dynamics of a supernova make perfect sense to me both physically and mathematically just as they are. I feel no need to introduce new physics to explain them. Sorry this doesn't fit into your model.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    84
    But my theory within the ONE COHERENT DESCRIPTION leads to the data obtained in the OPERA and MINOS experiments ALSO, not to the data for the supernova SN 1987A ONLY. This means that my theory is weightier.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-en...nt-16074411You might want to take a look at this, and keep an eye on the CERN website next week :-)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    808
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    This forum does not exist to drive traffic to your personal site. if you want to discuss something it should be done here with evidence brought here and presented for discussion.
    Paleo this is a poor response. Why can't you simply ask the man what you want to specifically know? He says he will answer.
    Search engines are such useful tools .. I wonder why more people don't use them?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    808
    "1. Such a background field would permit an observer to define an absolute frame of reference throughout the universe, which violates general relativity."

    And would make the way for non-locality an absolute 'here and now' throughout the universe allowing for instantaneous non-local transmission of information with no barrier of time or space. Thank you Sylwester. General relativity, remember, is merely a theory,
    not an absolute.
    Search engines are such useful tools .. I wonder why more people don't use them?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Yes, merely a theory, but experimentally well verified :-)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    808
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Yes, merely a theory, but experimentally well verified :-)
    Markus, I was viewing your exchanges with Sylwester .. you're a gentleman and a scholar .. I think the exchange between the two of you has been the best example of what a forum can offer. Sometimes I wish I had an education similar to the two of you, other times I'm happy to be free of the constraints.
    Search engines are such useful tools .. I wonder why more people don't use them?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Thank you. The only thing is, I am not actually a scholar, and had no formal science education. My entire body of knowledge is self-taught, motivated by a deep curiosity about the inner workings of the universe. I am just a simple family man with three beautiful kids, but a nerdy one at that :-)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    84
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-16074411 . You might want to take a look at this, and keep an eye on the CERN website next week :-)
    Markus, thank you very much for the above link. In my book is following paragraph (see page 93).

    We can see that gluon condensates carrying greater mass (due to higher energy of collisions) produce lighter particles. This is the reason why in the last LHC experiments for very high energies the number of produced pions and kaons was greater than expected [2]. This means also that for higher and higher energies of collisions, there are weaker and weaker signals that there is in existence the atom-like structure of baryons. Just for higher and higher energies, more and more baryons have destroyed the Titius-Bode orbits for the strong interactions. To ‘see’ the atom-like structure we should analyse the weak signals for the medium energies of collisions i.e. close but below about 1 TeV. Gluon condensates carrying mass following from the atom-like structure of baryons can create new particles. There should be a weak signals of existence of the type Z particles for the d states. There arise gluon balls which have mass equal to the mass distance between the charged and neutral relativistic pions in the d states multiplied by the X = 19,685.3 (see formula (57)). Their mass should be 105 GeV for the last state for the strong-weak interactions, 118 GeV for the ground state above the Schwarzschild surface for the strong interactions and 140 GeV for the ground state. These mass follow from the atom-like structure of baryons. Such gluon balls arise in centre of the baryons and decays between the equator of the torus (radius = A) and the sphere between the strong and electromagnetic fields (radius of the last d=4 orbit is 2.7 fm whereas the range of the strong field is 2.9 fm so the mean value is 2.8 fm). The mean value for the lifetime or mass we obtain for the Schwarzschild surface for the strong interactions (radius = 1.4 fm). We know that lifetime is inversely proportional to range. This means that maximum lifetime to the central value is 2. On the other hand, lifetime is inversely proportional to four powers of mass (see formula (89)). This means that to calculate the broadening of the central mass, we must multiply and divide the central mass by 2^(1/4) = 1.1892. Respectively, the broadenings of mass are as follows: the (88, 125) GeV for the 105 GeV, (99, 140) for 118 GeV and (118, 166) for 140 GeV. For the mean central mass (105 + 118 + 140)/3 = 121 GeV, the final broadening is (88, 166) GeV. Similar data experimentalists obtained in the SLD (SLAC Large Detector) experiment [3].

    I claim that the discovered boson (mass in approximation 121 GeV and broadening (88, 166) GeV) is not the Higgs boson. This new particle follows from the atom-like structure of baryons i.e. my theory predicted existence of such boson.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by Sylwester Kornowski View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-16074411 . You might want to take a look at this, and keep an eye on the CERN website next week :-)
    Markus, thank you very much for the above link. In my book is following paragraph (see page 93).

    We can see that gluon condensates carrying greater mass (due to higher energy of collisions) produce lighter particles. This is the reason why in the last LHC experiments for very high energies the number of produced pions and kaons was greater than expected [2]. This means also that for higher and higher energies of collisions, there are weaker and weaker signals that there is in existence the atom-like structure of baryons. Just for higher and higher energies, more and more baryons have destroyed the Titius-Bode orbits for the strong interactions. To ‘see’ the atom-like structure we should analyse the weak signals for the medium energies of collisions i.e. close but below about 1 TeV. Gluon condensates carrying mass following from the atom-like structure of baryons can create new particles. There should be a weak signals of existence of the type Z particles for the d states. There arise gluon balls which have mass equal to the mass distance between the charged and neutral relativistic pions in the d states multiplied by the X = 19,685.3 (see formula (57)). Their mass should be 105 GeV for the last state for the strong-weak interactions, 118 GeV for the ground state above the Schwarzschild surface for the strong interactions and 140 GeV for the ground state. These mass follow from the atom-like structure of baryons. Such gluon balls arise in centre of the baryons and decays between the equator of the torus (radius = A) and the sphere between the strong and electromagnetic fields (radius of the last d=4 orbit is 2.7 fm whereas the range of the strong field is 2.9 fm so the mean value is 2.8 fm). The mean value for the lifetime or mass we obtain for the Schwarzschild surface for the strong interactions (radius = 1.4 fm). We know that lifetime is inversely proportional to range. This means that maximum lifetime to the central value is 2. On the other hand, lifetime is inversely proportional to four powers of mass (see formula (89)). This means that to calculate the broadening of the central mass, we must multiply and divide the central mass by 2^(1/4) = 1.1892. Respectively, the broadenings of mass are as follows: the (88, 125) GeV for the 105 GeV, (99, 140) for 118 GeV and (118, 166) for 140 GeV. For the mean central mass (105 + 118 + 140)/3 = 121 GeV, the final broadening is (88, 166) GeV. Similar data experimentalists obtained in the SLD (SLAC Large Detector) experiment [3].

    I claim that the discovered boson (mass in approximation 121 GeV and broadening (88, 166) GeV) is not the Higgs boson. This new particle follows from the atom-like structure of baryons i.e. my theory predicted existence of such boson.
    Sylwester, I will come back to this once CERN has published its actual findings, so that I have something to refer to. I just posted the link because I thought you might find it interesting...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Sylwester, I would like to discuss the basic premises of your model in detail; this will chiefly concern pages 13-25 in your file. This way you should get a good feel for what a peer review of your work would look like. I trust you understand that none of my comments should be interpreted as personal in any way, they are merely constructive criticisms. You need to also understand that as the author and proponent of a paper that runs contrary to established physical theories and principles, the onus is on you to show its validity with appropriate maths, data and references. It is not the case here that it is my job to prove the validity of already established physics when looking at your paper; I am merely reviewing your proposal in the light of currently accepted academic principles. Your paper has not been published and peer reviewed yet, and has therefore only a preliminary status.

    Do you want to start a new thread for that or do it here ??
    Last edited by Markus Hanke; December 10th, 2011 at 04:03 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    84
    Markus, I will start new thread titled "Foundations of string/M theory".
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    808
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Thank you. The only thing is, I am not actually a scholar, and had no formal science education. My entire body of knowledge is self-taught, motivated by a deep curiosity about the inner workings of the universe. I am just a simple family man with three beautiful kids, but a nerdy one at that :-)
    Impressive.
    Search engines are such useful tools .. I wonder why more people don't use them?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    84
    From my post #44 in this thread follows that the atom-like structure of baryons described within the Everlasting Theory leads to three WEAK maximums/peaks for 105 GeV, 118 GeV and 140 GeV. The posts show also that due to the broadening of masses (88, 166) GeV the MEAN value is (88 + 166)/2 = 127 GeV (not central).

    Now you can compare it with the latest ATLAS news:

    ATLAS Experiment

    Can you see the beautiful consistency of my theoretical results with the experimental data? This is not the Higgs boson. This is the atom-like structure of baryons.
    Last edited by Sylwester Kornowski; January 2nd, 2012 at 05:48 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Anti-Graviton Mass Generation
    By Wolf in forum Personal Theories & Alternative Ideas
    Replies: 46
    Last Post: November 10th, 2013, 07:52 AM
  2. Graviton Theory
    By thevignesh in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: December 15th, 2011, 11:20 AM
  3. please pay attention to Graviton Line
    By tomjin2000 in forum Pseudoscience
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: September 26th, 2011, 05:58 AM
  4. graviton energy
    By mysticspace in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: December 7th, 2010, 04:02 PM
  5. What color is a Graviton?
    By WJLIII3 in forum Physics
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: November 9th, 2007, 06:51 AM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •