Notices
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 101 to 136 of 136
Like Tree7Likes

Thread: Foundations of string/M theory

  1. #101  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    84
    Neverfly, I answered all your questions in previous posts but as an act of politeness I will do it once again.

    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Elucidate. Explain what that sentence even means. What components? What decays?


    The succeeding phase transitions of the modified Higgs field lead to the closed strings the neutrinos consist of, to the Einstein spacetime (the ES) components i.e. the binary systems of neutrinos, to the cores of baryons (the torus + ball) and to the protoworlds after the era of inflation. The ground state of the ES consists of the non-rotating-spin binary systems of neutrinos. Since the binary systems of neutrinos are moving with the speed of light (they are the carriers of photons and gluons) and do not rotate so they cannot transfer any energy to detectors. It is the reason that we cannot detect the ES components but they are there. The binary systems of neutrinos can decay due to the weak interactions so we should observe a neutrino shower in the LHC experiments and it is true.

    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Have they ever appeared or been observed?


    In my opinion, not numerous superluminal neutrinos should be observed in the earlier experiments when number of emitted neutrinos per volume was much higher than in the last experiments. But such detections are very difficult because almost all neutrinos have the speed c.

    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    What do you mean by *number density?*


    It is the number of superluminal neutrinos per unit of volume.

    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Considering the Mass of the star and probability formation of a Neutron Star, the neutrinos would precede photon emission from core collapse, whereas photons wouldn't be emitted until being emitted from the star surface. The neutrinos would pass right through and merrily on their way before the photons. So your interpretation is lacking in actual support and would need to falsify existing interpretation.


    Such model acts when there is a remnant i.e. neutron star, but we do not see neutron star in the place of explosion of the supernova SN 1987A. Of course, somebody can claim that we do not see a remnant due to the high mass density of the gas. But it is only the interpretation. I, within one coherent model, proved that in lack of neutron star the time distance follows from the superluminal speeds of neutrinos. The CALCULATED time distance overlaps with the observational fact. So I claim that the detected neutrinos indeed are the superluminal neutrinos.

    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #102  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    84
    Here, within the non-perturbative Everlasting Theory I described mass spectrum of the Higgs boson 125.00 GeV. Due to the quadrupole symmetry and dominant gluon balls there appear two masses 126.65 +- 0.31 GeV and 123.35 +- 031 GeV and the decays into two photons should be twice as often as it should.

    http://www.rxiv.org/abs/1212.0104

    Here, within the non-perturbative Everlasting Theory I calculated the running coupling for the strong interactions applying three different methods. There appears the asymptote 0.1139.

    http://www.rxiv.org/abs/1212.0105

    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #103  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by Sylwester Kornowski View Post
    Here, within the non-perturbative Everlasting Theory I described mass spectrum of the Higgs boson 125.00 GeV. Due to the quadrupole symmetry and dominant gluon balls there appear two masses 126.65 +- 0.31 GeV and 123.35 +- 031 GeV and the decays into two photons should be twice as often as it should.

    http://www.rxiv.org/abs/1212.0104

    Here, within the non-perturbative Everlasting Theory I calculated the running coupling for the strong interactions applying three different methods. There appears the asymptote 0.1139.

    http://www.rxiv.org/abs/1212.0105

    I see you put your stuff in viXra...at least it's in good company there
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #104  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    84
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Sylwester Kornowski View Post
    Here, within the non-perturbative Everlasting Theory I described mass spectrum of the Higgs boson 125.00 GeV. Due to the quadrupole symmetry and dominant gluon balls there appear two masses 126.65 +- 0.31 GeV and 123.35 +- 031 GeV and the decays into two photons should be twice as often as it should.

    http://www.rxiv.org/abs/1212.0104

    Here, within the non-perturbative Everlasting Theory I calculated the running coupling for the strong interactions applying three different methods. There appears the asymptote 0.1139.

    http://www.rxiv.org/abs/1212.0105

    I see you put your stuff in viXra...at least it's in good company there

    Markus, your bigotry is tremendous. You know, eternity is waiting. I can see that you have big problem to concentrate on the staple of the discussion. You try to be right but you are not a professional. Can you read the title of this thread once again? Just my papers are in archives so you can concentrate on my papers. The not cited papers in my papers you can neglect.

    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #105  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by Sylwester Kornowski View Post
    You try to be right but you are not a professional.
    And fortunately enough, neither am I on viXra.
    Unlike you.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #106  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    84
    Here you can find the most extended version v.3 of the paper titled “Mass of Higgs Boson, Branching Ratios and Holographic Principle” (7 pages):

    http://vixra.org/abs/1212.0104

    In this version I described following problems:
    a) the mass spectrum of the Higgs boson H(125 GeV),
    b) the reformulated Theory of Branching Ratios,
    c) the holographic principle that leads to the upper and lower limits for the branching ratios.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #107  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    84
    Here

    http://vixra.org/abs/1301.0079

    you can find my paper titled “Hierarchy Problem in the Everlasting Theory and Continuation of the Theory of Neutrinos”. In this paper I proved as follows.
    1.
    The neutrinos are the black holes in respect of the entanglement.
    2.
    The hierarchy problem, i.e. the answer to the question why the Higgs boson is so much lighter than the Planck mass, follows from the internal structure of neutrinos and the atom-like structure of baryons. These two structures are dual.
    3.
    From the Theory of Neutrinos formulated within the Everlasting Theory follows that the vacuum energy is about 122 orders of magnitude higher than the vacuum energy observed experimentally.

    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #108  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    You posted on vixra.org and you refer it as a 'paper?'

    And all this time I thought you had no sense of humor!

    ETA: Damnit Markus beat me to that a while ago. I really should read all posts before blabbering.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #109  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    84
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    You posted on vixra.org and you refer it as a 'paper?'

    And all this time I thought you had no sense of humor!

    ETA: Damnit Markus beat me to that a while ago. I really should read all posts before blabbering.
    Sarcasm is the lowest level of intelligence.
    Where are your scientific arguments?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #110  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by Sylwester Kornowski View Post
    Where are your scientific arguments?
    I am unable to make any since I'm a smart-ass with the lowest level intelligence.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #111  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    84
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Sylwester Kornowski View Post
    Where are your scientific arguments?
    I am unable to make any since I'm a smart-ass with the lowest level intelligence.
    O.K. I understand.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #112  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    84
    Here

    http://vixra.org/author/sylwester_kornowski

    you can find my newest paper titled “The Root-Mean-Square Charge Radius of Proton” in which I calculated the charge radii of proton for different initial conditions. The charge radius of proton for experiment involving a proton and an electron is 0.87673 fm whereas for experiment involving a proton and a negatively-charged muon is 0.84282 fm. The first result overlaps with the central value obtained in experiment (!) whereas the second is only 0.04% above the upper limit defined by experiment. The two different experimental results lead to the atom-like structure of protons.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #113  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    What is this, a personal blog ? Have you not noticed yet that no one here is interested ? Just stick to viXra, it is right down your alleyway.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #114  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    84
    It is obvious - just a communist.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #115  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    84
    Here

    http://vixra.org/author/sylwester_kornowski ,

    you can find my six new articles:
    1.
    Quantum Physics in the Lacking Part of Ultimate Theory”.
    Within the Everlasting Theory I derived the fundamental equation of the Matrix Quantum Mechanics i.e. the commutator. It follows from the phase transitions of the fundamental spacetime that are based on the half-integral-spin constancy. The fundamental equation results from the entanglement that leads to the infinitesimal transformations. The Matrix Quantum Mechanics leads to the time-dependent wave function that is characteristic for the Statistical Quantum Mechanics. It is the reason why the wave functions appear in the equations of motion. The presented here extended Matrix Quantum Mechanics leads to the methods applied in the Quantum Theory of Fields and points the limitations.
    2.
    Magnetic Moment, Mass, Spin and Strangeness of Hyperons
    In this paper, within the lacking part of ultimate theory, i.e. the Everlasting Theory, I calculated the magnetic moments and rigorous masses of hyperons. The theoretical results overlap with experimental data or are very close to them. The spins and strangeness are consistent with experimental data as well.
    3.
    Origin of Symmetries and Symmetry-Breaking in Physics
    In this article I prove that the fundamental spacetime is perfectly symmetrical. In the era of inflation there appeared the four-neutrino symmetry. The CPT symmetry is incomplete so wrongly understood. Symmetry-breaking is characteristic for the phase transitions of the fundamental spacetime based on the half-integral spin constancy. The matter-antimatter asymmetry is due to the fourth phase transition of the fundamental spacetime, not due to a CPT-symmetry violation.
    4.
    Why Unification of Gravity and Standard Model is Impossible?
    Here I proved that the term “force” does not mean the same in the two basic theories. The unification of these two basic theories is impossible due to the different properties of the two parallel spacetimes one associated with the GR and the second with SM. Origin of such splitting/bifurcation follows from the internal structure of the Einstein-spacetime components. Since the size of the Einstein-spacetime components is close to the Planck length so the origin of the splitting/bifurcation concerns the sizes smaller than the Planck length. In both theories we neglect internal structure of bare particles so there appear singularities and infinite energies of fields. This causes that within the GR and SM we cannot understand the fundamental differences between classical and quantum theories. The same concerns the string/M theory because this theory starts from wrong initial conditions i.e. objects of the Planck size are not some simple loops/closed-strings. They look as a miniature of an active galaxy, for example, the NGC 4261. There is the torus and ball in its centre. The smallest closed strings have size much smaller than the Planck length and are the perfect circles carrying the half-integral spin as well. The real supersymmetry, i.e. the fermion-boson symmetry, differs very much from the supersymmetry that leads to the undetected s-particles and gauginos.
    5.
    Infinity, Spacetimes and the Origin of Nature”.
    To eliminate the dichotomy of infinity i.e. the infinity understood as both a simple continuum without any boundaries or the ever-increasing sequence, we must introduce pieces of space. Applied mathematics should be defined as mathematical methods starting from pieces of space placed in the infinite nothingness. Since in such theory, information is not lost so such theory is mathematically coherent and reversible. Saturated geometry leads to the Planck length. Our cosmos, and many others, appeared due to inelastic collision of two or more very big fully-filled volumes of space. Only granular/discrete and kinetic geometry can be the foundations of coherent description of Nature. Here are formulated the fundamental axioms as the foundations of ontology. Entanglement of the Einstein-spacetime components leads to both psychology and particle physics. Due to the infinities that appear in the Quantum Physics and Gravity, unification of these two basic theories is impossible – it needs new methods.

    6.
    Particle Physics and Cosmology Need New Methods”.
    Theories applied in particle physics and cosmology, are very messy. New methods are based on origin of the half-integral spins. This spin is characteristic for all scales/sizes (there are the neutrinos, nucleons, electrons, and so on) and for all types of interactions (bosons consist of the half-integral-spin fermions), even for the fifth force i.e. the entanglement (it is the third long-distance interaction). This suggests existence of succeeding phase transitions of the fundamental spacetime based on the half-integral-spin constancy. This theorem should be accepted as axiom. Such a theory shows a statistical interpretation of the canonical quantum mechanics and only such a theory leads to origin of the basic physical constants. This theory leads also to the superluminal interpretation of the quantum mechanics and abundance of the deterministic mass.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #116  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    viXra. Enough said.
    Now bring on the bigotry comments
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #117  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    84
    Do you assume that your "post" is interesting?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #118  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Nope...after all I had to keep in line with the rest of your thread !!!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #119  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    84
    So once more I will point why my theory is the lacking part of ultimate theory.
    1.
    Only within my theory we can show the origin of the basic physical constants and calculate them. I derived them from the fundamental spacetime i.e. from the moving pieces of space.
    2.
    Only in my theory is described origin of time. For example, can you answered following question: Was there time before the inflation? You know, my theory leads to the hundreds basic experimental data starting from smallest number of parameters. No one theory describes such big number of basic phenomena as my theory. Moreover, it leads to the initial conditions applied in the QP and GR. This leads to conclusion that the results obtained within my theory are correct even if the today experiments cannot confirm them.
    3.
    Only within my theory we can show origin of the initial conditions applied in the Quantum Physics. For example, we know that in the infinitesimal transformations of the fields of matter are the matrices that follow from the fundamental equation of the Matrix Quantum Physics i.e. from the commutator. The infinitesimal transformations lead to the gauge invariance so to the symmetries as well. The symmetries are most important in physics. We can see that the commutator is directly associated with the infinitesimal transformations. Are you able to explain the origin of the commutator? Of course, you and other physicists cannot do it. The answer to this question follows from the Everlasting Theory - see the paper 1.
    4.
    Only within my theory we can show origin of the initial conditions applied in the General Theory of Relativity. For example, can you answer following question: Are the Principle-of-Equivalence particles responsible for the entanglement? Of course, you are unable to do it.

    Why the Quantum Theory of Fields is such messy theory? It is because the mainstream theories neglect the internal structure of the bare particles. Even the string/M theory starts from the wrong initial conditions so this theory leads astray.
    Physics is very simple when we start from correct initial conditions. Then the approximations, mathematical tricks and free parameters are not needed. It is obvious that mathematics that describes Nature must be very simple. Nature, contrary to you and the complex mathematicians, does not need powerful computers to know how it should behave.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #120  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,825
    Quote Originally Posted by Sylwester Kornowski View Post
    [SIZE=3][COLOR=#000000][FONT=Times New Roman]So once more I will point why my theory is the lacking part of ultimate theory.
    If you are such a genius, why isn't your work published in peer-reviewed journals? Why do you promote it alongside cranks and weirdos on vixra? Surely you don't want to be associated with them?
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #121  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    If you are such a genius, why isn't your work published in peer-reviewed journals? Why do you promote it alongside cranks and weirdos on vixra? Surely you don't want to be associated with them?
    People tend to be most comfortable among their own kind. I have always found that to be true.
    Dywyddyr likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #122  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Why the Quantum Theory of Fields is such messy theory? It is because the mainstream theories neglect the internal structure of the bare particles. Even the string/M theory starts from the wrong initial conditions so this theory leads astray.
    Physics is very simple when we start from correct initial conditions. Then the approximations, mathematical tricks and free parameters are not needed. It is obvious that mathematics that describes Nature must be very simple. Nature, contrary to you and the complex mathematicians, does not need powerful computers to know how it should behave.
    From a purely psychological standpoint it is interesting to note how patterns repeat themselves; in this instance, the assumption that there is some kind of requirement for physics to be "simple" ( what does that even mean ? ), and the presumption of most cranks that they actually have something of value in their hands. I mean, how many people just like our friend Sylwester here have we had marching through this forum over the years, all of which absolutely convinced that they have some superior insight exceeding that of established science ? When I first started frequenting science forums this used to amuse me, but now, after having witnessed legions of cranks come and go on several forums, it just makes me feel sad. So much wastage, which could have been better employed in making true progress instead of creating delusions. Ah well.
    Strange likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #123  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,825
    My latest strategy is to point out that they, and their attitudes, are exactly the same as all the other would-be Einsteins that wander through here. (And their ideas, equally worthless.)

    And, also, to talk about them in the third person. As if they were objects in Museum of Curiosities. Or case studies in a psychiatry class.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #124  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    84
    There was the war in physics at the beginning of the quantum physics and now is the war in physics at the beginning of the theory based on the phase transitions of the fundamental spacetime.

    Physicists think that they find all answers to the tremendous number of unsolved problems within the Quantum Theory of Fields (QTFs). But my theory shows that it is impossible and never will be possible. In an approximation, 90% of the QTFs is the science fiction that nature cannot realize. Moreover, most of the rest 10%, we can obtain without any additional calculations from the phase transitions. For example, the applied axial gauge follows from the phase transitions whereas in the QTFs it is the arbitrary condition. The infinitesimal transformations in the Everlasting Theory follow from the phase transitions whereas in the QTFs it is taken from ceiling. The phase transitions as well lead to the fields-ghosts. Without additional calculations we can show that there is only one the simple Lie algebra containing 8 generators. Due to the phase transitions the renormalization is not needed. Due to the phase transitions there do not appear the singularities and the infinite energies of fields as it is in the QTFs. The Everlasting Theory shows that degeneration of the vacuum, postulated within the QTFs, i.e. degeneration of the Einstein spacetime, is impossible. And so on, and so on….

    Moreover, due to the phase transitions we can simplify the quantum theory of atoms and the General Theory of Relativity. For example, the Everlasting Theory shows that the gravitational waves are not in existence. Moreover, the Everlasting Theory shows that the initial conditions applied in the string/M theory are incorrect.

    So once more: There was the classical---quantum war in physics at the beginning of the XX century and now there is the quantum---phase-transitions war in physics at the beginning of the XXI century. It is obvious that the opponents will ignore the a few hundred theoretical results obtained within the Everlasting Theory that are much better than the obtained within the mainstream theories But it will change because we cannot solve many problems without my theory. And it is obvious that there will be tremendous number of barking persons that do not understand the problem.

    We never will calculate the exact masses and magnetic moments of nucleons within the quantum physics. It is possible only due to the phase transitions. The same concerns the origin of the basic physical constants.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #125  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,825
    That's OK. Feel free to ignore my questions. It is what cranks do.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #126  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    84
    Such “discussion” is below the lower limit of my intelligence.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #127  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,825
    Quote Originally Posted by Sylwester Kornowski View Post
    Such “discussion” is below the lower limit of my intelligence.
    A question about why you don't publish in peer-reviewed science journals? Really? You consider such things beneath you?

    Why do arrogance and ignorance always seem to go together.
    Neverfly likes this.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #128  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    84
    You probably are unable to understand the title of this Section. So I wrote it for you once more:

    New Hypotheses and Ideas
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #129  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,825
    Maybe you are not able to understand my question. So I will write it for you again.

    Why don't you publish in peer-reviewed science journals?
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #130  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    There was the war in physics at the beginning of the quantum physics and now is the war in physics at the beginning of the theory based on the phase transitions of the fundamental spacetime.
    Perhaps in your mind, but not in the real world.
    Don't worry, we don't expect you to understand. We have seen too many people like you come through here, people who arrive deluded and depart just as deluded, unable to see why or where they went wrong. We don't expect you to change. We reply to you not because there is anything to really reply to, but because it is our duty to point out crackpottery to those unsuspecting readers who come here looking for real science. As such we will continue to do so, for as long as it takes.

    As you can easily see no one here thinks there is any merit in what you present, so if you wish to continue pointing out to the world how much of a crank you are, then by all means continue on. You said before that you are posting on forums to leave a record for the future - well, that's exactly what you are doing, it's just not the kind of record you think it is
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #131  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    84
    You are very weak thinkers so you write the nonsense.
    Just you completely do not understand physics. You are unable to discuss the tremendous number of the unsolved basic problems in physics. I wrote about them, you not.
    I am a physicist. Are you physicists? Of course, you are not. In yours posts is only the ble, ble, ble...
    Just the frustrated group.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #132  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,825
    Why don't you publish in peer-reviewed science journals?


    (I am assuming it is the same delusions of conspiracy and persecution that all your ilk share. Please feel free to prove me wrong.)
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #133  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,184
    Quote Originally Posted by Sylwester Kornowski View Post
    You are very weak thinkers so you write the nonsense.
    Just you completely do not understand physics. You are unable to discuss the tremendous number of the unsolved basic problems in physics. I wrote about them, you not.
    I am a physicist. Are you physicists? Of course, you are not. In yours posts is only the ble, ble, ble...
    Just the frustrated group.
    What peer-reviewed journals have you submitted to?
    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  
     

  34. #134  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    84
    It looks as schizophrenia. So once more: Title of this Section is as follows:

    New Hypotheses and Ideas

    You should concentrate on it unless distance between your ears is too short.

    Below is some recapitulation for the readers interested in the new hypotheses and ideas.
    Particle physics is the mathematically very complicated field of knowledge. We need the powerful computers to calculate some results. They very frequently are inconsistent with experimental data. Moreover, we cannot calculate the fundamental physical quantities, for example, we cannot calculate the mass of proton and neutron from the initial conditions applied in the Standard Model, i.e. from the masses of the up and down quarks. It is because for 4 decades we cannot define the EXACT masses of the up and down quarks. It is just a mockery.

    In the Quantum Theory of Fields (QTFs) we apply the approximations, mathematical tricks and more and more additional parameters to fit the theoretical results to experimental data.

    Feynman wrote that due to the applied renormalization, we cannot prove mathematical cohesion of the Quantum Theory. And it is the true. The renormalization we can write symbolically as follows: infinity minus infinity is constant that is not equal to zero i.e. in the renormalization, when we subtract infinite energy of a field from infinite energy of an another field we obtain some physical object i.e. the BARE mass of electron. This suggests that bare electron has size not equal to zero whereas in the Quantum Theory is assumed that bare particles are the mathematical points i.e. sizeless. It is the weak point in the QTFs that causes that this theory is mathematically very complex and incoherent. We can see that to simplify the QTFs we need the lacking part of ultimate theory that must describe the internal structure of the bare particles. We cannot do it within the QTFs or General Theory of Relativity because in these theories for radius equal to zero we obtain infinite value i.e. a singularity.

    The Everlasting Theory is the lacking part of ultimate theory i.e. theory that leads to the internal structure of the bare particles. It shows that the initial conditions applied in the string/M theory are incorrect so this theory leads astray as well. Moreover, when the occasion presents itself, the Everlasting Theory leads to the origin of the basic physical constants i.e. the spin, gravitational constant, speed of light, electric charge and bare mass of electron which is the free parameter in the QED.

    The Everlasting Theory is very simple.
    The lacking part of ultimate theory, i.e. the Everlasting Theory, is based on two fundamental axioms. There are the phase transitions of the fundamental spacetime composed of the superluminal and gravitationally massless pieces of space (the tachyons). The phase transitions follow from the saturated interactions of the tachyons and lead to the superluminal binary systems of closed strings responsible for the entanglement, lead to the binary systems of neutrinos i.e. to the Einstein-spacetime components, to the cores of baryons and to the cosmic objects that appeared after the era of inflation but before the observed expansion of our Universe. The second axiom follows from the symmetrical decays of bosons that appear on the surface of the core of baryons. It leads to the Titius-Bode law for the strong interactions i.e. to the atom-like structure of baryons.

    In details I described the Everlasting Theory in the book and the 10 papers. You can find them here

    http://vixra.org/author/sylwester_kornowski ,

    Arrivederci Roma

    Unless there will appear posts directly associated with this Section.
    You know, discussion with dunces is useless.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #135  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,825
    Why don't you publish in peer-reviewed science journals?

    After all, this is not a new idea. You have been developing it and spamming the web with it promoting it for many years.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #136  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    You are unable to discuss the tremendous number of the unsolved basic problems in physics.
    You are wrong ( as usual ). We are discussing them constantly, it is just that we are not deluding ourselves thinking that those problems will be solved by some crank on viXra or an Internet forum. It just is not going to happen.

    I am a physicist.
    I hope for your own sake that this isn't true.

    You know, discussion with dunces is useless.
    My thoughts precisely
    And good luck on viXra.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Similar Threads

  1. string theory
    By w3ird0 in forum Physics
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: February 21st, 2011, 02:58 PM
  2. String theory
    By Robins Thomas John in forum Physics
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: January 11th, 2010, 01:16 PM
  3. String Theory?
    By Roxy121 in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: December 20th, 2006, 04:23 AM
  4. String theory?
    By DaBOB in forum Physics
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: July 31st, 2006, 01:18 PM
  5. String Theory and M-theory Study Material
    By sachinastro in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: November 20th, 2005, 12:04 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
  •