Sylwester's 'Everlasting theory'

Here is the link to my new paper (3 pages) titled:

Population III Supernovae as the Origin of the Most Iron-Poor Stars

http://vixra.org/abs/1409.0176

The abstract is as follows.
The origin of the most iron-poor stars is very important to understand the early Universe. The origin was described by team led by Miho N. Ishigaki. Here, within the lacking part of ultimate theory, i.e. the scale-symmetric physics, I described the weak points in the presented model. The incompleteness follows from the fact that we cannot neglect influence of the dark energy on evolution of the Population III supernovae. There as well should appear the dark matter. But the initial assumption that the origin of the most iron-poor stars is associated with evolution of the Population III supernovae is correct. Moreover, the final conclusions are correct as well.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Here is the link to my new paper (5 pages) titled:

The Origin of the Physical Constants in the Scale-Symmetric Physics

http://vixra.org/abs/1410.0007

The summary is as follows.
The Kasner metric is a solution to the vacuum Einstein equations and we apply this metric to the modified Higgs field composed of the non-gravitating, non-relativistic, superluminal pieces of space (tachyons). The three additional laws of conservation lead to the scale-symmetric physics.

Due to the four succeeding phase transitions, there are in existence the four scales: the superluminal-quantum-entanglement scale, luminal Planck scale concerning the Einstein-spacetime components, observed-particles scale and cosmological scale.

Within such theory we can derive the formulae for the physical constants so we can interpret them correctly. The scale-symmetric physics starts from seven parameters only and within this theory we calculated the physical constants and hundreds of results that are consistent or very close to experimental data. For example, within this theory we calculated the exact mass, spin and radii of proton - it is still impossible within the Standard Model.

Here, within the Scale-Symmetric Everlasting Theory (SSET), we interpret the formulae for the reduced Planck constant, for the speed of light in “vacuum”, gravitational constant, electric charge of electron, and fine-structure constant. The reduced Planck constant and the speed of light in “vacuum” are the invariants. The gravitational constant can change only infinitesimally. For ordinary conditions (for example, for atomic-nucleus density) the electric charge and the fine-structure constant are the invariants as well.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Here is the link to my new paper (4 pages) titled:

The Dark-Matter Mechanism and Spin Speeds of Stars in Spiral Galaxies

http://vixra.org/abs/1410.0031

The summary is as follows.
Here, within the Scale-Symmetric Everlasting Theory (S-SET), we described the dark-matter mechanism which leads to the equality of spin speeds of stars outside the central stellar bulge of spiral galaxy. The obtained results are consistent with the observational facts for the Milky Way (237 km/s), Andromeda Galaxy (269 km/s) and Triangular Galaxy (142 km/s).

The equality of spin speeds of stars for defined spiral galaxy follows from the weak interactions, via leptons, of the baryonic matter with virtual loops in the Einstein spacetime - the loops mimic the motions in fermions. There is as well the cold dark matter (the iron-plus-nickel lumps) between and outside galaxies the clusters of galaxies consist of - it leads to the gravitational lensing. The constancy of spin speeds of stars outside central bulge and the gravitational lensing are the very different phenomena. Moreover, we do not need some exotic matter to explain their origin. Just we need the Einstein-spacetime components (i.e. the neutrino-antineutrino pairs) and the iron-plus-nickel lumps as the remnants of the explosions of the Population III supernovae (the first-generation big stars).

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Here is the link to my new paper (4 pages) titled:

The Resonant Substructure of Strange B to Charmed D, Kaon and Pion Decays Within the Scale-Symmetric Physics

http://vixra.org/abs/1410.0045

Summary
Here, the resonant substructure of strange B to charmed D, kaon and pion decays is studied. The study is based on the Scale-Symmetric Everlasting Theory (S-SET) i.e. the lacking part of ultimate theory that main part leads to the structures of bare objects and to the origin of physical constants.

The Kasner solutions to the vacuum Einstein equations lead to the structure of the core of baryons and next to their atom-like structure.

Here, within the phenomena characteristic for the core of baryons, we calculated the masses of the spin-1 and spin-3 charmed, strange D resonances with a mass of 2860 MeV. The calculated masses are respectively 2858.5 MeV and 2860.8 MeV (they are very close to the experimental central values (!)) whereas to obtain the exact spins equal to 1 and 3 we need a broadening of masses respectively about -+5.3 MeV and -+0.9 MeV and it is as well consistent with experimental data. As it follows from experimental data, the broadening of mass for the spin-3 resonance should be lower and the presented here model leads to the same conclusion.

 

Here is the link to my new paper (3 pages) titled:

An Analog to the Steinhauer Black Hole with Two Horizons in the Scale-Symmetric Physics

http://vixra.org/abs/1410.0071

Abstract
The Steinhauer black hole is an atomic Bose-Einstein condensate containing an analogue black-hole horizon and an inner horizon as in a charged black hole (online it was published on 12 October 2014). Jeff Steinhauer observed the exponential growth of a standing wave between the horizons. On the other hand, the scale-symmetric physics (S-SET) leads to the charged core of baryons which is the charged black hole in respect of strong interactions producing two horizons, i.e., the luminal-spin-speed horizon in distance A = 0.69744 fm and the luminal-radial-speed horizon in distance 2A. On both horizons are produced the virtual bosons with an energy of 282.9 MeV for which the characteristic length is equal to A. Such virtual bosons appear in the liquid-like-plasma theory, in the cosmic-neutrino-background theory and in the theory of the spin-1 and spin-3 charmed, strange D resonances with a mass of 2860 MeV. The Steinhauer black hole with two horizons is an analog to the charged core of baryons and an analog to the neutron black holes. The structures of the charged core of baryons and of the neutron black holes, producing two horizons, were described already in 1997 (online it was published on 6 March 2012). This leads to conclusion that the Steinhauer discovery is the indirect evidence for existence of the charged core of baryons described within S-SET.

 

Here is the link to my new paper (2 pages) titled:

The Electron-to-Muon Abundance Ratio at High Energy Proton-Proton Collisions

http://vixra.org/abs/1410.0074

Abstract
The scale-symmetric physics (S-SET) leads to the atom-like structure of baryons containing the core, composed of entangled or/and confined Einstein-spacetime components, which is the black hole in respect of strong interactions. The structure of the core leads to conclusion that at high energy proton-proton collisions we should detect 25% more electrons than muons. On the other hand, at the LHC Physics conference in New York City (June 2014) the LHCb collaboration announced that probably there appear 25% more electrons than muons. In the Standard Model the electrons and muons (in the S-SET as well) are the particles of the same type so number of electrons and muons should be the same. This 25 percent excess of electrons follows from the internal structure of the core of baryons described within S-SET whereas within the Standard Model such excess is incomprehensible i.e. suggests existence of new physics. Just S-SET is the lacking part of ultimate theory.

 

The General Relativity (GR) is separated from the Standard Model (SM). Such separation does not follow from incompetence of scientists. Just in such a way behaves Nature. Just there are two very different spacetimes: the modified Higgs field associated with gravity (GR) and the Einstein spacetime associated with the electromagnetic, weak and strong interactions (SM).

We can unify only partially the GR with SM via the associations of the Einstein-spacetime components (the associations due to the confinement and entanglement) and it is done in the Scale-Symmetric Everlasting Theory i.e. the lacking part of ultimate theory.

The methods which we must apply to the two very different spacetimes are very different as well and it is the reason that unification of all mentioned above four interactions is impossible.

There are the two more fundamental interactions than the four mentioned above: the interactions between the modified-Higgs-field superluminal components and the interactions that follow from the exchanges of the superluminal binary closed strings the Einstein-spacetime components consist of.

The two superluminal interactions are hidden (the hidden variables) because they are not associated with fields produced by bare particles as it is in the GR and SM.

 

Here is the link to my new paper (8 pages) titled:

The Positron Fraction in Primary Cosmic Rays and New Cosmological Problems

http://vixra.org/abs/1411.0018

Abstract
Here, within the Scale-Symmetric Everlasting Theory (S-SET), I calculated the positron fraction in primary cosmic rays as a function of energy and described positron flux. Obtained results are consistent with the data from the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer (AMS) on the International Space Station (ISS). These data lead to the internal structure of the core of baryons and to phenomena characteristic for regions in the Universe filled with baryonic plasma described within S-SET. Here, as well within S-SET, I described the origin of new cosmological problems which lead to new cosmology. They are as follows. There are not in existence the B-modes associated with gravitational waves - it leads to conclusion that there was a separation in time of the inflation and the big bang of the Universe. In the very distant Universe there is too small number of dwarf galaxies. In the very distant Universe there are the massive galaxies which do not significantly evolve so a time for their formation was too short. In the very distant Universe there are too many barred galaxies - it is inconsistent with simulations grounded on the Cosmological Standard Model (CSM). There is a substantial asymmetry in the CMB signal observed in the two opposite hemispheres of the sky. These new problems suggest that CSM starts from wrong initial conditions.


In this paper I showed that all characteristic features of the positron fraction (the ratio of positrons to sum of positrons and electrons) and flux we obtain multiplying the characteristic features of the core of nucleons (it was described within the atom-like structure of baryons, within the S-SET, already in 1997) by the same number 651.88. The obtained theoretical results are consistent with the observational facts and are perfect.

What is the origin of the number 651.88? Due to the collisions of the cores of baryons inside baryonic plasma, there, due to the weak interactions, appear the characteristic condensates which follow from the structure of the core. The energy of the weak condensates leaks outside the baryonic plasma but then there appear the electromagnetic interactions. In the transitions from weak to electromagnetic interactions, the energy must increase just 651.88 times i.e. in such processes temperature of the baryonic plasma decreases. The number 651.88 is the ratio of the fine-structure constant (formula (21) in my book; online it was published on 6 March 2012) and the coupling constant for the weak interactions of protons and electrons/positrons (formula (58) in my book; online it was published on 6 March 2012).

Inside protons and neutrons, the core can be charged positively or can be neutral, it cannot be charged negatively (see my book). It causes that the positron-electron pairs produced inside baryonic plasma appear as the pairs of real positron and virtual electron - it leads to the excess of detected positrons in cosmic rays.

Moreover, my theory is testable. In future experiments we should observe rapid drop in positron fraction for energy of positrons equal to about 474 GeV. This value follows from the mass of the charged core of baryons 727.44 MeV. In present experiments, for energies close to 500 GeV, the uncertainties are too high to define correctly the threshold.

My Scale-Symmetric Everlasting Theory shows that the positron fraction has nothing with the dark matter as it is assumed in the other models.

Remember that the atom-like structure of baryons, which leads to the positron fraction and flux, leads as well to the exact mass, spin and electron and muon radii of proton. On the other hand, within the mainstream three-valence-quarks model we cannot calculate exact mass, spin and muon radius of proton.

 

Below is the link to my new paper (5 pages)

http://vixra.org/abs/1411.0160

Is the Physical World the Math/Platonic-World Only?

Abstract
Mathematical states of the infinite cosmos should be preferred as the initial conditions. Creation of physical world is impossible without two different ground states. In the limit we obtain grainy mathematical spacetime with grains composed of infinite sets of finite velocities of sizeless points placed in (true) nothingness. Such model is coherent for nontransparent grains. Can the mathematical grains be nontransparent?

Probability that we cannot formulate coherent mathematical theory of Nature without plenums moving in nothingness is very high. Existence of the plenums causes that in the limit we do not lose information about inertial mass.

Next, due to the inertial mass directly proportional to volume of the grains of velocities, we can replace densities by dimensionless numbers i.e. there is possible the transition from the dynamical quantities to kinematical ones.

Can be the infinite physical cosmos built from mathematical objects only?

What is the transition from math to physics?

What are the moving pieces of space? What is the origin of their inertia?

What is the origin of the critical/Planck values?

Is there a lower limit for the General Relativity and Quantum Physics?

Do we need new physics?

 

Below is the link to my new paper (1 page)

http://vixra.org/abs/1411.0219

The Origin of Unification of Mathematics and Physics

Abstract
In the limit we obtain grainy mathematical spacetime with grains composed of infinite sets of finite velocities of sizeless points placed in nothingness. On the other hand, we do not lose information about inertial-only mass if in nothingness are moving the physical plenums i.e. some grains as well. It causes that mathematical and physical descriptions are compatible.

There are not in existence real numbers composed of infinite number of digits (there are gaps between the centres of the tangent mathematical grains or physical plenums). It leads to the calculus of finite differences.

Similarity in behaviour of grains and plenums (the kinematics of fluids) causes that Platonism is partially correct.

Such initial conditions lead sometimes to life and mind.

 

Below is the link to my new paper (7 pages)

http://vixra.org/abs/1411.0321

The Constructive Criticism of the Mainstream Theories

Abstract
Here is a very short recapitulation concerning the basic problems solved within the Scale-Symmetric Everlasting Theory (S-SET) that are not solved or are described incorrectly within the mainstream theories. Incompleteness and partial incorrectness of the internal structure of the modified Higgs field and Einstein spacetime applied in the predominant mainstream theories cause that there appear many wrong interpretations.

In the Einstein spacetime, energy is equivalent to mass but direct transformation of mass into pure energy and vice versa is impossible.

Due to the quantum entanglement, there is the wrong interpretation of the Michelson-Morley experiment which leads to the illusion of acceleration of expansion of the Universe.

Why we cannot detect the gravitational waves moving with the luminal speed?

Why the Cosmos did not collapse at the beginning of the big bang and where is the antimatter?

Why the Universe is flat?

The rest mass of the Higgs boson is wrongly interpreted so there appears the hierarchy problem.

The assumed origins of dark matter are incorrect.

The many-worlds interpretation within the Quantum Physics (QP) is incorrect.

The three-valence-quarks model of baryons is incorrect (for a half of century we cannot calculate exact mass, spin and muon radius of proton).

QED neglects the weak interactions of electrons but due to the free parameters gives correct results.

The flexibility of the closed strings in M/string theory cannot lead to constancy of the gravitational constant.

The origin of DNA must follow from ultimate theory (in the very early Universe there appeared the neutrino precursors of the DNA).

 

I find most of what you write rather funny, but this is the funniest IMO. Thanks for the chuckle.

 

…..but you are too weak to discuss it?

Did you read my explanations?

You probably are able to present some scientific arguments that my explanations are incorrect.
Do you need some additional explanations? Or maybe the ble, ble, ble.. in your post is the upper limit for your power?

 

Below is the link to my new paper (2 pages)

http://vixra.org/abs/1411.0374

The Origin of the Two New Baryon Resonances with a Mass of 5935 and 5955 MeV Observed in LHCb Experiment

Abstract
Here, within the Scale-Symmetric Everlasting Theory, the origin of the two new baryon resonances with a mass of 5935 and 5955 MeV observed in LHCb experiment is presented.

 

No, I do not have any interest in discussing that. Your idea is absurd and not worth discussing. I was just pointing out that not only is the idea absurd it is also rather funny.

 

....just the mind of a communist.

 

Below is the link to my new paper (3 pages)

http://vixra.org/abs/1411.0534

The Matter-Antimatter Asymmetry: Is Our Universe the One and Only in Our Cosmos?

Abstract
Some extension of the General Relativity leads to the superluminal nontransparent infinitesimal pieces of space (plenums/tachyons). Due to their dynamic viscosity, in the infinite cosmos can appear pieces of space with different sizes and velocities.

Due to collisions of very big pieces of space, there can appear cosmoses with stable boundary. Inside some of them can appear universes.

Here, I discuss the possibility that in our Cosmos, our Universe is the one and only. We can calculate the period of the oscillations of our Universe. We as well can explain the matter-antimatter asymmetry in our Universe. It follows from the transitions of the electron-positron pairs into the electron-proton pairs in a vortex with left-handed internal helicity produced in the Einstein spacetime.

 

Below is the link to my new paper (3 pages)

http://vixra.org/abs/1411.0546

The Origin of the 30 and 18 Million-Light-Year Separation of Single Galaxies and Clusters of Galaxies in the Filamentary Cosmic Network

Abstract
Here, within the Scale-Symmetric Everlasting Theory (S-SET), the origin of the 30 and 18 million-light-year separation of single galaxies and clusters of galaxies in the filamentary cosmic network is presented. It follows from the atom-like structure of the Steinhauer black holes with two horizons described within S-SET. The calculated dominating time-length of the pattern is around 30 million light-years (for h = 0.75). There as well should appear a weaker signal for 18 million light-years and much weaker signals for about 43 and 68 million light-years. The two first results are consistent with the observational facts whereas the two last results are some predictions.

 

Quite a while since I popped in on you Sylwester, but I have noticed a glaring error in your terminology.
You seem to be implying that a Universe and a Cosmos are two different things, with one residing in the other.
In pre SR/GR thinking the Universe was the Cosmos, and entailed all that is. Just two different names for the same thing.
In modern 20th/21st century physics, Universe/Cosmos implies all that exists within our spacetime....In other words, there maybe other Universes/Cosmos's that are causally disconnected from our own spacetime.
It has been speculated for example that our BB arose from the quantum foam from which other BB's also likely arose....
Or specualtive scenarios are also discussed re other parallel Universes/Cosmo's

see....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe
The Universe is all of spacetime and everything that exists therein, including all planets, stars, galaxies, the contents of intergalactic space, the smallest subatomic particles, and all matter and energy.[1][2][3][4][5][6] Similar terms include the cosmos, the world, reality, and nature.

Some speculative theories have proposed that this Universe is but one of a set of disconnected universes, collectively denoted as the multiverse, challenging or enhancing more limited definitions of the Universe
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe

 

In the mainstream cosmology is assumed that there was not a time-distance between the beginning of the inflation and the beginning of the expansion of the Universe and that some process stopped the inflation. On such assumptions, there is obligatory the definition presented in Wiki: “The Universe is all of spacetime and everything that exists therein….”.

But then we should observe the B-modes in CMB as the remnant of gravitational waves produced at the beginning of the big bang. But we still cannot detect it. The Scale-Symmetric Everlasting Theory (S-SET) shows that gravity is associated with the modified Higgs field, not with luminal Einstein spacetime so we never will see gravitational-wave B-modes in CMB.

But assume that gravitational waves can be in existence. Then the lack of the gravitational-wave B-modes in CMB suggests that the observed expansion of the Universe was separated in time from the inflation. We can see that there were two different big bangs. This means that we can say about the Cosmos produced during the inflation and about the expanding Universe. And it is in S-SET.

During the inflation, the modified Higgs field partially transformed into the luminal Einstein spacetime. Above some radius, the gravitational pressure, which tries to squeeze the Einstein spacetime, was higher than dynamic pressure which tries to stretch the Einstein spacetime i.e. the outer shell of the Einstein spacetime had collapsed and there appeared the stable boundary of our Cosmos. It was the end of inflation. Within the S-SET we can calculate the radius of our Cosmos: about 2*10^30 m.

In such Cosmos, due to the fluctuations in the luminal Einstein spacetime, there appeared a vortex with left-handed internal helicity. Since contrary antineutrons and antiprotons, the protons and neutrons have left-handed internal helicity so the electron-positron pairs transformed into the electron-proton pairs and such is the origin of the matter-antimatter asymmetry in our Universe.

The front of our Universe expands with radial speed equal to the speed of light in “vacuum”. Since there was the time-distance between the two big bangs and because inflation was superluminal so size of the Universe is much smaller than size of our Cosmos.

Moreover, due to the fluctuations, in our Cosmos there can appear other universes but with the same physical constants.

Due to the boundary of our Cosmos, the physical constants are constant.