Sylwester's 'Everlasting theory'

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.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Funny how you like to hijack mainstream concepts and claim you've explained them. You clearly do not understand the holographic principle described in the mainstream literature so saying how you've got an explanation is laughable.

Are you planning on sending your pdf to a reputable journal for review? If not, why not? If so, which one? Have you done it before? If so what did they say?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

AlphaNumeric, you are very ill person and it is due to the bigotry. Where are your scientific arguments? You proved that you completely do not understand the confinement that is the foundations to understand the holographic principle and my reformulated Theory of Branching Ratios.

The theoretical results are consistent with the data obtained in the CMS Experiment (LHC).

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

AlphaNumeric, I can see that you do not want to write some scientific arguments concerning the holographic principle because you are afraid of writing once again the big nonsense. So to provoke you, I write below a few sentences to teach you what the holographic principle means.

My theory shows that the Einstein spacetime consists of the binary systems of neutrinos. The neutrinos are the black holes in respect of the entanglement and they consist of the binary systems of my closed strings. Mass of neutrinos is quantized so they emit the binary systems of closed strings when there are some infalling such systems. The exchanged binary systems of closed strings are responsible for the entanglement. The Everlasting Theory shows that the theory of neutrinos is the Type IIA string theory (see Chapter “M-theory” in my book). My neutrinos carry the weak charge and they are the smallest particles having GRAVITATIONAL mass. When we assume that particles of the Planck size (my neutrinos have such size) are the points then my theory shows that the Type IIA string theory we can describe via the neutrinos i.e. via the charged point black holes (the D0 branes) in respect of the entanglement.

THE SAME follows from the new M-theory (1995) formulated by L. Susskind, T. Banks, W. Fischler, and S. Shenker. Just it is the Type IIA string theory described via the charged point black holes but my theory is much more detailed.

Moreover, my theory shows that in such theory, the holographic principle is associated with the entanglement. It is the same entanglement which entangles the photons and other particles. The photons are the massless rotational energies of the Einstein spacetime components i.e. of the binary systems of neutrinos. The photons can be entangled because their carriers, i.e. the binary systems of neutrinos, exchange the binary systems of my closed strings.

AlphaNumeric, I assume that due to my teaching, you will not write nonsense. So try to write something interesting about the holographic principle but you should not rewrite the Wikipedia. Are you able to do it? Probably you are unable.

 

Can there be negative absolute temperature?

Yes, it can be. Due to the interactions, there can appear the virtual particles in the Einstein spacetime i.e. there appear valleys and hills. In the valleys, the mass density is lower than the mean mass density of the Einstein spacetime whereas on the hills is higher than the mean. The valleys behave as NEGATIVE mass but to create such negative mass we need positive energy/mass much higher than the absolute value of the negative mass. This means that total mass/energy is always positive! We cannot say that the Universe could be created from nothingness.

The photons are the rotational energies of the Einstein-spacetime components. Assume that density of the massless, always positive, energy of a photon is lower than negative mass density of a valley the photon occupies. Then the total mass/energy of the valley and photon is negative. This means that locally there can be negative absolute temperature.

Mean absolute temperature of the ground state of the Einstein spacetime is zero but there arise the valley-hill pairs. They are the VIRTUAL particle-antiparticle pairs. They are the negative-energy/mass---positive-energy/mass pairs.

The dark energy is the big hill in the Einstein spacetime. It was created due to some phase transition (see my book).

What is the difference between the gravity, entanglement and weak force (the weak force leads to the confinement)?

The gravitational field and entanglement are produced by the Einstein-spacetime components. Their size is of the order of magnitude the same as the Planck length. The Planck constant, gravitational constant and speed of light are defined by the internal structure of the Einstein-spacetime components. Why there is the gravity-entanglement broken symmetry? The mainstream theories neglect the internal structure of the Einstein-spacetime components. This structure follows from the phase transitions of the more fundamental spacetime than the Einstein spacetime i.e. the Higgs almost scalar field. Due to the phase transitions, the Einstein-spacetime components consist of the binary systems of closed strings. Such systems have internal helicity that produce gradients/gravitational-field in the Higgs almost scalar field. But the binary systems of the closed strings can be exchanged between the Einstein-spacetime components as well - it is the entanglement. We can see that origin of the gravity and entanglement is associated with the Einstein-spacetime components but the gravity is associated with the internal helicity of the binary systems of the closed strings and existence of the Higgs almost scalar field (the Newtonian spacetime) whereas the entanglement is associated with the exchanges of the binary systems of the closed strings. If the hieroglyphs decoded by Albert Slosman say the true then the entanglement of the dark matter can be dangerous in 2016, not in 2012.

The Einstein-spacetime components suck up the components of the Higgs almost scalar field from their surroundings. This decreases local pressure in the Higgs almost scalar field near the Einstein-spacetime components. When the Einstein-spacetime components are sufficiently close one to other, then due to the negative pressure there acts the weak force which leads to the confinement.

 

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.

 

It is my scientific manifestation

I decided to write it because there is no democracy in the mainstream particle physics and cosmology. It is obvious that the mainstream theories are incomplete. To formulate the ultimate theory we must apply new methods. In the Quantum Theory of Fields and the General Theory of Relativity are applied the smooth functions which lead to the infinities (the infinite energy of a field) and singularities (the infinite density of a mathematical point) for sizes approaching zero. In reality, Nature never leads to them. Nature has the defensive system to protect itself from such obvious disasters. The phase transitions of the modified Higgs field, which I described in 1997 within the Everlasting Theory, protect Nature from the disasters. There appears the internal structure of the bare fermions.

On the other hand, the M-theory assumes that there is a smallest flexible closed string of size of the Planck length and its different vibrations lead to many physical properties of the observed particles. Such assumption is incorrect as well because within such theory we cannot describe origin (the physical meaning) of the fundamental physical constants and we cannot explain why gravity is in approximation about 42 orders of magnitude weaker than the electromagnetic interactions. It is possible within the phase transitions of the modified Higgs field (I call it the Newtonian spacetime as well). Due to the phase transitions there appears the scale which shows that the neutrinos are the black holes in respect of the entanglement. The core of baryons is the black hole in respect of the strong interactions whereas the hedgehog-like gluon balls are the black holes in respect of the weak interactions (there appears the confinement).

It is obvious that the mainstream theories cannot answer the fundamental question why speed of light is the c and why there is valid the constancy of this speed. We never will answer this question without the phase transitions of the modified Higgs field.

It is obvious that the discovered Higgs boson (125 GeV) is not the Higgs boson described within the Higgs mechanism. It is the sham Higgs boson that appears due to the broken symmetry between the electromagnetic and weak forces i.e. due to the transition from the electromagnetic energy to the weak energy i.e. to the mass of the sham Higgs boson. The energy of the real Higgs boson must be close to the Planck mass, i.e. about 10^-8 kg (i.e. energy about 17 orders of magnitude higher than the mass of the discovered sham Higgs boson), and it is described within my Everlasting Theory. It as well is associated with the phase transitions of the modified Higgs field.

I can see that we will unable to restore the order in the particle physics and cosmology without an intervention of God. Today in the theoretical particle physics dominates the number 666 i.e. the 6 red, 6 blue and 6 red quarks. It is obvious that such model is incorrect because since 1964 (the 49 years) we cannot calculate exact masses of the fundamental particles, i.e. the protons and neutrons, from the masses of the up and down quarks that are among the initial conditions in the Standard Model. But the number 666 will die. I assume that it will be in April-May 2016. I assumed that it is the date when the democracy in the particle physics and cosmology will be restored. The democracy in the particle physics ended in 1948. There appeared the methods in physics which destroy the theoretical physics i.e. there dominate the mathematical tricks/dodges. Nature does not realize such dodges. I do not understand why God tolerates such lack of qualifications in physics. The great mathematicians try to destroy the beautiful work of God. On their foreheads is the virtual number 666.

Due to the viXra and this Forum as well, there is a substitute of democracy in particle physics and cosmology. There is no democracy in other archives. Archives should not behave as scientific journals. In archives should be place for all papers whereas there are the scientific journals to select the papers. Today, almost all archives manipulate the papers then there is room for corruption. It is the first stage to eliminate the democracy in theoretical particle physics and cosmology. Such archives eliminate all papers in which appear the proofs that the bare fermions are not mathematical points or flexible closed strings. Just great mathematicians in physics must be right. Such regime caused that the theoretical particle physics is in the regress since 1948.

To formulate the ultimate theory we MUST understand origin of the physical constants and mathematical constants applied in physics. We cannot solve such problems applying the same methods as in the General Theory of Relativity (the GR) and the Quantum Theory of Fields (the QTFs). The 65 years without a progress in the mainstream theories in understanding of the foundations of Nature show that I am right. Just the Everlasting Theory, which describes the phase transitions of the fundamental spacetime, is the lacking part of the ultimate theory, i.e. there are described the lacking methods that solve all unsolved basic problems in the mainstream theoretical particle physics and theoretical cosmology.

Bare fermion of size equal or greater than the Planck length = torus + ball in its centre.
There are the transitions of loops into the bare fermions. The QTFs describe the loops only so they are the incomplete theories. The mainstream M-theory is incomplete as well and partially incorrect. There are in existence the inflexible closed strings and all known particles consist of the binary systems of my inflexible closed strings. The phase transitions of the modified Higgs field described within the Everlasting Theory, lead to the different string theories described within the incomplete and partially incorrect M-theory.

 

No, because you clearly have no problems lying and pretending you know what certain concepts are but in fact do not. You've shown it in regards to 'effective theory' before, where you repeatedly used the phrase to mean 'is effective at describing' when I had repeatedly told you 'effective theory' is a low energy model obtained by integrating out the higher energy degrees of freedom. Want another example? You keep talking about strings in M theory. M theory doesn't have any strings, it has membranes. Want another example? Here it is :

You don't know any M theory or string theory or supergravity or even entanglement yet you are happy to lie and claim you can explain them or that they are incorporated into your work. When I've previously asked you to demonstrate that, say by showing the Type IIA supergravity Lagrangian follows from your work, you've failed and instead can only lie further.

I really do hope you're pretending to be as stupid as you're acting.

I could write plenty, I have published work on the holographic principle. The problem is you wouldn't understand it and I'm not going to help you delude yourself by letting you 'play physicist'. If I typed something in this thread actually relevant and valid about the holographic principle it might give the casual passer by the mistaken impression you're engaged in proper scientific discourse when you are incapable of it.

Tell you what. You demonstrate that the Lagrangian of Type IIA supergravity follows from your work and I'll talk holographic principle with you.

Okay, now you're just showing you're insane. Before I thought you were just misguided and ignorant, now I see you're actually detached from reality in some way.

Please seek professional help because if you honestly believe what you've been saying there then you need to get help.

 

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.

 

So can you do as I asked? You want to talk about the holographic principle and I'll indulge you provided you can justify a claim of yours, that your work leads to various string theories. I want you to show how the Lagrangian of Type IIA supergravity falls out of your work. If you cannot then I won't discuss the holographic principle with you and I'll call you a dishonest hack for lying about what your work can do. Again.

 

AlphaNumeric, you provoke me to write still the same sentences because you make still the same mistakes. Just you do not understand what you are reading. You are unable to distinguish my useful string/M theory associated with the phase transitions of the modified Higgs field from the USELESS mainstream string/M theory based on the flexible open or closed strings. My theory shows that the Type IIA superstring theory, which is the part of my M-theory, is the theory of neutrinos and the binary systems of neutrinos i.e. of the Einstein-spacetime components. My M-theory shows that the supergravity is the science fiction. Can you code it? Is it true that name of your uncle was Alzheimer?

Of course, the M-theory describes the branes as well. For example, in my theory are the tori i.e. the 2D-branes but the 1D- (strings) and 3D-branes (balls) as well. Whereas, you wrote that the M-theory does not concern the strings. It is the next nonsense you wrote in very short period. So once again I must teach you the perfect physics. My M-theory consists of the bosonic string theory and the four superstring theories (the Type IIA, the Type IA which splits into the Heterotic-O and Heterotic-E, and Type IIB).

You still write that I wrote something what I never wrote. Next you “prove” that I am not right. It proves that you are a big liar and very dishonest person. You are doing it generally so you are an ill person or very dishonest person.

On your forehead is the virtual number 666. Has it yet not transformed into the real number?

Arrivederci Roma. I waste my time for “discussion” with such dishonest person. Of course, I can discuss with you the Type IIA superSTRING theory and the Holographic Principle but you must be able to distinguish my theory from the mainstream theory because there are the DIFFERENT METHODS. I claim that you completely do not understand the string/M theory and the holographic principle so you will write next nonsense.

 

If they are not the same then calling what you're talking about 'string/M theory' is dishonest. If you aren't actually recovering/explaining precisely the string/M theory found in the literature then you shouldn't be calling it that, you should call it something else.

Then you are doing something completely different from string theory or M theory, as everyone else understands those terms to mean, so you shouldn't be calling pieces of your 'work' such things. It is fundamentally dishonest. You are dishonest.

My my, what wit you have. Perhaps you should trade some of it in for an ounce of decency.

 

No. The mainstream string/M theory never will act correctly because this theory starts from wrong initial conditions. Most important is the fact that the smallest closed strings are inflexible. They are STILL the circles. But there are the correct elements. Just the “stringers” know that a bell is ringing but they do not know which one. When stringers will eliminate the totally incorrect assumption then the mainstream string/M theory will transform into my string/M theory. There is only one correct string/M theory i.e. my theory. Can you understand it?

Probably you cannot because you, PhD and English man, even do not understand what the word “effective” means. The word “effective” means efficient, not approximate! We can say, for example, that the Newtonian Theory is an effective theory of the General Theory of Relativity (the GR) ONLY if within the GR we cannot find an exact solution i.e. when the GR is inefficient. But generally, the GR is the efficient/effective theory. Some dunce wrote that always the Newtonian Theory is the effective theory of the GR and you repeat this nonsense. So once more: Today the mainstream string/M theory is the inefficient theory whereas my string/M theory is the efficient/effective theory (not approximate) because my theory leads to the exact solutions, for example, to the exact mass of protons. Probably you wrote about the effective field theories. There indeed are some simplifications to find a rational solution.

Only a dunce can claim that the word “effective” means in physics ALWAYS “approximate”. You know, the main meaning is “efficient”.

You still rewrite the Wikipedia but you cannot see that the mainstream string/M theory is the inefficient theory so there is certainty that this theory starts from wrong initial conditions. The correct initial conditions are as follows. The first phase transition of the modified Higgs field leads to the binary systems of closed-strings/circles and the circles (the 1D-branes carrying the unitary spin) in a binary system have different internal helicities. Their radius is about 10^10 times smaller than the Planck length. It is the foundations of the efficient/effective string/M theory. Due to the next phase transitions, there appear the tori i.e. the 2D-branes. In their centers are the balls i.e. the 3D-branes. For example, such 2D-brane inside the core of baryons is responsible for the strong interactions whereas the 3D-brane is responsible for the weak interactions. The Type IIB is associated with cosmology. In reality, the phase space associated with the Type IIB has 120 elements but we can reduce it to 10 elements. Our Universe arose inside the torus associated with the Type IIB as the LOOP which is the 1D-brane. It is the reason why there are the 10 + 1 = 11 elements but they are not the higher dimensions!!!!!

The string/M theory is not the whole story. To describe Nature we need additionally the Titius-Bode law for the strong interactions that leads to the atom-like structure of baryons. Then, we can calculate, for example, the electric radius of proton. My string/M theory is the efficient/effective theory because is consistent with experimental data.

The mainstream Holographic principle is associated with the Type IIA but there is the approximation that this superstring theory starts from the 0D-branes/black-holes i.e. the authors assume that the black-holes are the mathematical points. It is obvious that nature cannot start from sizeless points.

My Type IIA superstring is the exact solution without the simplifications typical for the mainstream Type IIA superstring theory. In reality, the 0D-branes/black-holes are the neutrinos i.e. the 2D+3D-branes. They are the black holes in respect of the entanglement.

AlphaNumeric, if you will write the invectives then I will not discuss with you. Just write scientific arguments. You know, I can hurt your feelings as well but because on my forehead is not the number 666 so I will not do it. Just I will end such nonsensical discussion.

 

So if your 'string theory' is completely different then you should call it something else. Why is this hard for you to understand? Its deceptive, as anyone reading you saying "My work explains string theory" will take it to mean "My work explains the work done in the mainstream community which is known as string theory", which is not the case. Rather you mean "My work contains concepts superficially similar to some concepts mentioned in the mainstream".

If your work doesn't until a supersymmetric 11 dimensional model of dual M2-M5 branes which reduces to 11 dimensional supergravity then you aren't talking about M theory, you're talking about something else. This is not a matter of ambiguity, as the 11 dimensional supergravity Lagrangian is entirely specified by symmetry constraints and it must follow from M theory. As such if you cannot recover it you do not have M theory within your work and so you should call whatever it is something different.

This is something I've repeatedly corrected you on. It is, once again, a matter of what terminology means. Not all words in science mean the same as their common usage. For example "field" to a lay person means a wide open area covered in grass. To a mathematician is means something very different. Likewise for 'group'. A 'group' to a lay person is a collection of people or objects. A group to a mathematician is something very different.

So what about 'effective theory'. In the world of particle physics 'effective theory' doesn't mean 'this theory is very effective at describing the phenomenon in question' but rather 'this theory is a low energy approximation to a more fundamental theory'. For example, Newtonian gravity can be obtained as the low energy, low velocity, low mass limit of general relativity. Therefore Newtonian gravity is an effective theory of general relativity. Electromagnetism is the non-quantum simplification of quantum electrodynamics so electromagnetism is an effective theory for QED. If A is an effective theory for B then it means in a particular simplification or limit B turns into A. A is simpler than B but doesn't apply to as many things.

I have explained this to you before, after you picked up the terminology from posts of mine but used it incorrectly. This is another example of you misusing terminology. In doing so, after you have been corrected on it, you are showing you are a dishonest person.

Rewriting Wikipedia? What are you talking about?

Where does Type IIB come into it? That is a string theory model label, which you have not got in your work and thus the use of the Type IIB label is completely inappropriate.

Yes, various string models are all related by particular dualities but you have previously shown you do not understand them either, such as when you thought T duality amounted to actually changing a system, some kind of dynamics, rather than simply being a mathematical relationship. Of course you then accused me of not knowing about such things, despite these dualities being precisely my area of graduate research. Your excuse is that your T duality isn't the standard T duality, which means that you aren't doing anything to do with T or S or U dualities, so you should call them something else!

This constant behaviour of yours, to essentially steal terminology from the mainstream and then label your own claims with such terminology is fundamentally dishonest. You've been doing it for years because all the stuff you yammer on about in regards to neutrinos isn't anything to do with the mainstream concept of neutrinos. Rather you just call some concept in your own work 'neutrinos'. What's the matter, can't get anyone to listen unless you lie through your teeth?

Accept you admitted you had predictions which fell outside of the experimental limits, so that statement of yours is also a lie.

Looks like you're unfamiliar with the origins of the holographic principle too. Unsurprisingly.

The mainstream holographic principle is centred around the duality called the AdS/CFT correspondence, specifically on \(AdS_{5}\times S^{5}\) space-time formed in Type IIB string theory using stacked extremal D3 branes, linking it to N=4 Super Yang Mills defined on the Minkowski boundary of the AdS part of the space-time. Other space-times, field theories and brane configurations have since been explored but initially it was in Type IIB.

The thing relating M theory, Type IIA and D0 branes is something else, in that you use the properties of a stack of extremal D0 branes to construct an object which saturates a BPS bound, a particular kind of supersymmetric construct. With this you can probe non-perturbative parts of a model and via various technical things I'm certain you're too stupid to grasp you can arrive at a construct where 10 dimensional Type IIA string theory is seen as the limit of an 11 dimensional brane theory where one of the dimensions is compactified into a circle whose radius is small, even compared to the string and Planck scales. This was considered slightly before the AdS/CFT correspondence but is much lower profile in terms of what the 'mainstream holographic principle' is today within string theory. The vast majority of work done on the holographic principle is in exploring modified Type IIB geometries, typically involving D3 branes as they lead to 4 dimensional field theories, ie what QCD and QED are.

Sylwester, I really hope you're aware that you're being stupid when you try to tell me how string theory or M theory work. Sure, I don't know the specifics of whatever your laughable bits of work which you call your string theory or M theory but I do know more about the mainstream concepts of string theory and M theory than you (but then so would anyone who has been within 50 miles of a science book, you set the bar very low). So trying pretend you know what the mainstream models say is ridiculous. Do you honestly think you're not going to have your lies exposed? Or do you really believe you understand what the mainstream says about these things?

is nothing to do with the mainstream notion of 'Type IIA superstrings' and therefore should be called something else.

That statement isn't even coherent. Now you really are just throwing out buzzwords.

You don't discuss anything anyway. You just repeat the same tired boring adverts for your work. You are incapable of discussion. When asked to provide details, you cannot. When you're corrected about things as basic as terminology, you ignore it. When contradictions are pointed out, you ignore it. When, by your own admission, your work is inconsistent with experiment you make excuses. Over the years I've had to explain numerous things in mainstream physics to you yet you then claim you always understood it. Or alternatively you just redefine what terminology means and then claim you understood your version of the holographic principle, which is down right dishonest of you.

The reason I keep calling you a liar and dishonest is you keep lying and being dishonest. You lie about the mainstream constantly.

I asked you to demonstrate supergravity or Type II string models follow from your work, you couldn't. Instead you just redefine terminology. The problem there is you. How can we have a scientific discussion about Type II string theory or M theory when you make up your own meanings for those? That isn't scientific, it's dishonest and pathetic.

Go on, try to hurt my feelings. I generally find that when someone starts talking about '666' being written in people's foreheads it is impossible for them to hurt my feelings because they are insane. You used to complain about communist conspiracies in physics, now you've moved onto talking about conspiracies to remove god, the imaginary man in the sky who many people claim talks to them, from science and signs of the devil, ie 666. It is one thing to complain there's a particular mindset in the scientific community, it is another thing to bring into it imaginary beings and start whining about signs of the devil. That's going from just being bitter about being rejected by the scientific community to being insane.

Oh and you didn't answer my questions. Do you think that by redefining terminology, such as 'string theory', 'M theory' and 'holographic principle', you're going to endear yourself to the mainstream community? Do you think that by saying "I've got M theory explained!" but actually you're doing something utterly different you're going to convince people working on M theory to listen to you? Do you think they won't just turn around and say "That has nothing to do with M theory, it is something different. You're being dishonest calling it M theory!"? If you come across as a dishonest person people will not bother to give you the time of day. Likewise with your ranting about 666 and a conspiracy to remove your god from science. It makes you sound insane, not scientific. Do you really think this constant misrepresentation and accusations of conspiracies is going to get people to take you seriously?

 

You still do not understand the problem. There is only one string/M theory realized by Nature. It is my theory because it is the complete theory i.e. it starts from the fundamental spacetime and leads to the theoretical results consistent with experimental data.

The mainstream string/M theory is a conglomerate of ad hoc ideas and elements taken from other, better or worse, theories that sometime lead to experimental data. It is obvious that such theory cannot be the complete theory. Such theory is a conglomerate of good and bad elements so within this “theory” we cannot calculate all fundamental physical quantities and show that they are consistent with experimental data, for example, we cannot calculate the physical constants and describe their origin. We can say that the mainstream string/M theory is the dirty theory. This is the reason that I repeatedly write that “stringers” know that some bell is ringing but they do not know which one.

Within the GR and QTFs the bare fermions are reduced to mathematical point whereas in the mainstream string/M theory to flexible string. It is obvious that both assumptions are incorrect and follows from incompetence. Such assumptions never will lead to origin of the physical constants.

As I wrote above, the mainstream string/M theory is a conglomerate of good and bad elements and my complete string/M theory shows which elements are bad. For example, the assumption of existence of the higher dimensions is the bad element. The assumption that there is in existence a flexible fundamental closed string is the bad element as well, whereas there are in existence the bosonic string theory and the four superstring theories. There is valid the fermion-boson symmetry as well but interpretation of this symmetry is different, and so on.

So once more: Theories within which we can obtain exact solution(s) are the effective/efficient theories. When we cannot find exact solutions then we modify a part of an ineffective theory to find exact solution within the modified part. Then the modified part is the effective/efficient theory of the ineffective larger theory. My string/M theory is the fundamental and effective/efficient theory i.e. we can find all needed solutions without any modifications, simplifications and free parameters. The mainstream string/M-theory is the ineffective/inefficient theory because within this theory we cannot find solutions consistent with experimental results. When within the GR we cannot find needed solution whereas within the Newton’s gravity it is possible then the Newton’s gravity is the effective model of the GR but it concerns ONLY the problem(s) which cannot be solved within the GR.

The Quantum Theory of Fields is the ineffective theory because without the many mathematical tricks/dodges we cannot find within such theory solutions consistent with experimental data. So there appear the sub-theories and tremendous number of simplifications and free parameters. It is misuse when in front of such sub-theories appears the word “effective”. Just due to the tricks and free parameters, their authors FIT the theoretical results to the experimental data. In reality, such sub-theories explain nothing and my last paper titled “The Root-Mean-Square Charge Radius of Proton” proves that I am right. Just instead the word “effective” in front of the sub-theories of the QTFs there should be the word “dirty”.

For example, effective mass of an atom is not the sum of masses of the components and the effective mass is not an approximation of some mass. To obtain the effective mass we must know how the components interact.

And so on.

You are joking Mister AlphaNumeric.
Whole cosmology described in my book follows from the Type IIB superstring theory. At first you should read the pages 114-115 and next Chapter “New Cosmology”, pages 56-72 and of course the chapter in which I described the phase transitions of the Newtonian spacetime. The last possible phase transition leads to the Type IIB superstring theory that is the foundations of the true cosmology.

The true dualities are described in my theory whereas the mainstream dualities are partially “dirty”.

You indeed are obstinate as a mule. I explained that you are not right and I will not write the same sentences once again.

…but you understand that the mainstream string/M theory that you “understand” does not act correctly? I understand this theory better than you because I modified this theory and now it acts correctly, moreover, it leads to the all basic physical quantities and they are consistent with experimental data.

…and vice versa…. But I proved that I am right whereas you did not. You are a typical mathematician who completely does not understand physics, and this disease is incurable.

AlphaNumeric, you write still the same things in different configurations. You did not describe at least one your own idea. It means that you are boring and boring and boring. On the other hand, I write only about new ideas. In my book (162 pages) and the 4 papers I describe only the new ideas which transform the dirty physics into very simple, efficient and beautiful physics. This means that your way is out of my way.

 

AlphaNumeric, you once again are in an impasse because you do not understand the difference between effective theory and “effective” theory. The inverted commas mean that authors are unable to find an appropriate term. Since there at first appear the simplifications and only then we can find an effective solution consistent with experimental data then there appears the term “effective”, not effective. You do not understand such shades of difference. Just the inverted commas associated with the word effective mean that it is the half-truth.

The previous your big mishaps are as follows.
Do you remember that you proved that you do not understand the difference between mathematics and physics? Just you claimed that we can build physical objects from sizeless/mathematical points.
Do you remember that you did not understand the confinement? Just you were both contrary and pro.

And now you, PhD and English man, do not understand what the word “effective” means. I will prove it! I wrote that effective theory means IN PHYSICS efficient theory whereas you claimed that effective theory means ALWAYS approximate theory.
Do you understand the difference between such terms?
“Effective” theory = effective theory = effective theory,
and
effective theory, on the other hand?
It is obvious that you do not understand the difference so I will clarify it to you.
“Effective” theory = approximate theory,
whereas
effective theory = efficient theory.
My string/M theory is the effective theory whereas, for example, the sub-theories of the QTFs are the “effective” theories.
I can see that you understand nothing, you are unable to notice the differences and you just do not understand physics.
Do you read, for example, the S. Weinberg book “The Quantum Theory of Fields”, Volume II? When the author for the first time writes about the "effective" theories he wrote it as follows:
“effective” theories – see the sub-Chapter 18.5. This means that the author claims that the term “effective” theories, differs from the term effective theories. Many authors who understand the difference refer to the approximate-theories/”effective”-theories the effective theories. They, as well, write: effective Lagrangian instead effective Lagrangian. Only dunces do not see the difference. So once more: The honest and wise authors at least when write the FIRST TIME about the approximate theories they write “effective” theories or effective theories.
Moreover, you wrote that the “effective” theories concern the low energy regime. It is not true as well. I can see that you did not read anything about the “effective” theories since 1979. Since the 1979 year, the “effective” theories concern the higher energies as well. It started just in 1979 – see paper S. Weinberg, Physica 96A, 327 (1979).

So once more: In physics are valid following terms:
effective means efficient,
“effective” or effective means approximate.

Define the sub-theories in which appear the simplifications or/and the mathematical tricks/dodges or/and free parameters as the dirty theories. Then we can write
“effective” theory = dirty theory.

So once more: My string/M theory is the effective/efficient theory whereas the mainstream theory of the asymptotic freedom or QCD, and so on are the “effective” theories = dirty theories.

 

There is one way in which Nature works but calling it M theory is dishonest. 'M theory' is a human defined label for a conceptual model of how the universe may work. As such when you say 'M theory' people think you're referring to the mainstream ideas but you aren't.

You're playing word games. If you don't realise how dishonest it is then you're, quite frankly, stupid. If you do realise then you're even more dishonest.

I don't think you're in any position to be telling anyone anything about the state or details of mainstream models.

So publish a paper which kills M theory within the mainstream. Why are you stuck on an internet forum playing dishonest word games?

I've explained this to you before as well as explicitly said how you're mistaken in your misrepresentation of what string/M theory says. M theory is more fundamental than string theory since it explains string theory. As such string theory is only an approximation, an effective theory of M theory. The physical model M theory has is the use of 2 and 5 dimensional branes, with the strings of string theory being obtained when you roll up the 2-branes into long thin cylinders via compactification of a spatial dimension.

If you can only misrepresent a model you try to dismiss then you're showing how flimsy your argument is. If you had a good argument you wouldn't need to lie.

No, your 'alternative to M theory', not 'your M theory'. You could only call it M theory with any level of honesty if you had a supersymmetric non-perturbative model of 2 and 5 dimensional branes whose low energy limit is 11 dimensional supergravity and the 10 dimensional string theories. To do that you'd need to show you have a model which can recover the supergravity and superstring Lagrangians. That's something you haven't got, as I've asked you numerous times to provide such things. Hell, it is something you don't even understand. As such you don't have M theory, you have something utterly different. Therefore you should call your own bit of work something different. How about S theory, S for Sylwester. For D theory, D for dishonest. Or BS theory?

Then you certainlly don't have M theory because one of the defining properties is the unique 11 dimensional supergravity is a low energy limit of M theory. If you don't have that you should call your work something else.

You're changing the definition of scientific terminology. Do a search in the scientific literature for 'effective theory' and you'll find the term is used in the way I explained to you, not in the manner you use it. As such going around saying "I have an effective model for...." is dishonest of you. The first Google hit is the wiki page. It gives the example of how quantum field theory is viewable as an effective theory of some theory of everything. The theory of everything explains more and a particular simplification of it is an effective theory of it, something which is simpler and explains less. You've using the terminology in the opposite way to standard usage!

If you cannot use terminology properly then you're being dishonest.

In terms of the proper scientific use of the terminology that sentence is self contradictory.

Then you have the Type IIB Lagrangian in your work? You have shown the correct field content? You've shown particular transformation rules consistent with an \(SL(2,\mathbb{R})\) symmetry which undergoes quantisation? No, of course you haven't because you haven't got anything to do with Type IIB string theory in your work. You just decide to label a random bit of your work as 'string theory'.

Ah the "You're just a mathematician! You don't know how to do physics!" and the "You've not shown any of your own work!" attempts at putting me on the back foot. I work as a professional researcher and the vast majority of my work falls under non-disclosure agreements with client organisations. I can, however, say that in the last few years I've done significant things for various multi-national organisations which cover things like quantum mechanics, fluid mechanics, optimisation, video analysis, spectral theory and dynamical networks. Just recently I (me personally, not just the research team I am head of) improved the results of a quantum mechanics problem a huge aerospace organisation have been struggling with for a decade by more than 3 orders of magnitude. Completely novel mathematical work, practically implemented to a real world problem faced by the client. I cannot publish it because of the contract conditions. I get paid to do real mathematics and physics problems and the fact I rose to be head of the research team in under 3 years illustrates I'm pretty capable. If I did as you do, simply lie and misrepresent your work and the work of others, then I'd be fired within a month. Unlike you and the other hacks here real research requires results, you have to be able to stand up to scrutiny, to be able to address any perceived short comings others might see in your work. You fail in every regard.

Besides, do you think even if I were still in the academic community that I'd post my research here? Do you think this is an appropriate place for scientific research to be discussed? Most people here can only pass a high school maths exam, not a university one, so how much use would discussing research level mathematical physics be? When I wanted to get my work to the attention of people who mattered I submitted it to journals and got it published. Posting my publications in this forum would only go over everyone's heads. You might think the pseudo-science section of an internet forum is appropriate for your work but some of us have higher standards.

Simply producing voluminous nonsense doesn't make it right, just look at religion. And your 4 'papers' are not published in a reputable journal. Putting something on a website doesn't make it good or peer reviewed or published. And 162 pages isn't terribly impressive. My thesis was 350+, big wop. Ultimately what matters is the content and yours fails repeatedly.

If you cannot use terminology properly and you say "I have explained M theory!" or "It covers Type IIB string theory!" when your work is utterly different then you're dishonest. Your continued misuse of terminology shows it isn't an accident, you do it deliberately. I asked you before but you ignored me; do you think that this dishonest behaviour is going to make it more likely your work is accepted by the community? Do you think someone working on quantum field theory or string theory will just ignore how you abuse terminology and misrepresent their field of research? If I kept lying about your work would it make you more or less likely to want to work on something I had developed? If you're perceived as dishonest fewer people will take you seriously. Your lies might fool non-scientists but they are obvious to the people you're trying to attract the attention of.

Perhaps you have that thing where someone craves attention, regardless of whether it is good or bad, and thus resorts to telling ever more elaborate lies to try to garner attention from people. The way in which you keep inflating your claims, adding in the asymptotic freedom thing, claiming to explain M theory and now whining about your god not being in science certainly seems to support that possibility. Bad attention is better than no attention?

 

AlphaNumeric, do you indeed assume that readers cannot see that your explanations are nonsensical?

It is obvious that the M-theory is the foundations of the string/M-theory.
The today mainstream string/M-theory is useless. This theory does not lead to the experimental data. It is obvious that the mainstream string/M theory must be radically reformulated because it is the useless theory.

On the other hand, my modified string/M theory is useful i.e. it leads to all basic physical quantities (to the physical constants as well) and they are consistent with experimental data. This theory is without any simplifications, without any mathematical tricks/dodges and without any free parameters.

There are the tangent points for my modified string/M theory and the mainstream string/M theory:
1.
There is one bosonic string theory and four superstrings theories but origin is different.
2.
In both theories is valid the fermion-boson symmetry but origin is different.

Recapitulation
There is only one complete string/M theory and it is my reformulated string/M theory.
The mainstream string/M theory is useless and partially incorrect because the initial conditions are incorrect i.e. the foundations, i.e. the M theory, contain wrong initial conditions. Moreover, today the M-theory is incomplete – all scientists say and write it!
Existence of the 11-D supergravity follows from the incomplete and partially wrong initial conditions.
Existence of the higher spatial dimensions follows from the incomplete and partially wrong initial conditions as well. But here I must add something very important. In my theory the space consists of the pieces of space. They are the gravitationally massless tachyons. They have volume i.e. the inertial mass only. The fundamental closed string consists of the pieces of space so we can say that it looks as if there was in existence the fourth spatial dimension. But it is an illusion because we can describe the fundamental closed string applying the three coordinates only.

Do you still claim that the word “effective” means the same in the term effective theory and effective mass?
Do you still claim that effective still means approximate?
Do you still claim that effective theories concern the low energy only?
So the correct answers are as follows: no, no, no.

You should at first read the scientific books and only then the Wikipedia but in Wikipedia you can find the correct definitions of the term effective as well! But as usually, you are lazy.

When you know that you are not right then you apply still the same trick. Just you compare the different methods applied in the Quantum Theory of Fields and in my Everlasting Theory. It is dishonest because nobody compare, for example, methods applied in the classical theories with the methods applied in the quantum theories.

But for readers most important are following facts.
1.
The complete/general Quantum Theory of Fields does not lead to experimental data. It is because this theory reduces the internal structure of the bare fermions (bosons consist of fermions) to mathematical points. This causes that there are the big swindles: There appear the “effective” theories that we should refer to as the dirty theories because there are the simplifications, mathematical tricks/dodges and free parameters. The big swindles cause that the theoretical results are FITTED to experimental data.

My Everlasting Theory shows that Einstein was right i.e. the quantum theory has statistical interpretation. Moreover, my theory is the most fundamental theory, next the General Theory of Relativity whereas the simple quantum physics follows from both my phase transitions (within the Everlasting Theory) and the Kasner solution (within the General Theory of Relativity). It is the main reason why authors of the Quantum Theory of Fields block my theory. But it will not last for ever. And then there will be the tremendous shame. I write it in many places in Internet because I know that Einstein and I are right. Nature starts from 7 parameters only and on its lowest levels is CLASSICAL. In the today Universe, the simple quantum physics appears on third level of nature not before.

Can you point at least one idea in your thesis that we cannot find in the Wikipedia? Of course, we cannot point. Just your thesis is useless. You cannot present at least one your idea as a solution to at least one of the tens unsolved basic problems in particle physics and cosmology.

 

Why the mathematical theory of infinities is not realized by Nature?

Why the Quantum Theory of Fields (the QTFs) is the dirty theory? I answered this question. It is because within this theory we neglect the internal structure of bare fermions. Since bosons consist of fermions so the QTFs neglects the internal structure of the bare bosons as well. Authors of the QTFs assume that the bare particles are the mathematical points so there appear the infinities (the infinite energies of interactions) and singularities (the infinite densities). It is obvious that Nature cannot behave in such way. Infinities associated with energy of INTERACTIONS are impossible so correct physical theories describing interactions should be free from infinities.

Scientists do not understand the physics of infinities and singularities. They assumed that the mathematical theory of infinities we can without any limitations apply in physics and cosmology so there are many wrong assumptions. In reality, there can be in existence only infinite volume of the nothingness, infinite total volume, energy and mass of space i.e. of the pieces of space in the nothingness and they are eternal. Infinities never concern the interactions. For example, there is the lower and upper limit for range of the gravitational and electromagnetic interactions (see my book), there never time of an interaction can be infinite, there never range of interaction can be infinite. Due to the phase transitions, there never arise singularities, and so on. If in a physical theory appear infinit-y(-ies) associated with interactions then such theory is incomplete and dirty. In such dirty theories, to obtain theoretical results consistent with experimental data must appear simplifications, mathematical tricks/dodges and free parameters.

It is obvious that transformations of infinities associated with interactions into finite physical quantities are possible only due to swindles. If someone assumes that energetic infinity minus energetic infinity is, for example, equal to mass of bare electron then in fact there is assumption that the bare electron is not mathematical point. When next we introduce free parameters then in fact we fit theoretical results to experimental data. Such theory can act correctly because the field normalization Z is typical for many physical quantities, for example, for mass and magnetic moment of an electron. This means that when we use the mass of electron as parameter then we can calculate correct value for the magnetic moment of electron. Feynman was right claiming that due to the renormalization we cannot prove that the QED is a coherent theory. In the QED we “eliminate” the three infinities applying three free parameters i.e. the mass and charge of electron and the field normalization Z.

So once more: We cannot treat the bare fermions and bosons as sizeless points or flexible strings and next simplify such theory, apply the mathematical tricks/dodges and add free parameters. In such way we can prove everything. It is childish game. Such theories are useless because in reality they explain almost nothing. In such way we cannot find the ultimate theory.

 

The fact my work was published and my thesis accepted proves that I did things you cannot just find on Wikipedia. Unlike your work actual research have to stand up to evaluation and if work isn't novel it is rejected and a PhD failed. If I'd changed the meanings of words to misuse standard terminology, in the way you do, I'd never have gotten published, it would have been rejected time and again. See there's this thing called intellectual honesty, it's a concept you are obvious unfamiliar with given your constant attempts to make excuses as to why you are deliberately misleading in how you describe your work and misrepresent the mainstream.

I also notice how you skimmed over the part of my post where I explain how, unlike you, I have solved real world physics problems in a demonstrably way and get paid to do it. What's the matter, doesn't the fact I'm a competent physicist and mathematician fit into your little warped view of the world. Tough.

You cannot use terminology properly, you cannot address criticism of your work, you misrepresent mainstream research and you have to lie to yourself about your detractors. Are you proud of the way you behave? Do you think you're accomplishing anything by doing this? I keep asking you and you keep ignoring about whether you really think you're going to convince mainstream researchers to change to looking at your work if they see you lying about your work and their work? The way you misrepresent work, both yours and others, is obvious to anyone with any physics or mathematics capabilities. As such no matter how many professors you spam email about your work, no matter how many forum posts you make, no matter how many times you modify your 'everlasting theory', no one will work on your ideas.

You are your own worst enemy. The fact you're still whining on forums more than 3 decades after starting this nonsense is testament to that. Unfortunately you do not want to face up to your short comings.

Out of interest, what do you actually do for a living? Your CV mentions how you used to be a teacher (of very young children). How do you pay the bills now? I just struggle to see how someone as consistently dishonest as yourself could hold down any kind of job which requires any sort of cognitive capacity.