# Sylwester's 'Everlasting theory'

Discussion in 'Alternative Theories' started by Sylwester Kornowski, Oct 5, 2011.

1. ### Sylwester KornowskiNeutrinos are nonrelativisticRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
703
AlphaNumeric, discussion with you is useless and all thinking readers can see it.

I am writing my new paper concerning the basic wrong interpretations in particle physics and cosmology. It will concern following problems:
1.
The formula E = mcc
2.
Redshift
3.
Dark energy and Einstein spacetime
4.
Higgs mechanism and electroweak interactions;
Transition from inertial to gravitational mass
5.
The exiting from inflation
6.
Up and down quarks
7.
Quantum mechanics based on superluminal entanglement and confinement
8.
Simultaneous flatness and curvature of spacetime
9.
Gravity and quantum physics
10.
Gravitational waves
11.
Shape of rotating black holes
12.
The double beta decay
13.
Can neutrinos acquire their masses due to the Higgs mechanism that leads to the sham Higgs boson 125 GeV?
14.
Information
15.
Where is the antimatter?
16.
Is complete unification possible?
17.
Higher dimensions
18.
Dark matter
19.
Oscillations of neutrinos and their “disappearance”

There are much more basic problems in particle physics and cosmology starting from wrong assumptions and containing wrong interpretations. It causes that many mainstream theories are very messy.

Physicists write about phase transitions that break the symmetries but, generally, only in the Lacking Part of ultimate theory, i.e. the Everlasting Theory, there is the comprehensive mathematical description of the possible phase transitions. They lead to the internal structure of the bare fermions, bosons, Einstein spacetime, dark matter and dark energy and lead to the correct Higgs mechanism.

Since AlphaNumeric is dishonest, I will describe above problems after the publication. It will take some two weeks.

Undefined, it is true that the Everlasting Theory leads to the physical constants and hundreds results consistent or very close to experimental data. See my book and 15 papers.

3. ### UndefinedBannedBanned

Messages:
1,695
Hi Sylwester Kornowski.

Thank you for your response. Now, in the continuing interests of impartial observers, we should all await AN, or anyone else who may dispute that, to make their considered response, complete with supporting counter-evidence (if any) to your own.

Good luck and good thinking all. Play nice! Gotta go. Bye for now.

5. ### Sylwester KornowskiNeutrinos are nonrelativisticRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
703
Here

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

you can find my newest paper (16 pages) titled

The Ultimate Picture of Particle Physics and Cosmology

The string/M theory, cosmology, General Theory of Relativity and Quantum Physics are the approximate descriptions of Nature so there appear many incorrect assumptions and wrong interpretations. Here I pointed the limitations for the basic method applied in the Quantum Physics associated with the action of orthogonal groups on column vector representing a spinor. Unification of the 6(7) different interactions is possible only via the theory of succeeding phase transitions and the atom-like structure of baryons described within the Everlasting Theory.

Paragraph 2
There is the geometrical interpretation of the spinors that follows from the succeeding phase transitions of the modified Higgs field described within the Everlasting Theory, from the classification of the Clifford algebras and the double-covers/spin-groups that are the Lie groups.

Paragraph 3
Here I described the Higgs mechanism that shows the transformation from the gravitationally massless volumes to the Principle of Equivalence applied in the General Theory of Relativity.

Paragraph 4
Here I described the Mexican-hat mechanism that leads to the confinement of the Einstein-spacetime components. It leads to the scalar fields applied in the electroweak interactions. The Mexican-hat mechanism concerns both the weak and electromagnetic interactions. It leads to the upper limit of electrons in atoms i.e. 110.

Paragraph 5
Here I calculated the exact values of the free parameters applied in the electroweak theory. The obtained results are perfect. I calculated the masses of the Z and W bosons, the vacuum expectation value and the coupling constant of the electromagnetic interactions for energy equal to the vacuum expectation value.

Paragraph 6
Here I described the hierarchy problem.

Paragraph 7
We cannot define the exact masses of the up and down quarks because in the Standard Model we neglect the existence of the spinor in the centre of baryons and the atom-like structure that follows from the symmetrical decays of some bosons.

Paragraph 8
Theory of relativistic redshift is incorrect so it leads to the shocking conclusion that expansion of our Universe accelerates.

Paragraph 9
Here I described some basic problems.
Why we must apply the orthogonal groups in physics?
Why the zero-spin pions are responsible for the strong interactions?
Why massless gluons and photons have different properties?
Why a gauge of the electric potential and a gauge of the vector potential cannot change electric charge?
Can the dark energy be detected?
Is possible simultaneous flatness and curvature of spacetime?
What is shape of rotating black hole?
Are gravitational waves in existence?
Is the interpretation of the formula E = mcc correct?

Paragraph 10
Here I wrote the most sophisticated column vector (the most sophisticated spinor). From it follows that unification of quantum physics and cosmology is impossible within the mathematical method applied in the quantum physics i.e. the method that follows from the action of orthogonal groups on column vectors (spinors). Such action leads to the famous spin representations. Here I showed the other limitations of the above method that cause that a complete coherent description of Nature is impossible.

We can unify partially all the possible interactions only via the phase transitions (see formula (280) in the Everlasting Theory).

7. ### originHeading towards oblivionValued Senior Member

Messages:
11,098
Sylwester, you should really change your signature and take out "Neutrino speed is 1.00005c > c". It is like you are waving a big red flag and saying, "Pay no attention to anything I write, I am a crank!".

8. ### Sylwester KornowskiNeutrinos are nonrelativisticRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
703
Origin, I have no time for nonsensical discussion you present. At first, you should read my posts. The superluminal neutrinos are produced in the weak interactions INSIDE THE STRONG FIELDS. Such neutrinos were eliminated in the many experiments. But the observational facts concerning the SN 1987 A supernova lead to conclusion that the superluminal neutrinos are in existence.
Your posts prove that you are a dunce.

9. ### originHeading towards oblivionValued Senior Member

Messages:
11,098
Your posts prove you are an idiot living a fantasy and certainly not worth my (or anyone elses) time.

10. ### Sylwester KornowskiNeutrinos are nonrelativisticRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
703
Only idiots do not understand that statements need scientific arguments.
Is there ultimate experiment that proves that superluminal neutrinos cannot be in existence? No, a dunce.

11. ### AlphaNumericFully ionizedRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
6,702
No, I'm afraid it is you who shows that. Let's do a little bit of basic logic here. We have some observation X. Someone puts forward a proposition A which has the property A => X, A implies X. X=>A is not a necessarily implication of this system. This can be seen particularly if we have B which also has the property B => X. Given A=>X and B=>X then X cannot imply one over the other, ie the logical system {X,A=>X,B=>X} does not lead to A : {X,A=>X,B=>X} !=> A

In this case X = SN1987A neutrino data. A is your explanation, B is the mainstream. Both provide an explanation of the data and therefore the data cannot serve as proof of one over the other.

Let's go a bit further. Suppose !B, ie B is false. Now we have the logical system {X,A=>X,B=>X,!B}. Can we conclude A now? No.

Putting that back in context, if we were to concede the mainstream is wrong, !B, that does not make your claims right.

Let's go further still. How might we add a postulate so that the system implies A? Well if we add $A \cup B$ , $!(A \cap B)$, in other words A and B form a disjoint dichotomy, $A \cup B$ says at least one of them is true, $!(A \cap B)$ says they are not simultaneously true. Therefore $\{X,A=>X,B=>X,A \cup B,!(A \cap B)\}$ leads us to conclude that given X either A or B is true. $\{X,A=>X,B=>X,A \cup B,!(A \cap B),!B\}$ says it is A which is true.

Back into context, this means the only way the observation of the SN1987A data can prove your work is right is if you should all possible alternatives are false. That's how the scientific method works, matching experiment doesn't confirm but not matching experiment refutes.

Given how you claimed the neutrino experiments at CERN confirmed your model, which then turned out to be an experimental error, I'd say that refutes your work, !A. Amongst other things.

12. ### Sylwester KornowskiNeutrinos are nonrelativisticRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
703
I know that you are a mathematician. But you neglect that the mainstream explanation leads to a remnant i.e. neutron star whereas my explanation shows that we should not observe such remnant. My result is consistent with the observational facts.

Of course, you can claim that there are very dense matter clouds so we cannot see the neutron star. But today we can see the centre of our Galaxy. So my explanation is more convincing.

It as well is non-logic. I TENS times wrote that generally the neutrinos are moving with the speed of light c. The superluminal neutrinos are produced in the weak decays INSIDE THE STRONG FIELDS. Such neutrinos were eliminated in many, especially in the last, experiments. I know that in the future experiments, in which the superluminal neutrinos will not be eliminated, the superluminal neutrinos will be detected (you know, as the 1.93 predicted within my theory). The time distance between the neutrino and photon fronts observed for the SN 1987A supernova suggests that I can be right.

13. ### Sylwester KornowskiNeutrinos are nonrelativisticRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
703
Here

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

you can find my newest paper (4 pages) titled

The Complete Mass Spectrum of the Higgs Boson with a Mass of 125 GeV

The complete mass spectrum of the Higgs Boson with a mass of 125 GeV consists of five components. The theoretical results are consistent with experimental data.
In the CMS experiment we obtained smaller central value of the mean mass of Higgs boson than in the ATLAS experiment because percentage of decays of one component (126 GeV) of the spectrum was lower.
I calculated as well the possible vacuum expectations values, Weinberg angles, masses of the Z bosons and the coupling constants of the electromagnetic interactions at the VEVs. These theoretical results are consistent with experimental data as well.

14. ### AlphaNumericFully ionizedRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
6,702
I find it funny how you always fall on the slightest discrepancy in any piece of the mainstream and you always predict precisely what the experiments say after the experiments have been done. This retro-active fitting is blatant, given how you supposedly perfectly predicted the neutrino super-luminal speeds at the LHC, only for it to be a mistake at CERN. The mistake was with the wiring of a component, which was a random factor in the measurements. Odd that your work should somehow get the same result as a mistaken experiment with a random error in it. Almost like all you did was "curve fit" to whatever the experiment said, that why you can proclaim you're superior to the mainstream. Upon correction of the error the results have been consistent with the mainstream, showing how all you do is fit to data.

I don't care what your BS interpretation/fabricated narrative is, simply throwing around buzzwords does not a theory make. Funny how you jump on things like the 1987A neutron star (or lack thereof), its neutrino measurements, superluminal neutrinos at CERN or the Higgs search when it seems to suit you, using them as a "Look, look at the error in the mainstream model! Look, I'm more accurate!" but when new data comes to light which results in an altering of the data understanding which goes against you suddenly you start making excuses and it isn't so important.

You whined about the Higgs, it was found. You whined about superluminal neutrinos at CERN, the data was corrected, the mainstream vindicated and you refuted. You whined about superluminal neutrinos from the supernova, the mainstream completely explains them as is. You whine about the neutron star which the supernova may or may not have created, numerous explanations are possible, including some in line with mainstream understanding.

The supernova neutron star "problem" is as yet an open question. There are many phenomena within the mainstream understanding of astrophysics which could explain it, it is not like the mainstream models say "This will create a neutron star which will definitely be visible.". It may say "likely to be visible" but that's an entirely different thing and it is what is driving current observation programs. It may well turn out our understanding of supernova processes is wrong but that doesn't make you right. It's the whole "false dichotomy" thing I mentioned in my previous post, which you obviously didn't understand.

Fundamental problems with your claims have already been pointed out, as far back as the beginning of this thread years ago. You not only do not retort those issues, you clearly do not even understand them, showing you have a fundamental gap in your understanding of the role experiments play in physics and how they are incorporated into model data. You've shown you do not understand the mainstream enough to avoid misrepresenting it when you try to attack it, as seen in the whole conflation of asymptotic freedom and confinement I had to correct you on. I've seen you claim you understand quantum field theory, you do not. And whenever new experiments come to light which contradict you you respin your claims, referring to things like the Higgs as the "sham Higgs" or say that you are right about superluminal neutrinos, we just didn't detect them. This back peddling you have to do is an artefact of the dishonest way you go about things, jumping on new experiments immediately, not having the patience to wait for them to be checked and validated by other experiments before you proclaim your work definitely predicts them as is.

The proof is always just around the corner with you. And when we go around the corner and the evidence is against you you make excuses. Suddenly the "everlasting theory" gets a modification...

15. ### Sylwester KornowskiNeutrinos are nonrelativisticRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
703
As usually you are liar. I never “start making excuses”. I never changed my theory. It is obvious that experimentalists make many mistakes, THEY CHANGE THEIR RESULTS – I never will do it because my correct and complete theory is indeed the lacking part of ultimate theory. It concerns the phase transitions.

It is obvious that the real Higgs mechanism must lead to the Planck energy i.e. energy about 17 powers of ten times greater than the mass of the detected sham Higgs boson 125 GeV. This means that the Higgs mechanism is not DIRECTLY associated with the production of the sham Higgs boson 125 GeV. It is the reason why I refer to such boson as the sham boson.

AlphaNumeric, you proved that you completely do not understand the problems associated with the Higgs mechanism. The real Higgs mechanism shows how gravitationally massless field transforms into gravitational field. I described such mechanism. It was possible ONLY during the inflation. Today, the scalar condensates acquire their gravitational mass due to my confinement that follows from the Mexican-hat mechanism. I described such mechanism as well.

Your sentences prove that you do not understand that there must be in existence some mechanism leading to the upper limit for masses of the scalar particles. Such mechanism is described within the Everlasting Theory. Within the mainstream theories we cannot do it. You should read my papers and the most important mainstream papers. Have you time to do it?

Very funny….Ha, ha, ha….Confinement….Do you remember that you were both contrary and pro? Should I cite you once more? You wrote the nonsensical posts about the confinement – I proved it.

On the other hand, you can find in my papers the description of the Mexican-hat mechanism that shows origin of the confinement and I calculated the range of the confinement for the Einstein-spacetime components – it leads, for example, to the complete mass spectrum of the sham Higgs boson 125 GeV.

You and others completely do not understand the confinement because it is directly associated with the internal structure of the Einstein-spacetime components and depends on how it interacts with the modified Higgs field – it follows directly from the phase transitions described within the Everlasting Theory that I described in 1997.

The experimentalists associated with MINOS and OPERA changed their results at once after the attack. They changed the applied methods. I claim that they once more will change the conclusions. Just SOME NEUTRINOS ARE SUPERLUMINAL.

Your sentences are non-logic. You wrote something like this: The mainstream interpretation of the SN 1987A facts can be incorrect but then scientists will change it and then it will be correct whereas my interpretation never will be correct. It is beautiful hypocrisy.

I claim that some next supernova explosion will show that the time-distance between the neutrino and photon fronts is directly proportional to distance. It will prove that I am right. Then, experimentalists will correctly plan the neutrino experiments. They will select the neutrinos that appear in the weak decays inside the baryons. Such neutrinos appeared in the first MINOS and OPERA experiments. Next, there were the experiments in which the superluminal neutrinos were totally eliminated.

I never will reject from my book the Chapter concerning the superluminal neutrinos because I know that I am right. You know, the SAME FORMULA leads to the central values obtained in the first MINOS and OPERA experiments and in the supernova SN 1987A observation.

Emphasize, the same formula leads to the three central values. A coincidence? No!

You still write the untrue.
All my posts are correct. You are unable to show some mistakes so you write the nonsensical posts. My correct knowledge follows from the Everlasting Theory. It is based on following foundations.
The lacking part of ultimate 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 (tachyons). The phase transitions follow from the saturated interactions of the tachyons and lead to the superluminal binary systems of closed strings (entanglons) 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 (protoworlds) 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 spinor/core of baryons. It leads to the Titius-Bode law for the strong interactions i.e. to the atom-like structure of baryons. The two first phase transitions are associated with the Higgs mechanism that leads from the modified non-gravitational Higgs field to the Principle of Equivalence and the initial conditions applied in the General Theory of Relativity (GR). The three first phase transitions concern the particle physics whereas the structure and evolution of the most sophisticated spinor, i.e. the cosmic spinor/object, defined by the four phase transitions leads to the new cosmology.

The mainstream QCD has one fundamental weak point that suggests that this theory is partially incorrect. Just since 1964 scientists cannot calculate the fundamental masses, i.e. masses of proton and neutron, from initial conditions. Why? The Everlasting Theory shows that the mainstream QCD is totally wrong at very low energies. And it will be forever if scientists will neglect the lacking part of ultimate theory i.e. the phase transitions described within the Everlasting Theory.

You were and you are big liar. I never modified my theory. The succeeding papers (the book plus the 18 papers) follow from the phase transitions of the modified Higgs field (the Newtonian spacetime) that is in my short book published in 1997. I never make excuses because my theory is indeed the lacking part of ultimate theory.

You once more proved that you are dishonest and you are liar. I have no time for nonsensical discussion. If you still will write the nonsensical posts then I will cite once more and once more what you wrote about confinement, asymptotic freedom and so on. Then once more all will see who is a dunce. You know, many PhD are dunces. They have no time to read the important articles. You proved many times that you as well have no time to read such articles.

You are a permanent liar so you should be banned. You write the stupid sentences without any justifications. You cannot prove that you are right. Can you?

AlphaNumeric, your posts are such messy as a few mainstream theories, for example, the QCD at very low energy i.e. the quarks up…down, up….down, up….down and it will be the end i.e. the “down”. It is incredible that they do not change the QCD within which we cannot calculate fundamental masses from the initial conditions. The needed changes you can find in my theory – just the phase transitions.

16. ### Sylwester KornowskiNeutrinos are nonrelativisticRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
703
Here

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

you can find my newest paper (8 pages) titled

General Relativity in Quantum Physics and Chaos Theory

The abstract is as follows.
The Kasner solutions of the Einstein equations within the General Relativity, i.e. (0, 0, 1) and (2/3, 2/3, -1/3), concern the gravitationally massless superluminal entanglement of the Einstein-spacetime components. For entanglement are responsible the superluminal zero-helicity vector particles/entanglons. The new interpretation of the Einstein formula E = mcc leads to conclusion that Nature using the matter, i.e. the Einstein-spacetime components, “copies” the non-gravitational objects in bigger scales so there appear the cores of baryons, electrons and new cosmology. In such phase transitions appear the spinors applied in the Quantum Physics. The entanglons appeared during the inflation in the first phase transition of the modified Higgs field and both fields, i.e. the modified Higgs field and the field composed of the exchanged entanglons in some structure satisfy all initial conditions for the Kasner solutions. The Kasner solutions define many properties of the spinors. The Kasner solution (0, 0, 1) describes spinning loop composed of the exchanged entanglons that entangle the Einstein-spacetime components whereas the generalized Kasner solution (2/3, 2/3, -1/3) describes binary system of tori composed of the exchanged entanglons. The two tori have parallel spins and the directions of spin overlap but their internal helicities are opposite. We can partially unify the gravity and quantum physics via the Kasner solutions. The basic mathematical method applied in Quantum Physics, i.e. the action of some orthogonal groups on column vector that leads to the spin representations, is some generalization of action of matrix of rotation of a circle around the z-axis on circle on xy plane defined parametrically and written as a column – such action leads to the parametric equations for torus. The Kasner solutions as well lead to the holography. The symmetrical decays of multi-loops lead to the Theory of Chaos.

The book and the 18 papers it is now 274 pages. The last page looks as follows.

A. Ultimate Conclusions

It is obvious that Quantum Physics (QP) and Freewill must have classical and statistically deterministic interpretation. Just A. Einstein was right. So the most important question is as follows: Why we cannot observe/detect the phenomena associated with the classical and statistically deterministic interpretation of QP and Freewill? And the answer follows from the lacking part of ultimate theory i.e. follows from the Everlasting Theory, especially from the phase transitions of the modified Higgs field. Just the first phase transition leads to the superluminal gravitationally massless objects (entanglons). The Einstein-spacetime (Es) components consist of such objects and entanglons are exchanged so there appears the superluminal entanglement of the smallest gravitational bricks i.e. the Es components. Such gravitationally massless superluminal entanglement can carry the massless photons between the Es components but the resultant speed of the photons cannot be higher than the speed of the Es components i.e. must be equal to the speed of light c. It follows from the fact that the photons are the rotational energies of the Es components whereas the period when they are carried by the entanglons is infinitesimally small in comparison with the period when they are the rotational energies of the Es components.
The entanglons, due to their properties, cannot be detected similarly as photons but their spin is unitary i.e. the exchanges of entanglons change spin of objects that exchange the entanglon. It is the reason that in the QP appears the Uncertainty Principle. It is the reason that we cannot solve within QP exactly the equations dependent on time. We must apply new methods to fully understand the QP. The new methods lead to spatial and time-independent distributions of mass/energy density (density of Lagrangian). And the theory of tori, the Kasner solutions and the phase transitions described within the Everlasting Theory show how such new methods should look.
The General Relativity (GR) is the more fundamental theory than QP. Applying the Kasner solutions within the GR, we can describe many properties of the spinors applied in the QP but not all. The lacking part is in the Everlasting Theory.
Freewill follows from the fact that some defined energy can create many different distributions of matter each in the same energetic state. Such situation is, for example, in many-electron states in atoms. Some energy, using the senses, can create simultaneously different distribution states carrying the same energy. The choice of one defined distribution state follows from interactions of the different distribution states with a mind. The choice follows from the state of the mind (it depends on time) and the choice is due to some increase in entropy of the environment. Using other words, since the global symmetry of our Cosmos must be conserved so due to the produced entangled loops composed of the Es components, the antichoices are coded on surface of our Cosmos.
The fundamental phenomena are as follows. The global symmetry must be conserved and since the tachyons are moving and rotating so produced closed strings have spin and internal helicity. To obtain zero-internal-helicity objects, there must be two closed strings with parallel spins and opposite internal helicities. To obtain zero-spin objects, there must be two binary systems with antiparallel spins i.e. four closed strings. Nature using matter, i.e. the Es components, “copies” such objects at bigger scales (they are quantized). It concerns the choice-antichoice pairs as well. The choice can be bound whereas the antichoice, due to the Kasner solution, can be coded on surface of our Cosmos.

17. ### Sylwester KornowskiNeutrinos are nonrelativisticRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
703
The speed of light in vacuum c is not the upper limit for speed. It is the upper limit for speed in the gravitational/Principle-of-Equivalence World described within the General Relativity. It concerns the particles composed of the Einstein-spacetime components.

In reality, the c, due to the weak interactions, can be a little broadened and it is the “boundary” that separates the gravitationally massless World from the Principle-of-Equivalence World. The formula for the gravitationally massless World can be derived within the General Relativity and shows that such World is non-local i.e. such World leads to the Quantum Physics. Emphasize once more that the General Relativity leads to the Quantum Physics i.e. the GR is more fundamental theory than the QP.

The Kasner solutions concern the non-Principle-of-Equivalence World and the “boundary”.

On the other hand, the succeeding phase transitions described within the Everlasting Theory describe the internal structure of the superluminal objects, luminal objects and the subluminal bare particles.

Due to the superluminal entanglons, there can be created ghostly loops in the ground state of the Einstein spacetime (the Goldstone bosons?). The ghostly loops can create entangled systems/solitons/thoughts that if unbounded can, due to the superluminal entanglons, “expand” (in reality, there expand only the distributions of the entanglons using the Einstein spacetime) and reach the size of our Cosmos – it is the cosmic holography. Such expansion is superluminal but it cannot carry energetic information (for example photons). Such “big” thoughts could be red by mind that fills whole our Cosmos, of course, if such mind exists (God).

18. ### Sylwester KornowskiNeutrinos are nonrelativisticRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
703
Here

http://www.rxiv.org/pdf/1310.0094v1.pdf

you can find my newest paper (7 pages) titled:

The Different Sequels to the Higgs Mechanism”.

I present the different sequels to the classical Higgs mechanism described within the Everlasting Theory. I calculated the mass of the ground-state Higgs boson and masses of the sham Higgs bosons produced in the nucleon-nucleon collisions. The size of the ground-state Higgs boson separates the superluminal gravitationally massless World from the subluminal Principle-of-Equivalence World. The both Worlds we can describe within the phase transitions of the modified Higgs field. Also within the General Relativity it is possible to describe the both Worlds. On base of the Everlasting Theory I formulated the ultimate conclusions.

19. ### Sylwester KornowskiNeutrinos are nonrelativisticRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
703
Higgs mechanism

There are the three long-distance interactions:
1.
Gravity: It is invisible since the superluminal carriers have not gravitational mass. Gravitational “fields” are the gradients produced by masses in the gravitationally massless “field”/perfect-gas i.e. in the Higgs field (Newtonian spacetime).
2.
Entanglement: It is due to the only exchanged the invisible, gravitationally massless and superluminal binary systems of closed strings. It leads to the non-local but real quantum mechanics. With this interaction is not associated a spacetime.
3.
Electromagnetism: It is due to the photons and electron-positron pairs produced in the Einstein spacetime that components ALREADY have gravitational mass. It is the real spacetime, it is the real field.

In reality, the truthful Higgs mechanism should show how the gravitationally massless Newtonian spacetime transforms into the Principle-of-Equivalence Einstein spacetime.

The Standard-Model (SM) Higgs mechanism is NOT the truthful Higgs mechanism. The SM Higgs mechanism describes how are produced the condensates from the Einstein-spacetime components that already have the gravitational mass. Such condensates appear due to the Mexican-hat mechanism (confinement) characteristic for the Einstein-spacetime components. There increases the local mass density of the Einstein spacetime i.e. there appear the SM Higgs bosons (the sham Higgs bosons) that are not the truthful Higgs bosons. The discovered Higgs boson 125 GeV is the sham Higgs boson.

There are needed the additional conditions to show why masses of the sham Higgs bosons are quantized.

So once more: The SM Higgs mechanism shows how condensates/sham-Higgs-bosons are produced from the Einstein-spacetime components THAT ALREADY HAVE GRAVITATIONAL MASS. It is not the truthful Higgs mechanism which is described within the Everlasting Theory. It is the reason that in the sham SM Higgs mechanism there appears the vacuum expectation value (VEV) that according to the Einstein formula E = mcc is associated already with the expectation mass. Just without the VEV the SM Higgs mechanism does not lead to the massless photon and the three gauge bosons W(+,-) and Z.

Recapitulation
The 2013 Nobel Prize is for the (sham) SM Higgs mechanism (this mechanism is indeed realized by Nature and leads to the sham Higgs boson 125 GeV) but it is not the truthful Higgs mechanism that transforms the gravitationally massless Newtonian spacetime into the Principle-of-Equivalence Einstein spacetime - such mechanism was realized during the inflation and today is impossible. Such mechanism leads to the Planck critical energy and to the internal structure of the Einstein-spacetime components.

We cannot unify the Gravity with Quantum Mechanics because methods needed to describe the excited states of the Newtonian spacetime and the Einstein spacetime differ very much. The gravity is associated with the inverse square law whereas quantum mechanics with the number e=2.718…introduced by Euler in 1736. Origin of such difference is described within the Everlasting Theory.

Existence of quantum mechanics follows from following mathematical formula:
e^iπ + 1 = -1 + 1 = 0. But it is the new story.

20. ### Sylwester KornowskiNeutrinos are nonrelativisticRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
703
Here

http://vixra.org/pdf/1304.0081v4.pdf

you can find the extended version (6 pages) of the previous paper [12].
The new title is

Derivation of the Pauli Exclusion Principle and Meaning Simplification of the Dirac Theory of the Hydrogen Atom”.

I added new paragraph in which I formulated the very simple semiclassical analog to the Dirac and Sommerfeld theories of the hydrogen atom. The constancy of the base of the natural logarithm for the quantum fields is the reason that the three theories are equivalent.

The inverse square law is typical for interactions of the gravitational masses with the modified Higgs field whereas distribution of the virtual particle-antiparticle pairs in the quantum fields describes the exponential function where the base is the base of the natural logarithm e = 2.7182818... I described origin of this number in physics. Due to the essential differences in the interactions we cannot unify the gravity with quantum physics.

21. ### Sylwester KornowskiNeutrinos are nonrelativisticRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
703
Here

http://www.rxiv.org/pdf/1311.0050v1.pdf

you can find my paper (8 pages) titled:

The Big Answers in Cosmology and Particle Physics

Abstract: Here, on base of the lacking part of ultimate theory i.e. the Everlasting Theory, I answered the big questions that cannot be answered within the mainstream theories. What is origin of the dark matter and dark energy? What is the cause of the exit of our Universe from the black-hole state? What is origin of the VEVs (the vacuum expectation values)? Can we show physical meaning of the mathematical analogy between the real Higgs mechanism and the electroweak theory? Can we prove that the mainstream electroweak theory and the real Higgs mechanism are the parts of the Everlasting Theory? Why renormalization does not act in the General Relativity? What is origin of the “spontaneously” broken symmetries? Why equations can be symmetrical whereas their solutions are not? Why all energies are so low in comparison with the Planck energy? Why the string/M theory is useless? What is origin of the physical constants and mathematical constants applied in physics? All these questions can be answered within the phase transitions of the fundamental spacetime.

Moreover, here

http://www.rxiv.org/pdf/1304.0081v6.pdf

I added in the paper “Derivation of the Pauli Exclusion Principle” new Chapter “Meaning Simplification of the Dirac Theory of the Hydrogen Atom”. The additional abstract is as follows.

Abstract: I formulated the very simple semiclassical analog to the Dirac and Sommerfeld theories of the hydrogen atom. The constancy of the base of the natural logarithm for the quantum fields is the reason that the three theories are equivalent.

Renormalization
My theory is based on the phase transitions of the fundamental spacetime. It causes that we can eliminate the renormalization so my theory is mathematically very simple and gives much better results than the mainstream theories and shows origin of the physical and mathematical constants applied in physics.

To renormalize any theory we eliminate the infinite terms by introducing the counterterms. Each such counterterm is the product of a constant and infinite term. When number of such counterterms is finite then we say that theory is renormalized. The product of the substraction is the renormalization mass. To obtain the observable mass we add to the renormalization mass the bare mass of particle. Within a renormalized perturbation theory we cannot calculate the bare mass of a particle so the observable mass is the free parameter taken from experiment. Now we can calculate the bare mass. Within such theory we can calculate other physical quantities, for example, magnetic moments. But what is the weak point of the renormalized perturbation theories?

Such theories say nothing about the internal structure of the bare particles. Just the infinite counterterms concern the region OCCUPIED by a bare particle. On the other hand, the phase transitions described within the Everlasting Theory DIRECTLY lead to the internal structure of the bare particles so in the Everlasting Theory renormalization is NOT NEEDED. It causes that the Everlasting Theory is mathematically very simple and there are not needed the FREE PARAMETERS. For example, the observable mass of electron is calculated within the Everlasting Theory. It is 0.510998906 MeV (see my book, formulae (18) – it is the bare mass, and (69) – it leads to the observable mass of electron).

22. ### Sylwester KornowskiNeutrinos are nonrelativisticRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
703
For a half of century there is assumed that masses of protons and neutrons follow from the relativistic masses of three valence quarks. But within such model we cannot calculate exact masses, magnetic moments and spins of the nucleons (for 50 years!)! And we teach this nonsense in universities. Of course, there are produced the quark-antiquark pairs but they appear only in the descriptions of interactions.

There were the superluminal neutrinos and then they disappeared….

There was the excess in Higgs decays to photons and then it disappeared, and so on….

Is such “physics” credible? Is there an end of honest particle physics?

Why the theories that were formulated after the World War II are such messy i.e. why theoretical physicists to fit their theoretical results to very frequently changing experimental data apply many approximations, many mathematical tricks and many free parameters? Who is responsible for such reality in the today scientific journals? The answer is very simple. There are three or four following reasons:
1.
The separation of the classical and quantum descriptions is a science fiction - in reality, Nature is the inseparable mixture of classical and quantum structures and it concerns a single particle as well.
2.
Assumption that there is only one definition of time for quantum effects or classical effects is wrong - in reality, different components of a particle “produce” simultaneously different definitions of time. The same concerns the creations and annihilations of pairs.
3.
It is not true that spacetime is continuous - I have written it in Internet since 2006.
4.
Corruption?

23. ### Beer w/StrawTranscendental Ignorance!Valued Senior Member

Messages:
5,745
OK. Do you still maintain these assertions from the OP?

I got that far and stopped.