Sylwester's 'Everlasting theory'

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

  1. Sylwester Kornowski Neutrinos are nonrelativistic Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    702
    Below is the link to my new paper (5 pages)

    http://vixra.org/abs/1705.0176


    In Theory of Everything Simplicity Does Not Compete with Accuracy


    Abstract
    Can we guess the initial conditions for the Theory of Everything (ToE)? We understand such initial conditions as a set of all parameters, initial symmetries, and initial equations.

    Initial symmetries and initial equations can point possible phase transitions which can lead to additional symmetries and additional equations called here the additional conditions. Such additional conditions result from initial conditions so they do not decrease consistency of theory. On the other hand, appearing anomalies in a theory that cannot be explained within initial and additional conditions, always lead to new/free parameters. Free parameters need ad hoc hypotheses (i.e. some corrections that do not result from initial and additional conditions) which always weaken the theories. Elimination of ad-hoc/free parameters by increasing number of initial conditions causes Occam’s razor to be a determinant of the consistency of theories describing the same phenomena. The Occam’s razor is defined as follows: “Among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected” [1]. It means that consistency of a theory can be defined as the inverse of the number which is the sum of all parameters, initial symmetries and initial equations (the sum of elements of the three different groups of initial conditions). New symmetries and new equations, which in a natural way appear on higher levels of ToE (the Standard Model (SM) and General Relativity (GR) are the higher levels of ToE), if we know the lowest levels of ToE, do not decrease the consistency of the theory.

    Authors of theories add the ad hoc hypotheses to prevent them from being falsified. Such non-scientific method causes that theories become more and more complex so their consistency is lower and lower.

    In physics, naturalness means that the dimensionless ratios between parameters take values of order 1. Parameters varying by many orders of magnitude need so called fine-tuning symmetries. It suggests that fine-tuned theories should be more complex i.e. their consistency should be lower. But Nature shows that it is the vice versa. It leads to conclusion that fine-tuned theories are closer to ToE.

    Here we guessed the initial conditions for ToE, we explained why consistency of presented here ToE is highest and why it is the fine-tuned theory. The consistency factor of presented here ToE is 1/(7+5+4)=0.0625 and it is the highest possible value for ToE-like theories. Consistency factor of SM is much lower so it is the incomplete theory sometimes leading to incorrect results.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Sylwester Kornowski Neutrinos are nonrelativistic Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    702
    Below is the link to my new paper (3 pages)

    http://vixra.org/abs/1705.0202


    The Origin of the Z and W Bosons


    Abstract
    Here, within the Scale-Symmetric Theory (SST), we showed that the Z and W bosons can be created due to two different mechanisms. One mechanism is associated with a transition from electromagnetic interactions to weak interactions of protons with electrons in the presence of dark matter (DM) while the second one concerns a transition from weak interactions of protons to weak interactions of charges of protons, which mimic behaviour of electrons in absence of DM, with muons associated with protons. In the first mechanism, calculated mass of Z is 91.181 GeV whereas of W is 80.428 GeV while in the second mechanism we obtained respectively 91.205 GeV and 80.387 GeV.
    _________________________

    We showed as well that the recent cosmic-ray antiproton data from AMS-02 do not concern dark-matter annihilation.
     
    danshawen likes this.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,942
    SST is a bold new approach to symmetry. Superheavy Higgs gravity. I could live with that. Thank you, Sylwester.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Sylwester Kornowski Neutrinos are nonrelativistic Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    702
    Sorry for a delay. Thank you for your interest in the topic.

    It is very difficult to compare here the Higgs mechanisms described within the Scale-Symmetric Theory (SST) and the Standard Model (SM). There are some similarities and big differences.

    In both theories, the Higgs field is added to a quantum field (in SST, it is the Einstein spacetime (ES) composed of the still undiscovered neutrino-antineutrino pairs - the excited states of ES can behave in a quantum way but its ground state behaves classically). In both theories, the interactions of the Higgs field with the particles the quantum fields consist of cause that the particles acquire their gravitational mass. In SST, the particles have the non-gravitating inertial mass only i.e. they in absence of the Higgs field do not produce the non-gravitating gravitational fields - gravitational fields are the result of interactions of such inertial-only particles with the SST Higgs field. Moreover, without the SST Higgs field, all particles would be unstable.

    In both theories, the Higgs mechanism occurs whenever the quantum fields have a vacuum expectation value (VEV) but in SST, it is two times higher than in SM and concerns only the beginning of the inflation - it means that all gravitational fields were produced during the inflation. Today, “new” masses and their gravitational fields arise only because of local changes in density of the gravitating quantum fields. Why in SST, the VEV is two times higher than in SM? It follows from the fact that spin of following structure (Z + 2W) is unitary so to conserve the spin of the quantum field there must be a pair i.e. 2(Z + 2W) = 504 GeV, not about 246 GeV, or so, as it is in SM.

    In SM, at temperatures the electroweak symmetry is unbroken, all elementary particles are massless (more precise: they do not produce gravitational fields but they have non-gravitating inertial mass). At a critical temperature, the Higgs field becomes tachyonic. The symmetry is spontaneously broken by condensation so the Z and W bosons acquire masses. According to SM, the leptons and quarks acquire mass in a different way than the Z and W gauge bosons.

    In SST, the picture is different. The SST Higgs field is all the time the tachyonic field - it consists of the non-gravitating pieces of space carrying inertial mass only. In SST, the massive Higgs boson (which is an ES condensate so it is not directly associated with Higgs mechanism), charged leptons, quarks, and gauge bosons (they as well are the ES condensates) acquire their masses in the same way i.e. due to local changes in density of the gravitating quantum field (i.e. of the Einstein spacetime - it is due to the quantum entanglement or/and confinement described within SST). Only the neutrinos and binary systems of them acquire their gravitational masses because of the true, classical Higgs mechanism - it is due to the fifth force that follows from smoothness of the SST tachyons the whole Nature is built of (it is very difficult to separate two sheets of glass). In SST, symmetry is broken because of the infinitesimal spin (in comparison with the h-bar) of the SST tachyons.

    I should emphasize that in SM, the masses of the Z and W gauge bosons are the free parameters - we cannot calculate them from the weak coupling constant g, which is the initial parameter in SM, because in definition of g there are as well other quantities (mass and lifetime of muon and physical constants). On the other hand, in SST, masses and lifetimes of the Higgs boson and the Z and W gauge bosons are calculated ab initio.

    As you emphasized, initial symmetries in SST differ very much from the initial symmetries in SM but in SST, the SM symmetries are derived from the SST initial conditions. They are the parity inversion, charge conjugation, time reversal, CP symmetry, CPT, broken symmetry, and so on.
     
  8. Sylwester Kornowski Neutrinos are nonrelativistic Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    702
    Below is the link to my new paper (6 pages)

    http://vixra.org/abs/1705.0332


    The Scale-Symmetric Theory as the Origin of the Standard Model


    Abstract
    Here we showed that the Scale-Symmetric Theory (SST) gives rise to the Standard Model (SM) of particle physics.

    We calculated the SM gauge couplings - we obtained g’ = 0.3576, g = 0.6534 (these two gauge couplings lead to an illusion of electroweak unification), and g(s) = 1.2156 +- 0.0036. We as well described the mechanism that leads to the mass of muon. The other SM parameters we calculated in earlier papers.

    SST is based on 7 parameters only which, contrary to SM, lead also to the 3 masses of neutrinos (they are beyond SM) and to the 4 basic physical constants (i.e. to the reduced Planck constant, to gravitational constant (gravity is beyond SM), to speed of light in “vacuum” and electric charge of electron). We can see that in SST there is 2.7 times less parameters, SST leads to the 19 initial parameters in SM, and SST describes phenomena beyond SM. It leads to conclusion that SST is a more fundamental theory than SM.
     
  9. Sylwester Kornowski Neutrinos are nonrelativistic Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    702
    Below is the link to my new paper (5 pages)

    http://vixra.org/abs/1706.0026


    Illustration of the Emergence of Fundamental Forces


    Abstract
    Here, within the Scale-Symmetric Theory (SST), we illustrate and describe briefly the emergence of fundamental forces.
     
  10. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,942
    Makes perfect sense. Every particle is created pairwise. Why should the Higgs mechanism be any different?

    I had not previously read that the Higgs field was "tachyonic", but this also seems to make sense, but I don't think "tachyon" quite has the meaning it was originally intended. It isn't faster than light; it's actually slower. "Faster", "slower", like any other velocity comparisons, are relative. The invariant speed of light is relative to the invariant inertial frame of rest, which, athough not really unique, is invariant nevertheless. It is defined by ±c, for any inertial frame at rest.

    Minkowski divided by zero to make the speed of light proportional to an instant of time, which is nonsense. A time interval may not be made proportional to an instant of time that is entanglement, the basis of time itself. It does not matter that this instant of time is not actually zero in duration, only that nothing in the universe is faster. "Spacetime" is nonsense. Space is an artifact of time, and there is only energy transfer events and time in this universe.

    If you are a string theorist, feel free to ignore this. Strings never had either energy nor inertia, which means they exist outside of the concept of time, which make them mathematical fiction with no bindings to physical reality whatsoever.

    You're very welcome, Sylwester.
     
  11. Sylwester Kornowski Neutrinos are nonrelativistic Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    702
    Good physics always combines pure mathematics with possible physical/real phenomena. Abstract pure mathematics without real physical phenomena always creates more and more unsolved problems – such a method, that is mathematics detached from physics, does not bring us closer to formulating the Theory of Everything (ToE).

    Spacetime is real and its density must be much higher than density of observed and dark matter because experiments show that the Universe is flat. Even density of dark energy (which is only a very small part of spacetime), which is a spacetime-like medium, is more than two times higher than matter. The experimental problem is why we still cannot detect the constituents of the physical spacetime – this problem is solved within the Scale-Symmetric Theory (SST). I can describe it if you are interested.

    On the other hand, the speed of light in “vacuum” c is wrongly understood. We know that in a gas, less massive molecules are moving faster – the same is in spacetime. But SST shows that only particles moving with speeds slower than the c can acquire their relativistic masses i.e. the c is the upper limit for velocity of particles that can be in the rest. According to SST, the non-gravitating tachyons are superluminal and we cannot detect them directly – the same concerns the superluminal carriers of the quantum entanglement (entanglons). Entanglons are the binary systems of closed strings composed of the non-gravitating tachyons. Both tachyons and entanglons have inertia and energy but the gravitational constant, G, does not concern them. SST is a string theory but the characteristics of such string theory differ radically from the characteristics of the fruitless mainstream string/M theory.

    The unusual properties of the SST tachyons and of the carriers of the quantum entanglement cause that both leading theories, i.e. Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity, are the theories of observer, not of the real Nature. The superluminal entanglons cause that an observer (period of observation is much, much longer that a time needed to exchange an entanglon) can see “simultaneously” different states of a particle – it leads to the probabilities and superposition in Quantum Mechanics. On the other hand, on the right side of the Einstein equations is the c so many physicists assume that it concerns as well the left side i.e. the geometry of spacetime – SST shows that it is a big mistake. Just some components of spacetime (i.e. the tachyons and exchanged entanglons) are superluminal.

    We can define time in different ways but always the definition must refer to some physical phenomenon as it is in SST.
     
    danshawen likes this.
  12. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,942
    I did not know that SST was very much different from M-Theory, which I did not like because I attended a colloquia by Edward Witten when the thing was born. The greatest and most useful theories are not by consensus or mutual agreement, other than with bindings to nature herself as part of the agreement. Bindings to strings that do not have anything to do with energy or inertia as a purely mathematical construct can go nowhere but inconsistency or an incomplete description of nature.

    I think I would agree with everything you have written, especially:

    The basis of time cannot be made proportional to a velocity or a time interval. The instant of time of entanglement is the same throughout the known universe and the quantum field in which it is immersed. The basis of time / entanglement may not be the absolute smallest interval of time possible, but it is much faster than light and in fact, nothing in the universe is faster, so even if it is not identically zero, it still allows you to account for the behavior of entanglement and REAL simultanaeity, something that Minkowsi's forumulation could never do.

    Einstein derived E=mc^2 from a Newtonian consideration of center of mass and a photon emitted and absorbed at the ends of a long spacecraft. This did NOT require a consideration of Minkowski's intervals a flawed interpretation of simultanaiety that was not really simultaneous, or postulating the speed of light to be the basis of time itself.

    The Lorentz transformations are substantially correct in formulation, did NOT require any of Minkowski's intervals, 4D rotation, or inconsistent descriptions of simultanaeity.

    Space and time are not related in the way Minkowski suggested. ALL THREE dimensions of space (not four) are light travel time. Time cannot be separated by means of the speed of light as a proportional relationship with (time interval)/(time instant = 0) as anything but an error, in complex math or any other variety. We know that Minkowski was obsessed with quadratics, possibly infinity too.

    Space is an artifact of time, not a piece of classical greek Euclidean-Pythagorean-complex gobbledegook. Nothing like solid geometry performed in a static rest frame at all. 100% relativistic in nature.
     
    Last edited: Jun 18, 2017
  13. Sylwester Kornowski Neutrinos are nonrelativistic Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    702
    Your considerations are important because you try to find how time distance relates to quantum entanglement. The result of these considerations depends on the initial conditions. We know that the accepted theories do not lead to unique internal structure of spacetime and bare fermions so there is some freedom in choosing the initial conditions. But Theory of Everything (ToE) should be unique so very frequently applied sets of initial conditions in mainstream theories are incomplete and some conditions do not concern our Universe.

    On base of the mainstream theories we can assume that spacetime is grainy or an elastic grid. If grainy then there can be flows. If grainy then there can be two or more vacua. On the other hand, particles can be some entangled states of grainy spacetime. Contrary to the string/M theory, the Scale-Symmetric Theory (SST) is unique so description of time is unique also.

    SST shows that the Special Relativity concerns only excited states (because of the quantum entanglement) of one of the two vacua i.e. concerns the part of spacetime composed of objects moving with the speed of light in “vacuum” c (I call it the Einstein spacetime (ES)). When we consider the entangled states of ES then the distances and times between pairs of events vary when measured in different inertial frames of reference. SR introduces the invariant spacetime interval which combines distances in space and in time. But we know that SR neglects the quantum entanglement.

    What is the correct interpretation of the spacetime interval? SST shows that the Lorentz Transformation (LT) follows from the law of conservation of spin when we assume that the length contraction is not a real phenomenon. Contrary to the length contraction, the invariance of spin in different inertial frames of reference is confirmed directly. It means that SR derived from LT is only some approximation of SR derived from the law of conservation of spin. The SR derived from the law of conservation of spin shows that the time distance in the spacetime interval is associated with the spin speed of a loop moving in direction parallel (or antiparallel) to the half-integral spin of the loop which can be a part of a fermion. Here such loop consists of the entangled ES components so resultant speed of the components must be equal to the invariant c. It leads to conclusion that an increase in spatial speed causes a decrease in spin/time speed. We can see that for resting loop, the spin/time speed is equal to c. Such model leads to the spacetime interval.

    But emphasize that the result depends on whether the loop is entangled or not with observer! Just according to SST, the speed of photons is equal to the c in relation to object with which the photons are entangled (it can be their source or the Michelson-Morley interferometer, and so on). Consider, for example, a spinning loop (composed of entangled ES components) in the rest on the Moon which is entangled with an observer on the Earth. Then time speed is not equal to c. When the loop is entangled with the Moon then the time speed is equal to c.

    You are right that relativity strongly depends on quantum entanglement.
     
  14. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,942
    The law of the conservation of mass / energy E=mc^2 combined with the instantaneous force of entanglement is the ToE, but it only works if Minkowski's determination to divide by zero and make the propagation of light into time is removed.

    The speed of entanglement is known to be faster "slower" than light, and an instant of entanglement "now" is very likely not a time interval of identically zero, but it is not a velocity that can be used in a proportional equation because literally nothing in the universe is faster.

    No. Birgit's entangled version double slit experiment tells you all you need to know about observers, which in the case of that experiment, was a focusing lens. What makes an observer unique is choosing a direction in which to observe. Choosing one of the slits to focus in the double slit is choosing a direction to observe, and the effect on the entanglement of the photon when its twin in the other channel is focused (observed) is instantaneous.

    Recall Minkowski's "simultanaeity" experiments? His events were not really simultaneous, but the choice of direction to observe one of two REAL simultaneous events, such as observing only one of a pair of electrons producing a single entangled photon, will cause the effect of the observer in quantum theory. Observation only means choosing a direction in which to observe.
     
  15. Sylwester Kornowski Neutrinos are nonrelativistic Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    702
    The Scale-Symmetric Theory (SST) shows that due to the phase transitions of the initial inflation field composed of superluminal components, i.e. of the non-gravitating tachyons that carry inertial mass only, there are 5 levels of Nature with different natural speeds of their components. Such model starts from much less initial conditions than the Standard Model and within it I calculated a thousand basic quantities (the physical constants as well) that are consistent or very close to experimental data – it means that my conclusions based on SST are not taken from a ceiling. Components of the inflation field (the Higgs field is a remnant of such field) and quanta responsible for the quantum entanglement are superluminal. The neutrino-antineutrino pairs, i.e. the Einstein-spacetime (ES) components, are moving with the speed c, while the natural speeds of other massive particles/objects are very, very low in comparison with the c. Invariance of c concerns ES only so invariance of c in relation to whole Nature is an incorrect dogma.

    Each observation creates the superluminal entanglement which causes that photons used to observe an object are moving with speed c in relation to the observer. Before such observation, the photons had speed c in relation to the observed object. The change of the inertial frame of reference, due to the quantum entanglement, forces the redshift of the observed photons. Just observation does not mean only choosing a direction in which to observe.

    The result of the double slit experiment for, for example, electrons follows from the fact that electrons behave in a quantum way i.e. they disappear in one place of spacetime and appear in another one, and so on – it leads to the wavefunction. Speed of transition between different places of spacetime is determined by the natural superluminal speed characteristic for quantum entanglement. Speed of the wavefunction of electron cannot be equal or higher than c so when a bare electron passes the two slits, the bare electron appears many times in each slit i.e. the wave function slits into two wavefunctions which interfere.

    The General Relativity and the Quantum Mechanics are the incomplete theories so sometimes considerations within them are very messy.
     
    danshawen likes this.
  16. Sylwester Kornowski Neutrinos are nonrelativistic Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    702
    Below is the link to my new paper (4 pages)

    http://vixra.org/abs/1707.0143


    New Physics Resulting from Far Too Large a Mass Distance between the Doubly Charmed Baryons Xi


    Abstract
    The Standard Model (SM) and experimental data show that the change of the up quark for down quark increases the mass of nucleon by about 1 MeV. On the other hand, SM and experimental results show that the same change in the doubly charmed baryons Xi decreases the mass by about 100 MeV. Within the SM we cannot explain such two major inconsistencies (i.e. 100 MeV instead 1 MeV and the increase-decrease asymmetry) so such problems suggest new physics. To save the SM, some scientists suggest that the first doubly charmed Xi, detected by the SELEX collaboration based at Fermilab, should disappear!

    Here, applying the atom-like structure of baryons that follows from the Scale-Symmetric Theory (SST), we calculated masses and I, J and P of many charmed Xi baryons and masses of the two doubly charmed baryons Xi. Calculated mass of Xi_cc+ is 3519.08 MeV whereas of Xi_cc++ is 3621.90 MeV - the results are consistent with experimental data. The other theoretical masses obtained here are very close to experimental results.

    We present a generalized scheme that is very helpful in calculating masses and other physical quantities that characterize baryons.

    Charmed baryons contain relativistic, positively charged pion in the d = 0 state which mass is 1256.6 MeV - this mass is close to the mass of the charm quark (in SST it is 1267 MeV) so the quark model can mimic presented here the atom-like theory of baryons. On the other hand, relativistic mass of charged kaon in the d = 0 state is 4444.9 MeV so it can mimic the mass of the bottom quark (in SST it is 4190 MeV).
     
  17. Sylwester Kornowski Neutrinos are nonrelativistic Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    702
    Below is the link to my new paper (3 pages)

    http://vixra.org/abs/1708.0217


    Light-By-Light Scattering as a Proof of at Least Incompleteness of the Perturbative Quantum Electrodynamics


    Abstract
    Here, within the Scale-Symmetric Theory (SST), we described the mechanism of the light-by-light scattering and we calculated the cross-section: 76.5 +- 59.5 nb - it is independent of transverse momentum. This result is very close to the ATLAS data. The SST shows that in reality light is scattered on the central condensates in virtual electrons. The maximum width +-59.5 nb follows from a natural phenomenon.

    On the other hand, the calculated within the Standard Model central value (too low) and width (too low) of the cross-section are inconsistent with the ATLAS data.

    We answered as well following question: Why the perturbative Quantum Electrodynamics is at least an incomplete theory?
    ____________________________________

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

    http://vixra.org/abs/1708.0218


    A Quantum Phenomenon that Forces the Extra Energy Shift in Mossbauer Rotor Experiment


    Abstract
    Here, within the Scale-Symmetric Theory (SST), we described a quantum phenomenon that forces a rapid additional increase in the coefficient k which defines the Mossbauer rotor experiment (k increases from 0.5 predicted within the General Theory of Relativity to 0.714).

    The extra energy shift follows from the interactions of photons with virtual charged pairs produced at the cost of the relativistic mass. Production of such pairs results from the atom-like structure of baryons described within SST.

    We as well answered following question: Why are there so many different theories of gravity?
     
  18. Sylwester Kornowski Neutrinos are nonrelativistic Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    702
    Below is the link to my new paper (7 pages)

    http://vixra.org/abs/1711.0324


    Two-Component Spacetime as a Mixture of Non-Locality and Locality: A Conceptual Error about Gravitational Waves, the Different Theories of Gravitation and the Matter-Antimatter Asymmetry


    Abstract
    Theories of gravity are incomplete when we neglect quantum phenomena and the internal structure of spacetime described within the Scale-Symmetric Theory (SST).

    SST shows that the grainy two-component spacetime is a mix of non-locality and locality that leads to a conceptual error about gravitational waves, to different theories of gravitation and to the matter-antimatter asymmetry.

    Within the General Theory of Relativity (GR) we can not justify whether the metric is local or non-local. Here we described a conceptual error in obtaining the local (speed = c = 299,792,458 m/s) wave-like solutions by solving the non-local/superluminal vacuum field equations of general relativity - we express the opinion that non-locality cannot lead directly to locality.

    SST, which is the lacking fundamental part of Theory of Everything, shows that spacetime is a mixture of two fields i.e. of the Higgs field (it is non-gravitating, imaginary, non-local and geodesic/metric) and of the Einstein spacetime (it is gravitating, real, local, dynamical and practically-flat/non-geodesic i.e. the total energy-momentum crossing the hypersurface vanishes).

    Such structure of spacetime causes that there are different theories of gravitation, for example, the GR, which binds the curvature of the non-local Higgs field with the local energy-momentum tensor, the YARK theory, which binds the local Einstein spacetime (ES) with the energy-momentum tensor or the SST which shows the origin of gravitation. Within GR it is easier to describe the non-local phenomena in spacetime (for example, the Kasner solutions describe such phenomena) whereas within YARK theory it is easier to describe the local phenomena in spacetime such as dark energy or “gravitational waves” discovered by LIGO-Virgo Collaborations (which, in reality, are the flows in ES) or the observed energy dependence of gravitational bending which is incomprehensible within the framework of GR.

    SST shows that we should observe the same speed of propagation of both the “gravitational waves” and electromagnetic waves - there should be high correlation between their intensity for active binary systems of neutron stars or neutron “black holes”.

    The matter-antimatter asymmetry follows from infinitesimal imaginary spin of the Higgs-field components so we must use SST to solve the problem.
     

Share This Page