Neutrino Speed

[Sylwester Kornowski]

You obviously failed to understand anything I've said.

The value 0.1139 depends on the Standard Model. You cannot simultaneously say "The SM is nonsense" and "My model predicts the right value of $$\alpha_{S}$$, 0.1139!". The former means the value 0.1139 is not somehow a model-less physical parameter.

Until you can demonstrate 0.1139 is the value consistent with raw experimental data using your model your endless repetition will get you nowhere. You've had years to address and consider this and you've failed.

As I explained in my thread ‘Sylwester’s Everlasting Theory’ in the Section ‘Alternative Theories’, the renewable/quantum particles as electron, muons, shame quarks, and so on, arise as the photon or gluon loops with spin 1, then transform into torus-antitorus pairs and next into balls. My NON-PERTURBATIVE Everlasting Theory concerns the photon and gluon loops, tori and partially the balls whereas the PERTURBATIVE mainstream theories are associated with the ball stadium. The non-perturbative stadium lasts 2*pi times longer than the perturbative stadium.

Recapitulation
You cannot compare the non-perturbative stadium with the perturbative stadium because they are not the descriptions of the same phenomena. The non-perturbative stadium is the FUNDAMENTAL COMPLEMENT OF THE PERTURBATIVE STADIUM. My Everlasting Theory is not an alternative theory for the Standard Model but just the complement. This means that my theory should return to this Section. We can see also that comparing the math applied in the non-perturbative stadium with the perturbative stadium has no sense. We can also see that the more fundamental part of the SM and Gravity, i.e. my Everlasting Theory, shows which interpretations in the SM and Gravity are incorrect.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

You provide no calculations, only assertions. Until you demonstrate your model applied to raw experimental data comes up with $$\alpha_{S}$$ as you claim you're just rewording "Because I say so!!" again and again.

Have fun!

 

[Sylwester Kornowski]

You provide no calculations, only assertions. Until you demonstrate your model applied to raw experimental data comes up with $$\alpha_{S}$$ as you claim you're just rewording "Because I say so!!" again and again.

Have fun!

You are indeed joking. So where the 241 formulae in my non-perturbative Everlasting Theory come from? That is obvious that I calculated the hundreds theoretical results consistent with experimental data (the running couplings also) from the initial conditions (7 parameters only).

that you are wrong.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

You are indeed joking. So where the 241 formulae in my non-perturbative Everlasting Theory come from? That is obvious that I calculated the hundreds theoretical results consistent with experimental data (the running couplings also) from the initial conditions (7 parameters only).

You continue to fail to grasp my point. The coupling values are dependent upon the SM. You don't measure them directly, you infer them via a model. The values published in journals which you claim to match are inferred using the SM. You cannot simultaneously claim to match them and the SM is wrong. It is inconsistent.

I've had enough of this Sylwester. This thread started as a discussion about neutrinos and now it's about your nonsense. Consider this a warning, no further discussion of your nonsense is allowed in this forum. Keep it to the alternative theories subforum or pseudoscience. Until you can address my comments and get your work passed peer review it has no place in this forum. Ever. Prom's given you a warning for spamming it, so clearly he is of a similar view. I was going to let you off with a verbal warning, so as to show I'm not being vindictive but I'm also not going to reverse Prom's decision.

Next time it's a red card.

 

[Sylwester Kornowski]

All can see that in this post is nothing about my theory.

I wrote that the Yang-Mills theory is correct whereas the quark theory, the SM and Gravity are incomplete or partially incorrect. What is the proof?
1.
We cannot calculate from experimental data the exact mass of the up and down quarks so the QCD is incomplete. This is not a result of too low power of computers. Nature does not need computers to know how it should behave. So once more: AlphaNumeric claims that the INCOMPLETE THEORY (i.e. the QCD) leads to correct results but it is obvious that we cannot calculate exact mass and magnetic moments of nucleons, i.e. the fundamental physical properties, from the masses of the nucleon components i.e. from the mass of the up and down quarks because their exact mass is unknown. Decades go by and we still do not know the exact masses of the parameters in the SM! How long will it last? Forever? Should we formulate a non-perturbative theory to discover the mistake?
2.
The last data concerning the neutrino speed at least show that the SM and Gravity are the incomplete theories. If we within ONE COHERENT MODEL will describe the all data concerning the neutrino speeds (i.e. the MINOS and OPERA experiments and the data concerning the supernova SN 1987A) then we also should discover the mistake in the SM?

I must emphasize once more that in this post is nothing about my theory. I write it to protect myself from the unfair double-dealing of AlphaNumeric.

What a shame that I cannot present here the readers my ideas solving the above described problems.

 

[Sylwester Kornowski]

I decided to write more about the SM to show the origin of the mistake. The perturbative theories as the QED and QCD assume that there is the point bare particle which emits and absorbs respectively the photons and gluons. The photons create the electron-positron pairs whereas the gluons the quark-antiquark pairs. Then they annihilate. We can see that there appear the diagrams. But both theories say nothing about the internal structure of the Einstein spacetime which is the scenario for these two theories. There is also unsolved problem how point particles can emit and absorb anything. This suggests that in reality the point particles are not the point particles. The Feynman QED has no problem to predict experimental data whereas the QCD does not lead to the EXACT MASS of the up and down quarks so also to the properties of particles composed of these quarks. Why? The answer is simple that this must follows from the fact that we neglected the internal structure of the Einstein spacetime. The QED has not problems because all photons in the Einstein spacetime behave the same. This is because the Einstein spacetime has not internal helicity. But the unsolved problems within the QCD show that in both theories we neglect some stadium of the description of the creations and annihilations of the quantum particles. Because the results obtained within the QED are ALMOST consistent with experimental data then the lacking part of the description of the creations and annihilations of the quantum particles must lead to the same results. Why? This is because there is THE SAME CATALYST FOR THE BOTH STADIUMS i.e. the Einstein spacetime.
At the beginning, there was assumed, Leonard Susskind did it, that for the strong interactions are responsible the loops. We can see that we can assume that the pairs of particles (i.e. the electron-positron pairs and the quark-antiquark pairs) arise as the respectively photon or gluon loops with spin equal to 1, which after the period of spinning collapse to the photon or gluon balls. We can see that the perturbative theories are associated with the photon or gluon balls. We can see that we neglect the loop stadium. The loop stadium is the STABLE stadium for the period of spinning. This means that this stadium we can describe via a non-perturbative theory. This non-perturbative stadium is very important in the QCD because the loops have internal helicity similarly as the gluons. This is the essence of the strong interactions which should lead to new phenomena inside baryons. Such phenomena are not important in the QED because the Einstein spacetime and the electromagnetic field have not some internal helicity. The non-perturbative stadium in the baryons leads to the mass of the up and down quarks. Such masses should differ very much from the INTERVALS obtained within the perturbative stadium because, as shows the QED, this stadium cannot lead to a stable structure outside the gluon balls.
Why the perturbative theories concern the collapses to the photon and gluon balls? This is because such collapses are some analogy to the collapses of the supernovae to the neutron core and next, their explosions. We can see that the repeating processes are the absorptions and emissions of the photons or gluons.

This is the prelude to my theory but all can see that in this post is nothing about my theory.

We can assume also that the neutrino speeds higher than the c should be associated with the non-perturbative stadium inside baryons. This is obvious that the coupling constants for the weak interactions of the muons, pions and W bosons differ. This means that on the neutrinos in the weak decays act different forces. Then, from the Newtonian mechanics follows that they should move with different speeds. These speeds should depend on the lifetimes of the particles interacting weakly with the INTERIOR OF THE NON-PERTURBATIVE STRUCTURE OF THE BARYONS.

 

[prometheus]

Sylwester: I'm within a gnats whisker of moving this thread, but I will ask you about these two statements you made first.

I wrote that the Yang-Mills theory is correct whereas the quark theory, the SM and Gravity are incomplete or partially incorrect.

Please tell me what Yang-Mills theory is, and what the difference is between Yang-Mills and other theories you mention, like QED, QCD and the standard model?

The perturbative theories as the QED and QCD assume that there is the point bare particle which emits and absorbs respectively the photons and gluons.

Why do you say that QCD is perturbative? What regime is it perturbative in, and what would have to happen to make it non perturbative (I am not asking for an overview of your theory here, just the standard QCD viewpoint.)

 

[Sylwester Kornowski]

Sylwester: I'm within a gnats whisker of moving this thread, but I will ask you about these two statements you made first.

Please tell me what Yang-Mills theory is, and what the difference is between Yang-Mills and other theories you mention, like QED, QCD and the standard model?

The mainstream description is partially incorrect but the Yang-Mills Theory is correct. Yang-Mills Theory is a gauge theory. This field is massless i.e. consists of the photons and gluons, i.e. the rotational energies (so massless) of the Einstein spacetime components. Massless gluons transform into massless photons outside the strong field so gluons are not the long-distance particles. This is due to the internal helicities/colours of the strong field and the carriers of gluons and photons. The collapses of the quark-antiquark pairs (they consists of the gluons) into the gluon balls cause the local mass densities (inside the gluon balls) are higher than the mean mass density of the Einstein spacetime. There appear the masses composed of the carriers of gluons. We can see that the particles acquire mass through symmetry breaking in the massless fields. Due to the coupling constants for the weak interactions, the masses are equal to the masses of the W and Z bosons (the very simple calculations are in my theory).
There is no proof that QCD confines at low energy. From my description follows that there is not a confinement but my QCD ‘confines’ for low energies due to the internal helicities of the strong field and the carriers of gluons and photons. Simply, outside the strong field we can neglect the internal helicities (colours) so the gluons behave as photons. We can say that it is due to the properties of the carriers of gluons and photons i.e. due to the mass of the Einstein spacetime components. My theory shows that the Yang-Mills theory has the mass gap. For this is the US$ 1,000,000 Prize.

Why do you say that QCD is perturbative? What regime is it perturbative in, and what would have to happen to make it non perturbative (I am not asking for an overview of your theory here, just the standard QCD viewpoint.)

We can apply the perturbative QCD for very high energies or for the short-distance interactions in the gluon balls which appear due to the collapses of the quark-antiquark pairs. This is because then the strong-weak coupling constant is (in my theory but also in the QCD) small. Due to the very stable core inside baryons composed from the Einstein spacetime components and the collapses of the quarks-antiquarks pairs, the perturbative and non-perturbative stadiums exist simultaneously all the time. The number of the collapses per unit of time increases when energy increases. This means that the non-perturbative stadium is obligatory for all energies whereas the perturbative stadium should have big problems for low energies.

 

[Sylwester Kornowski]

So this is end of my teachings on SciForums.

You act like The Inquisition (The Holy Office).

Sincerely

Sylwester Kornowski

 

[prometheus]

You are more than welcome to continue posting on a more appropriate subforum.

 

[origin]

So this is end of my teachings on SciForums.

You act like The Inquisition (The Holy Office).

Sincerely

Sylwester Kornowski

No one expects the Spanish Inquisition!

 

[Ophiolite]

What is their main weapon?

 

[Sylwester Kornowski]

You are more than welcome to continue posting on a more appropriate subforum.

Prometheus, when you moved this thread from the Physics&Math Forum to this subforum, it looked for me as the banishment. Then, I read the criteria for threads in the Alternative Theories forum and I see that they do not confute my theory.
All can see that my Everlasting Theory, within one coherent model, leads to the all known experimental data concerning neutrino speed. The theoretical results are consistent with the MINOS and OPERA experiments and the observational facts concerning the supernova SN 1987A explosion. This is not a chance.
Moreover, I wrote that inside baryons are simultaneously two types of phenomena. The atom-like structure of the baryons we can describe applying the nonperturbative ET whereas the collapses of the quarks into the gluon balls and next their explosions applying the perturbative QCD. It looks as the absorptions and emissions of the gluons by the gluon balls. The perturbative QCD is correct for very high energies whereas the Titius-Bode orbits for the strong interactions are destroyed for the high-energy collisions.

This means that to ‘see’ in experiments the atom-like structure of baryons via the methods applied in the perturbative QCD, we must apply the medium energies. The signals should be very weak and should disappear for very high energies as in the LHC experiments. We should seek untypical signals. For example, the SLD experiment (SLAC Large Detector) indirectly leads to the atom-like structure of baryons.
See http://vixra.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/gfitvars.jpg

The masses of the quarks follow also from the atom-like structure of baryons (see my electronic book) whereas the dualness symmetry applied in the M-theory leads to the phase transitions of the fundamental spacetime described within the ET. Of course, we must change some parts of the M-theory and some interpretations to obtain a fruitful theory. All the main unsolved problems are solved within the ET.

 

[Reiku]

Prometheus, when you moved this thread from the Physics&Math Forum to this subforum, it looked for me as the banishment.

Quite a good summery, for hogwash.

 

[Sylwester Kornowski]

Yesterday (November 17, 2011) the OPERA results were confirmed. See

http://arxiv.org/abs/1109.4897

The neutrinos indeed are the superluminal particles and their speed depends on the lifetimes of the muons, pions and W bosons decaying due to the weak interactions in the strong fields of baryons. I described it in details in my previous posts. My theoretical results are sensational.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

My theoretical results are sensational.

Then why are you whining here? Why aren't you submitting your work to a journal?

Stop bothering us with your drivel and endless self delusional of mediocrity and submit your work for review by people whose knowledge and expertise you can't deny (though you probably will when they inevitably reject you).

 

[Aqueous Id]

Hello, fellow posters (and imposters!):

You folks have obviously been around the block on this, and I just rolled up.
Without really having a clue what the proposal was, I just got stuck on one thing:
that DNA (geometry I guess) is somehow magically linked to particle physics?

that's freaking delusional!

So, Sylwester,
at that point I wasn't willing to believe the rest of what you had to offer.
Sorry but to sell an idea, there needs to be a plausible introduction.

(nice rendition of Vatican goon squad)

 

[Sylwester Kornowski]

Then why are you whining here? Why aren't you submitting your work to a journal?

Stop bothering us with your drivel and endless self delusional of mediocrity and submit your work for review by people whose knowledge and expertise you can't deny (though you probably will when they inevitably reject you).

AlphaNumeric, you wrote and write about your papers in many places in Internet. Why aren't you submitting your works to a scientific journal? I can see that scientific boards reject your papers permanently. Do you see that you do the same what I am doing? The Forums are not only for you.

 

[Sylwester Kornowski]

Hello, fellow posters (and imposters!):

You folks have obviously been around the block on this, and I just rolled up.
Without really having a clue what the proposal was, I just got stuck on one thing:
that DNA (geometry I guess) is somehow magically linked to particle physics?

that's freaking delusional!

So, Sylwester,
at that point I wasn't willing to believe the rest of what you had to offer.
Sorry but to sell an idea, there needs to be a plausible introduction.

(nice rendition of Vatican goon squad)

My Everlasting Theory leads to the origin of the DNA also.

1. A fermion-antifermion pair, as, for example, electron-positron pair, arises as double helix loop composed of one left- and one right-handed loop. Due to the properties of the Einstein spacetime, such double helix loops have the spin equal to 1. The different internal helicities of the components cause that the resultant internal helicity of the spacetime(s) is still equal to zero.
2. Such double helix loops are the very unstable objects so they transform into fermion-antifermion pairs, for example, into electron-positron pairs or muon-antimuon pairs or proton-antiproton pairs or quark-antiquark pairs and so on. The internal helicity of electron is right-handed (so the human DNA on the Earth is right-handed also), of nucleons is left-handed (our Universe is left-handed and it is coded in the galaxies spinning in relation to their magnetic fields), and so on.
3. There are only four different binary systems of neutrinos in the Einstein spacetime and there are the four only basis of the human DNA i.e. the A, C, G and T.
4. Each binary system of the neutrinos consists of two different weak charges and there are the two only basic elements of the human DNA i.e. the molecules of sugar (the deoxyribose) and molecules of phosphoric acid.
5. We know that the photons can be entangled and that distances between them can change. The Everlasting Theory shows that the binary systems of neutrinos the Einstein spacetime consists of are the carriers of gluons and photons so the binary systems of neutrinos can be entangled also.

Recapitulation
The open right-handed double helix composed of the binary systems of neutrinos (i.e. of the Einstein spacetime components) LOOK AS MINIATURES of the different molecular DNAs. Such miniatures of the DNAs arose in the cosmic loop before the ‘soft’ big bang after the period of inflation. Such miniatures are the MATRICES for the molecular DNAs. The matrices are everywhere in our Universe. There must be special conditions to transform the miniatures/matrices of the DNAs into the molecular DNAs.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

AlphaNumeric, you wrote and write about your papers in many places in Internet. Why aren't you submitting your works to a scientific journal? I can see that scientific boards reject your papers permanently. Do you see that you do the same what I am doing? The Forums are not only for you.

Sylwester, it explicitly states in my thesis where my papers were published. It also says on ArXiv. I'm sorry you're so desperate for attention that you have to lie more and more to get it when people decide to ignore you because you're a waste of time but escalating your dishonesty does you no favours. I submitted my work, it was reviewed, it was accepted, it was published and I got a doctorate for it.

If you continue with this escalating dishonesty further action will be taken because it contributes nothing.

My Everlasting Theory leads to the origin of the DNA also.

Clearly if I leave you alone you escalate your delusional claims too, which saves me to hassle of debunking you, you did it yourself.