Sylwester's 'Everlasting theory'

[Sylwester Kornowski]

Can you prove it? Of course, you cannot. Just you write the nonsense. You know, there are the counters. Sometimes they show the unique-IP document downloads only.

You are trolling as well.

In my next post, I will describe the hadronization and deconfinement in the Everlasting Theory.

 

[Sylwester Kornowski]

Hadronization and deconfinement in the Everlasting Theory

The gluon balls, which appear in my reformulated QCD, arise due to my confinement (see #290). Due to the atom-like structure of baryons, the gluon balls transform into the sham quark-antiquark pairs i.e. into vortex-antivortex pairs. We can see that between the quarks can be exchanged the gluon balls. The exchanged gluon balls, due to the confinement, produce the spokes i.e. the physical traces in the Einstein spacetime. As I wrote before, action does not depend on length of a spoke but it is obvious that must be proportional to area of cross-section of the spoke. The spokes are the regions in the Einstein spacetime in which the mass density of the Einstein spacetime is a little higher than the mean. Such regions produce turbulences in the Einstein spacetime. The nature tries to eliminate the turbulences. How it can do it? Assume that in a room are many chaotically running cats so there is many collisions so there arise turbulences i.e. regions in which number densities of cats are different than the mean density so there appear the not planned by cats trajectories as well. Pressure inside the room depends on number of the cat collisions per unit of time. What the cats should do to reduce maximally the pressure? It is obvious. They should run with the same spin speed in a cat vortex. The same does the nature to eliminate the turbulence. From the spokes arise vortices. To conserve symmetry there arise the vortex-antivortex pairs. But then the physical traces produced in the Einstein spacetime look as tubes. This means that now action is proportional to perimeter of the tubes.
So some recapitulation:
Gluon balls produce confined spokes and action is proportional to area of the cross-sections of the spokes.
Vortex-antivortex pairs produce tubes and action is proportional to perimeters of the tubes.

On the other hand, we know that in gauge theory the confining phase (for example, it can be the hadronic phase) is defined by the action of the Wilson loop. It is the trace/path in spacetime. In a non-confining theory, the action is proportional to perimeter of the loop (TUBES) whereas in a confining theory, the action is proportional to area of the loop (SPOKES).

We can see that the transition of the spokes into the quark-antiquark pairs (the hadronization) causes that confined quarks due to the spokes become the FREE quark-antiquark pairs (they are the mesons or the entangled baryon-antibaryon pairs). Due to the atom-like structure of baryons, the emitted pairs SIMULATE the known hadrons.

We can see that a hadron jet “observed” by detectors consists of the tube-antitube pairs.

Similar confinement can appear in electromagnetic field but because internal helicity of this field is equal to zero so such confinement is colorless.

The quark-gluon plasma mostly consists of the cores of baryons, precisely of the core-anticore pairs. The cores-anticore pairs are tangent so there is very small volume between the pairs in which the quark-antiquark pairs and the spokes can be created. We can say that the not numerous spokes at once transform into the known hadrons. This looks as a deconfinement.

 

[Sylwester Kornowski]

The latest news is that the LHC may have produced new matter. There was detected strong direction correlation for components of some pairs of particles.

On the other hand, in Chapter “Liquid-like Plasma” (see page 53) I wrote that when protons collide at high energy there appear along a transverse direction the core-anticore pairs of baryons in such way that the spins of the cores are parallel to the transverse direction. We can see that there appear the segments/spokes. This means that due to the decays of the pairs produced inside a spoke there appear the strongly correlated directions of motions of the products of decays of the pairs. Just the new phenomenon discovered in the LHC leads to the cores of baryons. Moreover, the torus inside the core of baryons has internal helicity so it is the color core. The color core consists of the carriers of gluons.
There appeared the new phenomenon, i.e. the color spokes, because the mainstream theories neglect the internal structure of BARE fermions. The color cores of baryons are the bare baryons.

The ultimate theory must contain non-perturbative theory (the Everlasting Theory) and perturbative theories (the QED, QCD, ....). Why? The ground state of the Einstein spacetime consists of the non-rotating-spin neutrino-antineutrino pairs. The total helicity of this state is zero and it consists of particles which spin is unitary. In such spacetime cannot appear loops which have helicity so mass as well. In reality, a unitary-spin loop (the loop state) is the binary system of two entangled half-integral-spin loops with opposite helicities i.e. the resultant helicity is zero. Just the loops become similar to the Einstein spacetime components. They behave as the chameleons. In such spacetime do not appear turbulences. Such loop can easily transform into a fermion-antifermion pair (the fermion state). Perturbation theories concern the loop states whereas the non-perturbative theories the fermion states so we cannot neglect the structure of bare fermions.

 

[Sylwester Kornowski]

Now here

http://vixra.org/abs/1203.0021 ,

you can find the enlarged version v2 (162 pages) of my theory. There are the 15 pages, size A4, more than in the version v1. There are both versions so you can compare them. In the enlarged version, I especially widely described the relations between my theory and the mainstream theories and the limitations in the mainstream theories. You can find, for example, following definitions:

Higgs field, Higgs boson, Higgs mechanism, hierarchy problem, confinement and mass gap(s) in the Everlasting Theory, page 143,
Hadronization and deconfinement in the Everlasting Theory, page 143,
Limitations for gauge invariance, page 146,
Magnetic monopoles and magnetic force, page 147,
Planck critical physical quantities, page 150,
Pulsars, page 151,
Quantum Theory of Fields limitations, page 153,
Yang-Mills existence, page 159,

and, for example, following Paragraph:
Limitations in detection of superluminal neutrinos, page 110.

 

[Sylwester Kornowski]

The mainstream QCD, for the alpha_strong for energy 2.76 TeV (number of quarks active in pair production n = 6), gives

0.095 + – 0.001 (mainstream QCD).

This result is for the 1-loop diagrams. When we will take into account the 2-loop and 3-loop diagrams, then the obtained result will be much lower (about 0.064).

The reformulated QCD, presented within my Everlasting Theory, gives

0.114 (Everlasting Theory)

i.e. the 120% (or about 180% for the 0.064) of the mainstream-QCD result. It is significant difference and can be measured in the LHC experiments. Why such important result, which can show whether there is something beyond the Standard Model, did not appear among the LHC results?

 

[Sylwester Kornowski]

Here, within the non-perturbative Everlasting Theory I described mass spectrum of the Higgs boson 125.00 GeV. Due to the quadrupole symmetry and dominant gluon balls there appear two masses 126.65 +- 0.31 GeV and 123.35 +- 031 GeV and the decays into two photons should be twice as often as it should.

http://www.rxiv.org/abs/1212.0104

Here, within the non-perturbative Everlasting Theory I calculated the running coupling for the strong interactions applying three different methods. There appears the asymptote 0.1139.

http://www.rxiv.org/abs/1212.0105

 

[AlphaNumeric]

AlphaNumeric, in short I described the above mentioned physical quantities in the post #258, but there can appear more detailed questions, for example, such as follows.

1.
Why confinement is the color force?
2.
Why the color force is constant and does not depend on distance between the quarks?
3.
What are the phenomena associated with the hadronization?
4.
How looks surface of the screened quarks?
5.
Why the quarks and gluons are deconfined in the sham Quark-Gluon Plasma (the QGP)?
6.
Why the stabilized glueballs lead to the mass gaps?
7.
What is the difference between the deconfinement and asymptotic freedom?
8.
Why we still cannot prove that the QCD confines at low energy?
9.
What is the internal structure of the gluons and the sham quarks?

….and so on.

Are you able to answer these questions within the QCD? You know, just the physical meaning. I can in simple way answer these questions within the Everlasting Theory because the ET is much fundamental theory than the QCD.

This just shows your style of 'discussion', in that you know full well whether QCD can answer questions such as 7. In fact I had to explain the difference between them to you over on PhysForums. The ability or not of QCD to answer those questions (some of which are not even valid general questions) has no bearing on whether you can. As has been shown time and again you cannot, you just proclaim you can.

Without my arithmetic theory scientists never will be able to prove that the QCD confines at low energy, never will be able to calculate the exact masses of the up and down quarks, never will be able to describe origin of the physical constants and calculate their values because to do it is needed more fundamental theory than the Standard Model and General Theory of Relativity. They will be unable to calculate next tens basic physical quantities as well.

Scientists need the NON-PERTURBATIVE/ARITHMETIC Everlasting Theory to solve the hundreds (!) unsolved basic problems. For example, in Wikipedia you can find the descriptions of the tens unsolved basic problems in particle physics and cosmology. It is XXI century and we still do not know the origin of the Planck constant, gravitational constant, speed of light, electric charge, mass of electron, and so on. You can find the solution in my Everlasting Theory. This theory is the foundations of physics and soon professors will teach it on universities and teachers in schools.

You don't have any mathematics in your work, not anything beyond rudimentary high school stuff. You can't even do calculus properly. You don't even know what some of the words mean, like 'effective theory', despite me telling you several times.

You wrote that I do not understand your logic. There is no logic. You know, at first you MUST PRECISE what you want to prove.

Funny, given you don't understand the difference in QCD between asymptotic freedom, confinement and the mass gap.

Origin, your last post is typical for fanatics – there is lack of scientific arguments but there is the bigotry.
Fanatics think that thinking people will not see worthlessness of such posts as your last post.

Where are your scientific arguments? Are you unable to write them?

Oh the irony.

 

[Sylwester Kornowski]

This just shows your style of 'discussion', in that you know full well whether QCD can answer questions such as 7. In fact I had to explain the difference between them to you over on PhysForums. The ability or not of QCD to answer those questions (some of which are not even valid general questions) has no bearing on whether you can. As has been shown time and again you cannot, you just proclaim you can.

You don't have any mathematics in your work, not anything beyond rudimentary high school stuff. You can't even do calculus properly. You don't even know what some of the words mean, like 'effective theory', despite me telling you several times.

Funny, given you don't understand the difference in QCD between asymptotic freedom, confinement and the mass gap.

Oh the irony.

AlphaNumeric, you proved that you completely do not understand the difference between confinement and asymptotic freedom. Many scientists do not understand it so there are many incorrect articles in Internet. See your previous posts.

AlphaNumeric, do not try to claim that you teach me what the asymptotic freedom and confinement mean. My theory differs radically from the model presented within the Standard Model. We can use my asymptotic freedom to test my theory. The QCD for energy, for example, 2.76 TeV gives alpha_strong = 0.08 (if we take into account the 1-loop, 2-loop, 3-loop and 4-loop diagrams) whereas my theory gives 0.114. These results differ very much and the future experiments will show that I am right.

You should read my paper titled “The Reformulated Asymptotic Freedom”. It is the future of the particle physics.

AlphaNumeric, I wish you the best in 2013.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

AlphaNumeric, you proved that you completely do not understand the difference between confinement and asymptotic freedom. Many scientists do not understand it so there are many incorrect articles in Internet. See your previous posts.

Ah, so all the other articles are wrong too, its you who has the right understanding I guess that is what you have to tell yourself after it is demonstrated you have failed to understand it and references are provided.

AlphaNumeric, do not try to claim that you teach me what the asymptotic freedom and confinement mean.

A case of revisionist memory from you? Do I have to go and find the thread on PhysForums where I first explained it to you? Are you claiming no such discussions have occurred?

My theory differs radically from the model presented within the Standard Model. We can use my asymptotic freedom to test my theory. The QCD for energy, for example, 2.76 TeV gives alpha_strong = 0.08 (if we take into account the 1-loop, 2-loop, 3-loop and 4-loop diagrams) whereas my theory gives 0.114. These results differ very much and the future experiments will show that I am right.

Just like the neutrino experiments did and then they turned out not to? Just like how you ADMIT your predictions contradict experiments yet you claim you're right?

You admit a prediction of yours is outside experimental error bounds!

You should read my paper titled “The Reformulated Asymptotic Freedom”. It is the future of the particle physics.

You've been saying that for longer than I've been alive, that your work is the future. You admit it is contradicted by experiment, what else needs to be said?

AlphaNumeric, I wish you the best in 2013.

And I don't doubt you'll waste 2013 just like you wasted 2012, 2011, 2010, ...., all the way back to the mid 80s when you started spouting your nonsense.

 

[Sylwester Kornowski]

Ah, so all the other articles are wrong too, its you who has the right understanding I guess that is what you have to tell yourself after it is demonstrated you have failed to understand it and references are provided.
A case of revisionist memory from you? Do I have to go and find the thread on PhysForums where I first explained it to you? Are you claiming no such discussions have occurred?

AlphaNumeric, all can see that in your posts is hotchpotch. Especially you write the things I never wrote and then you “prove” that I am not right. It is because you do not understand what you are reading.
Moreover, you do not understand that it is not important who the first wrote about a problem but what. Do you still claim that the confinement depends on distance? If the answer is positive then you still do not understand the physical meaning of the confinement but of the asymptotic freedom as well.

Just like the neutrino experiments did and then they turned out not to? Just like how you ADMIT your predictions contradict experiments yet you claim you're right?

You still write the same nonsense. I did not delete Chapter titled “Neutrino Speed” from my book because of the a few neutrinos detected in the ICARUS experiment that moved with the speed c. I know that I am right. I wrote many times that the superluminal neutrinos arise ONLY when the weak decays take place INSIDE the strong fields. This means that they are the not numerous neutrinos. We need big number of detected neutrinos to detect the superluminal neutrinos as well. No one contemporary experiment satisfied this condition but sooner or later it will be. Whereas big number of superluminal neutrinos are emitted in the supernovae explosions.

You've been saying that for longer than I've been alive, that your work is the future. You admit it is contradicted by experiment, what else needs to be said?

AlphaNumeric, you write what you want to write, just the untrue. All experimental results are consistent with the theoretical results obtained within my reformulated asymptotic freedom. I obtained different results than the predicted within the QCD for energies higher than about 1 TeV but unfortunately there are no experimental data for such energies. But soon it will be.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

AlphaNumeric, all can see that in your posts is hotchpotch.

I know you have trouble forming cogent sentences and thus struggle to read when others do but that isn't my problem, it is yours.

Moreover, you do not understand that it is not important who the first wrote about a problem but what. Do you still claim that the confinement depends on distance? If the answer is positive then you still do not understand the physical meaning of the confinement but of the asymptotic freedom as well.

Where did I say confinement depends on distance? Since I do not trust you to properly paraphrase me please provide a link to the relevant post of mine.

You still write the same nonsense. I did not delete Chapter titled “Neutrino Speed” from my book because of the a few neutrinos detected in the ICARUS experiment that moved with the speed c. I know that I am right. I wrote many times that the superluminal neutrinos arise ONLY when the weak decays take place INSIDE the strong fields. This means that they are the not numerous neutrinos. We need big number of detected neutrinos to detect the superluminal neutrinos as well. No one contemporary experiment satisfied this condition but sooner or later it will be. Whereas big number of superluminal neutrinos are emitted in the supernovae explosions.

Yes, yes, your triumph is always around the next corner. Like it has been for decades.

AlphaNumeric, you write what you want to write, just the untrue. All experimental results are consistent with the theoretical results obtained within my reformulated asymptotic freedom. I obtained different results than the predicted within the QCD for energies higher than about 1 TeV but unfortunately there are no experimental data for such energies. But soon it will be.

Here you admit a prediction of yours is outside of experimental bounds. You admit it.

You're a hack. Always have been and always will be. Congratulations on wasting your existence.

 

[Sylwester Kornowski]

Where did I say confinement depends on distance? Since I do not trust you to properly paraphrase me please provide a link to the relevant post of mine.

AlphaNumeric, on October 31, 2012 on page 11 in this thread (see your very long post #214) you wrote as follows:

You've just shown you don't understand what asymptotic freedom is. Asymptotic freedom is not the fact quark interactions get stronger as you move the quarks away from one another. That is, as it happens, related to confinement.

AlphaNumeric, can you see that you PROVED that you do not understand what the confinement means but the asymptotic freedom as well? Can you see how big liar you are? In the last your post you claim that confinement does not depend on distance whereas in the post #214 you claim that confinement depends on distance. Can you see that I am right claiming that you completely do not understand confinement and asymptotic freedom? Can you see that I am right claiming that I teach you what these terms mean, not you me?

Can you stop to write the nonsense?

Here you admit a prediction of yours is outside of experimental bounds. You admit it.

I wrote that within the Everlasting Theory I calculated a few hundred theoretical results consistent or very close to the experimental data. In many scientific papers the authors claim that their theoretical results are consistent with experimental data even when the results are outside of the intervals defined by experiment but close to them. Especially it concerns the high-energy physics. My result 1.93 is very close to the lower limit 2.02 i.e. the distance is ONLY about - 4%. I WROTE IT IN MY POST so all readers can see that you are dishonest (and the liar as well).

 

[AlphaNumeric]

AlphaNumeric, can you see that you PROVED that you do not understand what the confinement means but the asymptotic freedom as well? Can you see how big liar you are? In the last your post you claim that confinement does not depend on distance whereas in the post #214 you claim that confinement depends on distance.

Read what I said, it wasn't what you're paraphrasing it as. I said that that the fact the quark-quark attraction increases with distance is related to confinement. That isn't the same as saying confinement depends on distance. Confinement is a binary thing, either something confines or it doesn't. As a result of confinement a 'flux tube' of gluons is formed which, qualitatively, stretches as the quarks are moved apart. The energy of the flux tube grows quadratically with separation since the force grows linearly, $$|F| \propto r$$ implies $$E = \int F dl \propto r^{2}$$.

For A to depend on B, ie for confinement to depend on distance, it would mean varying distance varies confinement. No, confinement either occurs or it doesn't. If you pull quarks too far apart the flux tube snaps, creating more quarks and confinement remains. Confinement leads to the flux tube and it is the flux tube which depends on the distance between quarks.

Notice the difference? This is why I asked you to give the specific quote, you lack the understanding necessary to actually quote me properly in your own words. And asymptotic freedom has nothing to do with that. Asymptotic freedom is not about the distance between quarks but their relative momenta (and thus the energy scale of a scattering process). Two quarks a distance D apart will interact weaker if they are moving relative to one another than if they were stationary. That is what asymptotic freedom means. Confinement means that if the two quarks are close enough, regardless of speed, they can join via a flux tube of gluons. The strength of this flux tube depends both on the separation of the quarks but also, due to asymptotic freedom, their relative velocity.

Every single time it seems I have to correct you on something, not just on the details of the physics but now it seems you can't even read my posts properly. No wonder you accomplish nothing, you don't even have basic comprehension skills.

Can you see that I am right claiming that you completely do not understand confinement and asymptotic freedom? Can you see that I am right claiming that I teach you what these terms mean, not you me?

No, you have once again shown you don't even have the ability to understand a few sentences. The question is whether you do this deliberately, knowingly lying, or whether you're just thick.

Can you stop to write the nonsense?

The delicious irony.

I wrote that within the Everlasting Theory I calculated a few hundred theoretical results consistent or very close to the experimental data. In many scientific papers the authors claim that their theoretical results are consistent with experimental data even when the results are outside of the intervals defined by experiment but close to them. Especially it concerns the high-energy physics. My result 1.93 is very close to the lower limit 2.02 i.e. the distance is ONLY about - 4%. I WROTE IT IN MY POST so all readers can see that you are dishonest (and the liar as well).

Being very close to the edge of the valid interval doesn't negate the fact you're on the wrong side of it. As for calling me dishonest, you're a hypocrite.

 

[Sylwester Kornowski]

AlphaNumeric, as usually you try to be right but you are not. Now you try to change the matter of dispute. You and I wrote whether the confinement depends on distance. In your last post you write about the confined energy. It is big difference. So I must explain you the difference. The action of the Wilson loop depends on the cross-section of a spoke that confines two gluon balls or quarks (the confinement) or on the circumference of a tube (the deconfinement). For the same cross-section of spokes of different length, the confined energy is higher when a spoke is longer BUT THE ACTION DOES NOT DEPEND ON THE LENGTHS OF THE SPOKES i.e. the action is the same.

So once more: Now you try to swindle the readers. All readers understand that you wrote about the distance, not about the confined energy. You wrote as follows.

Asymptotic freedom is not the fact quark interactions get stronger as you move the quarks away from one another. That is, as it happens, related to confinement.

AlphaNumeric, you do not think, you have not your own ideas, you rewrite the Wikipedia.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

AlphaNumeric, as usually you try to be right but you are not. Now you try to change the matter of dispute. You and I wrote whether the confinement depends on distance. In your last post you write about the confined energy. It is big difference.

If you actually read what I actually said then you'd see I said "related to confinement".

So I must explain you the difference. The action of the Wilson loop depends on the cross-section of a spoke that confines two gluon balls or quarks (the confinement) or on the circumference of a tube (the deconfinement). For the same cross-section of spokes of different length, the confined energy is higher when a spoke is longer BUT THE ACTION DOES NOT DEPEND ON THE LENGTHS OF THE SPOKES i.e. the action is the same.

I don't for a second think you know how to do anything with Wilson loops, given you don't know any quantum field theory, particularly QCD.

So once more: Now you try to swindle the readers. All readers understand that you wrote about the distance, not about the confined energy. You wrote as follows.
Asymptotic freedom is not the fact quark interactions get stronger as you move the quarks away from one another. That is, as it happens, related to confinement.

I said that confinement relates to how quark interactions get stronger as the quarks move away. As I've explained, confinement leads to flux tubes (the 'spokes' as you call them). The flux tubes have more energy when longer and the specifics of it means you get a stronger attraction are larger distances.

What you wrote (copied) about Wilson loops is the specifics of what I talked about. It is funny you didn't realise that but not surprising given you just copied it.

AlphaNumeric, you do not think, you have not your own ideas, you rewrite the Wikipedia.

I think you're showing your hand there, given what you just said about Wilson loops. Given you cannot do any quantum field theory you have no experience or knowledge with Wilson loops and thus you've gotten that from somewhere.

 

[Sylwester Kornowski]

If you actually read what I actually said then you'd see I said "related to confinement".

I don't for a second think you know how to do anything with Wilson loops, given you don't know any quantum field theory, particularly QCD.

I said that confinement relates to how quark interactions get stronger as the quarks move away. As I've explained, confinement leads to flux tubes (the 'spokes' as you call them). The flux tubes have more energy when longer and the specifics of it means you get a stronger attraction are larger distances.

What you wrote (copied) about Wilson loops is the specifics of what I talked about. It is funny you didn't realise that but not surprising given you just copied it.

I think you're showing your hand there, given what you just said about Wilson loops. Given you cannot do any quantum field theory you have no experience or knowledge with Wilson loops and thus you've gotten that from somewhere.

O.K. AlphaNumeric, now you write the same what I wrote as the first. About the action of the Wilson loop I wrote many times in my previous posts. You noticed it only now.

With reference to the dependence of the confinement on distance, you were both contrary and pro. But I see that now you understand the problem so all is O.K.

AN, you should reset your RAM and ROM. You should go and have a heavy drink. But I still wish you the best. I like you.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

You should go and have a heavy drink. But I still wish you the best. I like you.

Again, are you projecting your own actions onto me? Have you just had a heavy drink? Saying "I like you" sounds like something a drunk person might say....

 

[Sylwester Kornowski]

Stiffness of manner?
Can you be not such stiff-mannered chap?

 

[AlphaNumeric]

I don't consider you a decent enough person to be worth joking around with. The level of your dishonest isn't something I consider humorous.

 

[Sylwester Kornowski]

Noble and unblemished?
or
a bore as a mathematician?