Sylwester's 'Everlasting theory'

[Sylwester Kornowski]

String theory has none.

You completely do not understand how physics acts. The nothing (i.e. the number of parameters is equal to zero) leads to nothing only. To calculate something within the string theory, there must appear parameters and other initial conditions, for example, some formulae which will show how nature acts.
Can you derive, for example, the physical constants from zero/nothing? Can you see the mistake in your thinking?
My theory is the theory containing least parameters. It describes more than other theories, for example, leads to conclusion that speed of neutrinos is higher than the c, describes the origin of the physical constants, describes the cause of the big bang, and so on. Some mainstream theories are correct as, for example, the GR but some interpretations are incorrect what leads, for example, to the not existing acceleration of expansion of the Universe. And my theoretical results are consistent with experimental and observational data. For example, my electroweak theory leads to better results than the QED. My theory and the experimental data concerning the neutrino speed show that about 90% of the QCD and the electroweak theory we must reject.
You know, sometimes the way to victory is not a bed of roses. Sometimes it lasts decades. But my victory is coming because the last data obtained in the OPERA and MINOS experiments and the data concerning the supernova SN 1987A are consistent only with my theory within the same model i.e. within the atom-like structure of baryons.

Nothing and no good physicist would have ever claimed it is proven correct.

I can claim that the GR is correct (some interpretations are incorrect) because I described origin of the postulates applied in this theory. I calculated the gravitational constant and described internal structure of the particles with the spin equal to 2 which are responsible for the gravitational interactions. Within the mainstream theories, we cannot prove that the GR is correct but my theory is the more fundamental theory so it is possible.

Relativity is better than Newton. Quantum electrodynamics is better than electromagnetism. They are more general and more accurate but that doesn't prove them.

This is correct only partially. The neutrino speed higher than the c is consistent with the Newtonian theory. My theory shows that the Newtonian spacetime composed of the tachyons is more fundamental than the Einstein spacetime composed of the non-rotating binary systems of neutrinos (they are the carriers of photons and gluons; their spin is 1) and the binary systems of binary systems of neutrinos i.e. the neutrino quadruples which carry the gravitational interactions (their spin is 2). I derived the Einstein spacetime and the postulates applied in the GR from the properties of the Newtonian spacetime.

I could have just deleted the posts entirely but I didn't. I could have edited them to make you say "Wow AlphaNumeric, you've opened my eyes, I was wrong all along!" but I didn't. I could have slapped you with a warning because I don't like you but I didn't.

At first, you moved my posts to ‘Pseudoscience’. It looked as transportation to Siberia in the Soviet Union. Why at once not an execution? You know, you are very good in such actions. I try to teach you and others the good physics, i.e. physics which leads to the neutrino speed higher than the c and which leads to the new cosmology showing that the observed ‘acceleration’ of the expansion of the Universe is only the illusion which follows from the wrong interpretation within the correct GR. We also do not take into account that the entangled photons produced at the beginning of the big bang decayed due to the weak interactions of the binary systems of neutrinos i.e. the carriers of the photons and gluons. Such decays caused that brightness of the Universe increased 5.7 billion years ago.
You write the untrue about my theory because you read only a few fragments. It is very dishonest. You behave as my enemy without any reason.

But my theory will win. Soon. The hundreds theoretical results derived from the 7 parameters only and consistent with experimental data are not a chance. You will be ashamed of writing the nonsense in your posts.

So once more: More thorny way leads to greater triumph.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

I understand more than you SR. You know just something mathematics.

The cry of the crank, "You just know the maths, I know the physics!". Ever looked in a relativity textbook, a paper published in it, the original work of Einstein or Hilbert? It's very mathematical. The level of mathematics I've posted on this forum is basic. I don't think I've ever actually gone to the edges of my abilities here, the SR related stuff is first year material.

Someone need only look in a text book on relativity to see I'm not being any more mathematical than anyone else. You're too used to reading pop science articles where they remove all the mathematics. It gives you a false impression 'real' relativity is done without the maths. You should actually look at how relativity is done.

Would you like me to cite some examples for you?

You have no idea to establish conditions in which SR function.
You have some examples hallucinating.

And yet I explained it to you repeatedly over in the recent thread you and MD were being thick in.

I proved this every time but you are too arrogant to understand.

So I'm arrogant for having a demonstrable understanding of special relativity, formal education in it and published research in models which incorporate it, while you're not arrogant for making claims you can't back up, having no experience with SR and being demonstrable wrong in multiple areas of it?

Wow are you ever detached from reality.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

You completely do not understand how physics acts. The nothing (i.e. the number of parameters is equal to zero) leads to nothing only.

That's an assertion, not a justified statement of truth.

To calculate something within the string theory, there must appear parameters and other initial conditions, for example, some formulae which will show how nature acts.

Sylwester, you don't know any string theory and you're talking to someone with a doctorate in it. It would be wise not to make assertive statements you have no knowledge on.

Can you derive, for example, the physical constants from zero/nothing? Can you see the mistake in your thinking?

Every quantity has an equation of motion associated to it. For example, the gravitational coupling 'constant' is actually associated to a moduli field. This moduli field has a potential and is dynamical. Depending on the configuration of space-time the 'constant' takes different values. Thus the value of the coupling constant is determined by the structure of space-time. The structure of space-time is also written in terms of a set of moduli fields which feel a potential which is defined by the mathematical structure of string dynamics. The structure of space-time can thus vary and will end up in a minimum of this potential. There are multiple minima but the dualities of string theory mean many of them are physical equivalent or unstable to non-perturbative effects.

The extreme amount of symmetries in string theory means many types of rigid structures exist, which do not allow for arbitrary values of coupling constant, Instead they must be found by dynamical methods.

It is all outlined in Polchinski's book 'String theory'.

My theory is the theory containing least parameters. It describes more than other theories, for example, leads to conclusion that speed of neutrinos is higher than the c, describes the origin of the physical constants, describes the cause of the big bang, and so on.

Sylwester, why do you bother repeating yourself? I've already debunked your claim to predict the coupling constants from the SM. You have never retorted that. As such you repeating that claim to me shows that you're intellectually dishonest and you're a little daft. Why would I believe your claim when I know I have retorted it?

My theory and the experimental data concerning the neutrino speed show that about 90% of the QCD and the electroweak theory we must reject.

Then we must reject the values of the coupling constants obtained by using QED, QCD and EW theories. Thus your claim to predict the coupling constants is false.

At first, you moved my posts to ‘Pseudoscience’. It looked as transportation to Siberia in the Soviet Union. Why at once not an execution? You know, you are very good in such actions.

If you don't like it here, leave.

I try to teach you and others the good physics,

You try to convince people by repeated assertions. You aren't interested in a dialogue.

You write the untrue about my theory because you read only a few fragments. It is very dishonest. You behave as my enemy without any reason.

I don't need to read all of it to see a fundamental flaw. There is nothing you can say which would alter the relevance of what I've said.

But my theory will win. Soon. The hundreds theoretical results derived from the 7 parameters only and consistent with experimental data are not a chance. You will be ashamed of writing the nonsense in your posts.

It's always 'soon'. Has been for what, 25 years now?

 

[Sylwester Kornowski]

AlphaNumeric, your answers have no sense. You write and write nonsense but they will not solve the big number of the unsolved basic problems. You still try to show that methods applied in the SM are correct whereas my non-perturbative, very simple and fruitful theory is incorrect because my methods differ from the applied in the SM. First of all the applied methods must be EFFECTIVE. The methods applied in the SM are effective only partially. To solve all problems we need new method. I showed how such method looks and acts. For example, the gluons transform into photons outside the strong fields, I described the real internal structure of quarks, and so on. The new method shows that nature is very simple if we apply correct initial conditions. How physicist as you cannot understand such obvious truth. You try to be right but you are not.
Below are the last questions to you. You ignore them because you are unable to write that I am right. I repeat myself because you repeat yourself. You can do it because you are the moderator. You still write as follows: “the 25 years without a success, you read all whereas I nothing, you are with a doctorate whereas I not”, and so on. Can you see that it looks as paranoia?

Can you within the SM calculate the physical constants?
Can you within the SM calculate the neutrino speeds higher than the c? Are they consistent with the MINOS and OPERA experiments and the data concerning the supernova SN 1987A within one coherent model?
Can you calculate within the SM the masses of the all leptons and quarks?
Can you within the SM calculate the asymptotic value for the alpha-strong for the very high energies?
Can you within the SM and GR describe origin of the big number of the applied postulates?
No. No. No. No. No.
I did it within the Everlasting Theory applying 7 parameters only. Calculated values are as follows (system SI):
G: 6.6740007*10^-11
Planck constant/2*pi: 1.054571548*10^-34
c: 299,792,458
e: 1.60217642*10^-19
Fine-structure constant for low energies: 1/137.036001
Neutrino speed depends on lifetime of particles which decay due to the weak interactions. The calculated neutrino speed for the MINOS experiment is 1.000051(21)c. The maximum neutrino speed is 1.000072c. The calculated time-distance between the fronts of the neutrino and photon beams for the OPERA experiment is 59.3 ns whereas the neutrino speed is 1.0000172(71)c i.e. maximum neutrino speed is 1.0000243c. The calculated time-distance between the fronts of the neutrino and photon beams, observed on the Earth, for the supernova SN 1987A is 3 hours whereas the neutrino speed is 1.0000000014(6)c.
Masses: see the tables.
Alpha_strong for very high energies: 0.1139

So which theory is better? The answer is such simple!
Once more: Better theory must be more fruitful and my theory is more fruitful.

Arrivederci

 

[Sylwester Kornowski]

AlphaNumeric, I decided to teach you one more important thing. You many times wrote that I apply the same definitions as in the QCD. You have written that I apply different methods and parameters than these within the QCD and I unexpectedly obtain the same or similar results. You many times wrote that it is impossible, that I should obtain different results and that it is the proof that my theory is incorrect.
At first, I explain this duality comparing the QED with my electroweak theory. There is the Einstein spacetime. When we neglect the internal structure of this spacetime, then the self-interaction we can describe only via the electromagnetic interactions. It is in the QED. This theory is the perturbative theory and there are many the diagrams. In my theory, I take into account the internal structure of the Einstein spacetime and bare electron. This means that such description should look differently because there appear the weak interactions – both the Einstein spacetime and electron consist of the binary systems of neutrinos. Such theory is non-perturbative and very simple. Nature can realize the both descriptions but it is obvious that probability of realization of the first or second description is different. So once more: the both descriptions are EQUIVALENT. We apply the same definitions, we apply different methods but we obtain the same results.
Similarly is for the QCD. In the QCD, we reject the higher energies, then we apply the perturbative theory and renormalization. In my QCD, I take into account the atom-like structure of baryons and the internal structure of the strong and weak fields. Then, there arise MOSTLY the core-anticore pairs. This causes that my theory is non-perturbative and I should obtain better or the same results. The both methods are equivalent only partially because the calculations when the alpha_strong is greater than 1 are very difficult. This means that calculations of the mass of the up and down quarks within the perturbative QCD are very difficult and today almost impossible.

Recapitulation
Both descriptions, i.e. the perturbative and non-perturbative, are equivalent or almost equivalent. Nature mostly realizes the non-perturbative description because it is simpler. This causes that the Everlasting Theory can explain more in simply way and there are solved the problems unsolved within the QCD.
My theory is more fundamental than the SM because I take into account the internal structure of the fields and bare particles.

 

[Believe]

The two biggest wrong conclusions within the mainstream theories caused by the wrong initial conditions are as follows:
1.
That the Universe quite unexpectedly can accelerate its expansion.
2.
That neutrinos, which carry the mass, cannot move with speeds higher than the massless photons and gluons i.e. than the c.

The correct conclusions are as follows:
1.
The dark energy is the a little compressed gas composed of the binary systems of neutrinos (they are moving with the speed c) i.e. the little compressed Einstein spacetime. The compression was due to the collapse of the object before the ‘soft’ big bang after the era of inflation. Such expansion is smooth whereas the illusion of acceleration of expansion of the Universe is due to the neglected phenomena. A quite unexpected acceleration is impossible.
2.
The Special Relativity concerns the objects composed of the binary systems of neutrinos, not the neutrinos. When relativistic speed is equal to the c then spin speeds are equal to zero. Since there is obligatory the law of conservation of spin then there are the tremendous inflows of the binary systems of neutrinos, i.e. of the Einstein spacetime components, into the relativistic object. We can say that there is collapse of the Einstein spacetime. This causes that mass of such relativistic object should be infinite. Moreover, the electromagnetism is directly associated with the Einstein spacetime whereas the gravity only indirectly. Due to the internal structure of the binary systems of neutrinos, they can produce the transverse waves only, i.e. in the Einstein spacetime the gravitational waves and gravitons cannot appear. Gravity is directly associated with the Newtonian spacetime (see the ET – there are the two spacetimes) whereas the gravitational constant G follows from the internal structure of the neutrinos and the Newtonian spacetime.

Math or it didn't happen.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

AlphaNumeric, your answers have no sense. You write and write nonsense but they will not solve the big number of the unsolved basic problems.

Should I add the ability to tell the future to the list of your many supposed abilities?

You still try to show that methods applied in the SM are correct whereas my non-perturbative, very simple and fruitful theory is incorrect because my methods differ from the applied in the SM.

I don't disagree with your claims because they aren't the same as the SM, I disagree with your claims because they lack justification, lack predictive ability, lack details and in some cases clearly contradict reality.

The methods applied in the SM are effective only partially.

No one claims the SM is an answer to all of theoretical physics. How many times do you plan to repeat that straw man?

To solve all problems we need new method. I showed how such method looks and acts. For example, the gluons transform into photons outside the strong fields,

Then you've just claimed charge conservation does not exist for the strong force.

Is that what you're claiming?

How physicist as you cannot understand such obvious truth. You try to be right but you are not.

Project much?

You ignore them because you are unable to write that I am right.

Why is it cranks say I avoid replying when I reply to their posts line by line and they skip over entire posts by me?

still write as follows: “the 25 years without a success, you read all whereas I nothing, you are with a doctorate whereas I not”, and so on. Can you see that it looks as paranoia?

Paranoia? How is that paranoia? You're the one claiming there's a communism-like conspiracy in physics. I'm just pointing out you've gotten nowhere in a quarter of a century.

1. Can you within the SM calculate the physical constants?
2. Can you within the SM calculate the neutrino speeds higher than the c? Are they consistent with the MINOS and OPERA experiments and the data concerning the supernova SN 1987A within one coherent model?
3. Can you calculate within the SM the masses of the all leptons and quarks?
4. Can you within the SM calculate the asymptotic value for the alpha-strong for the very high energies?
5. Can you within the SM and GR describe origin of the big number of the applied postulates?
No. No. No. No. No.

1. No, but that doesn't mean 'beyond the SM' theories won't be able to.
2. The experiments from OPERA are not necessarily consistent with neutrinos moving faster than light. Other neutrino experiments are dealt with by the SM, so the answer is a qualified yes.
3. No.
4. Yes, it's one of the major results of QCD and was awarded the Nobel Prize. This is where you show your dishonesty. You know asymptotic freedom has been predicted by QCD, you and I have discussed it many times. You know the value the SM predicts, you've asked myself and Rpenner about it in the past. So the fact you say the SM can't answer that is a flat out lie. There's no other word for it, you have lied. You're saying 'no' because you disagree with the values so it boils down to "The SM doesn't predict as I do therefore the SM is wrong.". Look up circular logic.
5. Models cannot explain their own postulates. Your model cannot explain its postulates. Look up circular logic again.

I did it within the Everlasting Theory applying 7 parameters only. Calculated values are as follows (system SI):
G: 6.6740007*10^-11
Planck constant/2*pi: 1.054571548*10^-34
c: 299,792,458
e: 1.60217642*10^-19
Fine-structure constant for low energies: 1/137.036001
Neutrino speed depends on lifetime of particles which decay due to the weak interactions. The calculated neutrino speed for the MINOS experiment is 1.000051(21)c. The maximum neutrino speed is 1.000072c. The calculated time-distance between the fronts of the neutrino and photon beams for the OPERA experiment is 59.3 ns whereas the neutrino speed is 1.0000172(71)c i.e. maximum neutrino speed is 1.0000243c. The calculated time-distance between the fronts of the neutrino and photon beams, observed on the Earth, for the supernova SN 1987A is 3 hours whereas the neutrino speed is 1.0000000014(6)c.
Masses: see the tables.
Alpha_strong for very high energies: 0.1139

Most of those quantities are calculated using the SM. I've been over this with you before. The fine structure constant is measured by QED scattering processes. Change QED and you change the equations, which change the value of $$\alpha$$, which makes your conclusions inconsistent. Likewise, Planck's constant is measured using things like a Josephson gate, which is modelled using quantum field theory. Change quantum field theory, you change the equations, which changes the inferred value.

Your predictions are just numbers. It's easy to fit a sequence of 5 to 10 values to some simple curve. A model which replaces the SM needs to do more than that though.

You and I have been crossing one another's paths for long enough for me to have seen some of the development of your claims. When we first met you were convinced asymptotic freedom and deconfinement were the same. It took me a long time and a great many posts to get you to understand the difference. I was the one who get you to realise a viable model should include running couplings and scattering cross sections. Up until that point you'd only been doing numerology with masses and charges. Even now your document doesn't actually compute differential cross sections, you seem to be unable to do any algebra powerful enough to involve general functions. Hence why your claims about understanding non-perturbative stuff is laughable. If I were to give you a non-perturbative dynamical problem would you solve it for me, so we can all see your capabilities directly?

lphaNumeric, I decided to teach you one more important thing. You many times wrote that I apply the same definitions as in the QCD. You have written that I apply different methods and parameters than these within the QCD and I unexpectedly obtain the same or similar results. You many times wrote that it is impossible, that I should obtain different results and that it is the proof that my theory is incorrect.
At first, I explain this duality comparing the QED with my electroweak theory. There is the Einstein spacetime. When we neglect the internal structure of this spacetime, then the self-interaction we can describe only via the electromagnetic interactions. It is in the QED. This theory is the perturbative theory and there are many the diagrams. In my theory, I take into account the internal structure of the Einstein spacetime and bare electron. This means that such description should look differently because there appear the weak interactions – both the Einstein spacetime and electron consist of the binary systems of neutrinos. Such theory is non-perturbative and very simple. Nature can realize the both descriptions but it is obvious that probability of realization of the first or second description is different. So once more: the both descriptions are EQUIVALENT. We apply the same definitions, we apply different methods but we obtain the same results.
Similarly is for the QCD. In the QCD, we reject the higher energies, then we apply the perturbative theory and renormalization. In my QCD, I take into account the atom-like structure of baryons and the internal structure of the strong and weak fields. Then, there arise MOSTLY the core-anticore pairs. This causes that my theory is non-perturbative and I should obtain better or the same results. The both methods are equivalent only partially because the calculations when the alpha_strong is greater than 1 are very difficult. This means that calculations of the mass of the up and down quarks within the perturbative QCD are very difficult and today almost impossible.

You have utterly failed to grasp the problem I have outlined with your claims. Try to understand it again.

 

[Sylwester Kornowski]

Math or it didn't happen.

See the calculations on my website

http://www.cosmology-particles.pl

There are the 120 pages A4, 241 formulae, tens of tables and figures.
I can explain some problem in details but you should specify it.

 

[Sylwester Kornowski]

I don't disagree with your claims because they aren't the same as the SM, I disagree with your claims because they lack justification, lack predictive ability, lack details and in some cases clearly contradict reality.

Do you indeed think that readers do not see the ble, ble, ble…?
I wrote many times that there should be the examples. There is nothing.

Then you've just claimed charge conservation does not exist for the strong force.

You even do not know what you are reading. There is the atom-like structure of baryons. The strong field is associated with the torus in the core of baryons. The core consists of the binary systems of neutrinos i.e. the carriers of gluons and photons. Photons appear outside the strong field when the carriers cross the sphere which has radius 2.9 fm. The same concerns the quark-antiquark pairs which also consist of the carriers. There is not in existence a confinement of quarks and gluons. They just transform into the photons or photon loops outside the strong field. The torus is the stable object and its spin and charge depends on its internal structure. There is obligatory the spin and charge conservation. For the strong interactions are responsible the gluon loops which arise inside the torus (inside quarks is torus also) and which have the INTERNAL HELICITY. Range of the strong interactions is equal to the circumference of the loops i.e. for baryons is 2.9 fm. We can see that due to the properties of the emitted gluon loops the strong field has internal helicity. The binary systems of neutrinos also have internal helicities. This leads to conclusion that there are 8 different gluons. The Einstein spacetime outside the strong field has not internal helicity so there is 1 photon i.e. the left- and right-handed photons (2) behaves the same so there is one type of photons.
Baryons, mesons, gluon loops, quarks, sham quarks consist of the gluons i.e. the almost point particles (the Feynman partons).
Conclusion
There is not in existence a confinement of quarks and gluons. Outside the strong field they transform into the photons. But the quarks arise as the quark-antiquark pairs so there is the charge conservation.

The experiments from OPERA are not necessarily consistent with neutrinos moving faster than light.

Very funny.

This is where you show your dishonesty. You know asymptotic freedom has been predicted by QCD, you and I have discussed it many times. You know the value the SM predicts, you've asked myself and Rpenner about it in the past. So the fact you say the SM can't answer that is a flat out lie

I never claimed that there is an asymptotic freedom because there is not in existence a confinement. See above explanation. I always claim that there is asymptotic package of the very stable cores of the baryons. Asymptotic freedom leads to alpha_strong = 0. For this value, there was the Nobel Prize. I claim that there is not the zero but 0.1139.

Models cannot explain their own postulates. Your model cannot explain its postulates. Look up circular logic again.

You are right. This means that my model is better. I tried to tell you this obvious truth but you assume that others cannot think correctly.

Most of those quantities are calculated using the SM.

Most? You are joking. Origin of physical constants, neutrino speed higher than the c, mass of electron and muon or masses of quarks?

Your predictions are just numbers.

Very funny. Do you understand difference between numbers and physical values?
You are liar because it is obvious truth. You write such nonsense without any example because you know that it is obvious untruth.

Even now your document doesn't actually compute differential cross sections, you seem to be unable to do any algebra powerful enough to involve general functions.

This is not true. For example, there is the cross section for the W boson as function of energy collision. It is very easy to calculate the differential cross section.

Hence why your claims about understanding non-perturbative stuff is laughable. If I were to give you a non-perturbative dynamical problem would you solve it for me, so we can all see your capabilities directly?

Whole my theory is the non-perturbative theory because the nature is very simple when we start from correct initial conditions. Nature does not need very complicated math because nature is much wiser than you are. I think that I am better physicist and mathematician than you are because nature behaves according to my theory.
BTW: infinity + infinity = infinity – has it a sense?
Can we write zero*infinity = 1 in different way?
You know, you are the best mathematician.

You have utterly failed to grasp the problem I have outlined with your claims. Try to understand it again.

As usual, you write as above when you do not now answer. Very funny. Where are your scientific arguments?

 

[AlphaNumeric]

You even do not know what you are reading.

Gluons are charged under the strong force. Photons are not. If one converts into the other charge has been changed. Thus no charge conservation in the strong force.

The problem you have is I do know what I'm talking about.

Very funny.

I'm sorry you don't keep up with the latest physics research but there's already papers out which demonstrate the inconsistency of viewing the neutrinos are moving faster than light compared with other parts of the experiment. The experiment saw a large amount of neutrinos with more than 15GeV of energy. Such neutrinos would burn off their energy via electron/positron production before they make it to the detector if they are moving faster than light, much like electrons moving through water faster than light burn off energy via Cherenkov radiation. The observations are not consistent with faster than light neutrinos.

Don't blame others for your ignorance.

I never claimed that there is an asymptotic freedom because there is not in existence a confinement. See above explanation. I always claim that there is asymptotic package of the very stable cores of the baryons. Asymptotic freedom leads to alpha_strong = 0. For this value, there was the Nobel Prize. I claim that there is not the zero but 0.1139.

You said, and I quote,

"Can you within the SM calculate the asymptotic value for the alpha-strong for the very high energies?"

The SM can calculate that. It makes a prediction. You know it makes that prediction. You know the values it predicts for TeV scale processes. So your claim the answer is 'no' is a lie. Yes, it might predict something different from you but that isn't what you said.

Saying claiming the SM can't predict it because the prediction doesn't agree with you is entirely circular. If I said your theory can't possibly be right because it doesn't agree with the SM then you'd complain about it, saying I was being circular with my logic. You're doing precisely that. You're so blinded by your absolute certainty you're right (hence your name for your model, the 'everlasting theory') that you don't see how circular your reasoning is.

You are right. This means that my model is better. I tried to tell you this obvious truth but you assume that others cannot think correctly.

If neither theory can explain its postulates why is yours better?

Most? You are joking. Origin of physical constants, neutrino speed higher than the c, mass of electron and muon or masses of quarks?

Neutrino velocities and their relationship to c and the running of coupling constants it can predict.

Very funny. Do you understand difference between numbers and physical values?
You are liar because it is obvious truth. You write such nonsense without any example because you know that it is obvious untruth.

Thanks for cutting off the sentence which followed. It's funny you call me a liar while pulling sentences out of their explanations and context.

My point, which I've discussed with you before, is that your predictions always end up reducing to curve fitting. You don't produce functions, like differential cross sections. It's easy to curve fit, there's a ton of simple methods which will do all of that for you. The problem is coming up with a single framework which not only produces specific values but also general functions which work for any configuration. Look up differential cross section expressions in QFT, they are functions of general incoming and outgoing momenta. I've yet to see you produce anything like that. I'm not even sure you can do any calculus, I've never seen you do any.

This is not true. For example, there is the cross section for the W boson as function of energy collision. It is very easy to calculate the differential cross section.

Firstly, you don't talk about cross sections for particles, you talk about cross sections for scattering processes, where you say what goes in and what comes out. If you don't even know what a cross section is I doubt you've calculated one properly. Secondly, cross sections depend on more than just energy, that's just a part of the general mometa which are involved. Thirdly, let's see you calculate a differential cross section.

Whole my theory is the non-perturbative theory because the nature is very simple when we start from correct initial conditions.

You seriously think that's an argument? I could just as easily say QFT is right because nature is simple. And? You keep using Nature as your reasoning, not your models. You are implicitly assuming your model is absolutely true so if nature works then your model does. You have yet to demonstrate the connection and even then you can never prove you are right, only demonstrate you are not wrong.

Nature does not need very complicated math because nature is much wiser than you are. I think that I am better physicist and mathematician than you are because nature behaves according to my theory.
BTW: infinity + infinity = infinity – has it a sense?

Can we write zero*infinity = 1 in different way?
You know, you are the best mathematician.

Excellent strawman You obviously haven't learnt any quantum field theory (despite claiming on PhysOrg you have) because if you had then you'd know what renormalisation is about and why it isn't as you've just represented it.

Yet another strawman. If you're having to resort to misrepresenting mainstream science then it demonstrates you're aware you're unable to provide a justified argument.

As usual, you write as above when you do not now answer. Very funny. Where are your scientific arguments?

I've provided an explanation why your claims are not correct. Your responses have illustrated you didn't understand it and that you're dishonest.

 

[Sylwester Kornowski]

AlphaNumeric, all write that to solve the unsolved problems in the SM we need good non-perturbative theory. Then, for example, we can calculate the exact masses of the up and down quarks. I formulated such fruitful non-perturbative theory and there are the conclusions that many assumptions in the perturbative QCD are incorrect. This causes that sometime within the perturbative theories we obtain wrong results or we cannot calculate something or there are the phenomena beyond such theories as, for example, the neutrino speed > c.
For example, an unsolved problem is the Yang-Mills existence and mass gap problem. There is even offered a prize of US$ 1,000,000. My non-perturbative theory leads to the internal structure of the gluon field and shows that there is the mass gap > 0 because the gluons (i.e. the rotational energies) ARE CARRIED BY THE BINARY SYSTEMS OF NEUTRINOS WHICH HAVE POSITIVE MASS. My non-perturbative theory leads also to conclusion that there is the lower limit for mass of the glueballs.
You are very impulsive man so you mostly do not understand my words. I ask you for the attentive reading of my posts. It will be better for you.

Gluons are charged under the strong force. Photons are not. If one converts into the other charge has been changed. Thus no charge conservation in the strong force.

You did not read my theory. Gluons and photons are the rotational energies (i.e. the pure energies; mass equal to zero) so there is not difference. Gluons and photons have different properties due to the internal structure of their carriers (i.e. the binary systems of neutrinos) and the different properties of the strong and electromagnetic fields and the Einstein spacetime. Gluons are in existence only in the strong field whereas the photons are in existence only in the Einstein spacetime or the electroweak field. The carriers of the gluons and photons have the same internal structure but they behave differently in the strong and electromagnetic fields. It is since only strong field has internal helicity due to the internal helicity of the gluon loops produced in the charged torus in the core of baryons. This torus has internal helicity also. Range of the strong field is equal to 2.9 fm because such is the circumference of the gluon loops. This means that we must neglect the internal helicity of the carriers outside the strong field. This is the reason why the gluons ‘transform’ into photons but there STILL ARE THE CARRIERS OF THE GLUONS AND PHOTONS i.e. their internal structure is still the same. You can see that inside the carriers of gluons are the two weak charges only whereas they INTERACT STRONGLY DUE TO THE INTERNAL HELICITIES OF THE NEUTRINOS AND THE HELICITY OF THE GLUONS AS A WHOLE.

The observations are not consistent with faster than light neutrinos.

My Everlasting Theory (more precisely, the new electroweak theory which leads to better results than the QED) shows that the speeds of neutrinos interacting with nucleons and appearing in the weak decays of the muons, pions and W bosons are as follows
c < neutrino-speed < 1.000072c. I claim that the future experiments also will show that it is true. If not, then I will write that my theory is incorrect.

"Can you within the SM calculate the asymptotic value for the alpha-strong for the very high energies?"
The SM can calculate that. It makes a prediction. You know it makes that prediction. You know the values it predicts for TeV scale processes. So your claim the answer is 'no' is a lie. Yes, it might predict something different from you but that isn't what you said.

AlphaNumeric, indeed discussion with you is very difficult. I know that the SM makes a prediction. But I claimed that the SM predictions for the high energies presented in 2004 (see the Nobel Prize) are inconsistent with my predictions. The winners of the Nobel Prize claimed that there is the asymptotic freedom i.e. there is the GAS-like plasma and the alpha_strong = 0. I claim that there is the LIQUID-like plasma and alpha_strong = 0.1139. What is the TODAY SM prediction for energy 14 TeV? You know, we will compare the results when there appear new LHC data.

If neither theory can explain its postulates why is yours better?

It is boring. I wrote it many times. Better theory describes more, is consistent with experimental data and begins from less parameters.

There are the function: alpha_strong = f(energy) and cross-section = f(energy). It is VERY easy to calculate the differential cross section! But it is not necessary to understand my non-perturbative theory. Due you want my theory was longer than the 120 pages A4?
You also still compare my math with the applied in the QCD. My theory is the non-perturbative theory whereas the QCD is the perturbative one. These theories MUST differ completely because I take into account the internal structure of the fields and bare particles whereas the QCD practically can say nothing about the structures.
In the rest of your post are only the invectives.

And now I will teach you one more good thing.

In my theory, there is paragraph titled ‘New interpretation of the Uncertainty Principle’. From it follows that the renewable particles such as electrons, sham quarks, muons appear in appropriate fields as the gluon or photon loops with spin equal to 1 and then transform into the gluon or photon particle-antiparticle pairs and then there is their collapse to gluon or photon balls. Then they disappear in one place of field and appear in another one, and so on.
It looks as follows: gluon or photon loop-->torus-->ball, next loop-->torus-->ball, and so on.
My non-perturbative theory is associated with the loop and torus and partially with the ball whereas the perturbative theories are associated with the balls. Lifetime of the torus is 2*pi*r/c whereas lifetime of the ball stadium is r/c. This means that the non-perturbative stadium lasts 2*pi longer than the perturbative stadium.

Can you now understand why the QED and my electroweak theory are the equivalent theories? Can you now understand why the QCD and my Everlasting Theory are the equivalent theories? But, of course, my theory is much better because of the three conditions which distinguish the better theories from the worse theories.

 

[Sylwester Kornowski]

The extreme amount of symmetries in string theory means many types of rigid structures exist, which do not allow for arbitrary values of coupling constant, Instead they must be found by dynamical methods.

This is true only partially for high energies but even for the high energies, there arise mostly the same stable structures. This causes that for higher and higher energies the ratio of the number of pions and kaons to the number of the other particles increases. This effect was not expected. This effect shows that we can describe the high-energy collisions within a non-perturbative theory.

M-theory in the Everlasting Theory

M-theory: My Everlasting Theory (the ET) is some extension of the M-theory. Within the non-perturbative ET, I described internal structure and behaviour of all closed and open loops/strings. There are the bosonic and fermion loops/strings. There is something beyond the M-theory i.e. the Titius-Bode law for the strong and strong gravitational interactions.

Fundamental bosonic string theory: All particles consist of the binary systems of my closed strings. The phase space of such systems contains 11 elements but we can reduce it to 10 elements because the distance between the closed strings follows from the internal structure of the closed string. The distance is 2π times greater than the thickness of the string. We can see that the binary system of closed strings (spin=1) and the quadruple of the closed strings (spin=2) are the bosons so the fundamental string theory is not the superstring theory. But it consists of the fermions. There arise at once the binary systems because the internal helicity of the created systems must be equal to zero. Then, the quantum fluctuations in the fundamental spacetime are reduced to minimum. The superstring theories, i.e. theories which describe simultaneously the fermions and bosons appear on higher level of nature. I showed how to derive the superstring theories from the fundamental string theory i.e. from the Bosonic String Theory. Due to the phase transitions, there appear the three superstring theories. There are the three stable tori/fermions carrying the half-integral spin i.e. the torus of neutrinos, the torus in the core of baryons and the torus before the ‘soft’ big bang after the period of inflation (they are the k-‘dimensional’ tori in the M-theory). The tori look as closed fermion strings. Inside them, there arise the bosonic loops. We can see that there appears the supersymmetry i.e. the fermion-boson symmetry. The bosonic loops inside the neutrinos and the cosmic loops cannot be open whereas the large loops produced inside the torus in the core of baryons can be closed or open. The tori of neutrinos and the cosmic object cannot be open whereas the electric charges/tori come open in the annihilations of the pairs.
Type I superstring theory is the theory of baryons (typical size is about 10^-15 m) and electrons (~10^-13 m).
Type IIA superstring theory is the theory of neutrinos (typical size is about 10^-35 m).
Type IIB superstring theory is the theory of the objects before the ‘soft’ big bangs after the period of inflation (typical size is about 10^24 m and more due to the expansion).
T-duality: We can see that in approximation the inverse of the geometric mean of the typical sizes for the Type I and IIA superstring theories is equal to the typical size for the Type IIB superstring theory. Moreover, the transition from the Type IIB superstring theory to the Type IIA superstring theory was the cause of the ‘soft’ big bang.
Heterotic E(8)×E(8) theory: The ground state of the Einstein spacetime consists of the non-rotating binary systems of neutrinos. There are the 4 different binary systems. They are the carriers of the photons and gluons. There is one type of the two photons i.e. the left- and right-handed and 8 types of gluons. Due to the four-neutrino symmetry, the next greater object than the 8 different gluons should contain 8 • 8 = 64 gluons. This means that the heterotic E8×E8 theory follows from the fundamental bosonic string theory and the Type I superstring theory.
Heterotic SO(32) theory: There are the 4 different carriers of the photons and gluons. This means that due to the four-neutrino symmetry, the next greater object than the 4 different carriers should contain 4 • 4 = 16 binary systems. But there are the two different states of each baryon so we must multiply this number by 2. Then we obtain the 32 binary systems. We can see that the heterotic SO(32) theory follows also from the fundamental bosonic string theory and the Type I superstring theory.
Gravity: In the gravitational fields, there are the non-rotating quadruples of the neutrinos. Their spin is 2 and they are the carriers of the gravitational energy/mass. There is some analogy between the four different neutrinos, which lead to the quadruples, and the four different binary systems of neutrinos in the heterotic theories. This means that the gravity should look similarly as the heterotic theories in the very low-energy limit.
S-duality: The ET shows that the Type I superstring theory describes the weak and strong interactions whereas the heterotic SO(32) theory the strong interactions via the gluons. This means that there are in existence similar string theories which vary due to the values of the coupling constants.

The M-theory contains the fundamental bosonic string theory plus the three superstring theories for which the fermion-boson symmetry is obligatory and plus the two heterotic theories which follow from the internal structure of the Einstein spacetime and structure of baryons.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

Thanks for showing you have no qualms about just making up nonsense about things you have no understanding of. It illustrates your dishonesty very easily. My PhD was in dualities, I know about T S and U dualities. You are flat out wrong about that, your need to hear yourself talk is your undoing.

 

[Sylwester Kornowski]

Thanks for showing you have no qualms about just making up nonsense about things you have no understanding of. It illustrates your dishonesty very easily. My PhD was in dualities, I know about T S and U dualities. You are flat out wrong about that, your need to hear yourself talk is your undoing.

You know, I showed that the M-theory is the fundamental part of the Everlasting Theory. This causes that the M-theory is NOW FRUITFUL.

Why in your posts are the invectives only? Are you personal? Lack of scientific arguments?
If you are such good then you can write why the heterotic strings behave simultaneously as the fundamental bosonic strings and the Type II strings? Can you? You know, just the PHYSICAL MEANING.

You know PhD, if you will not explain it, I will do it.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

I showed that the M-theory is the fundamental part of the Everlasting Theory.

No, you took a bunch of buzzwords you don't understand, like 'heterotic SO(32)' and claimed it's part of your work. You didn't show anything, other than your lack of understanding.

Why in your posts are the invectives only? Are you personal? Lack of scientific arguments?

You have shown you don't respond to in-depth replies. And a response to your obvious fraud and lies doesn't need to be detailed. Anyone who even reads the 'simple' Wikipedia pages of string theory can see what you're saying is completely false.

And you haven't provided any scientific argument for your claims either. You've just taken the headers and made up what you think they mean. For example, you claim Type I is about phenomena between $$10^{-13}$$ and $$10^{-15}$$ m. We can measure such scales in particle colliders. Strings don't show themselves on those scales. Hell, weak bosons hardly show themselves, you're not even at quark scales there! We can probe down to about $$10^{-18}$$ m. So you are demonstrably false in your statements.

Want another one? You claim the T duality between a IIA and IIB construction caused the big bang. T dualities aren't physical changes. They are mathematical symmetries where a IIA and a completely different looking IIB construct are shown to be phenomenologically equivalent. It shows how the mathematical formalism can completely change yet the physics stay the same. You mistakenly think it involves a physical change. That's not just getting the maths wrong (which we both know you can't do anyway) but getting the entire conceptual point of the duality wrong.

This illustrates you haven't learnt any string theory, you've just skim read pop science articles on it.

If you are such good then you can write why the heterotic strings behave simultaneously as the fundamental bosonic strings and the Type II strings? Can you? You know, just the PHYSICAL MEANING.

If you mean can I explain how heterotic strings are constructed and the left and right moving oscillations have different numbers of degrees of freedom, one in line with the bosonic string and one in line with a supersymmetric string, then yes I can. Is it anything like you've claimed? Not in the slightest.

You know PhD, if you will not explain it, I will do it.

I have published peer reviewed cited work on the subject, sometimes in collaboration with others and sometimes on my own. I have proven to the scientific community I'm familiar with this stuff. You are stuck on forums lying, just flat out lying about this stuff.

If you claim otherwise I'd like you to show how you go from the Type I string to a model of baryons. I don't mean "Give me a wordy description", I mean I want you to end up constructing an SU(N) gauge theory with coupling values in specific ranges which represents the theory you claimed Type I is.

This blatent attempt to steal some of the credibility of a mainstream area by claiming it's explained by your work really shows the level of dishonesty you are willing to employ. I am absolutely certain if I probed your 'understanding' about string theory, even just the simple stuff covered in an introductory String Theory 101 course required before you can move onto dualities, M theory etc you'd fail. More than likely you'd be evasive and not reply to my direct questions.

Am I right in this? Are you claiming to be competent at the actual details, the workings, the mathematics, of string theory? Are you willing to put your maths where your mouth is? String theory is mathematically complicated and I have never seen you do any mathematics beyond a high school student. Either you think you understand it because you're just plain ignorant and delusional or you know you don't and you're being dishonest. Either way I'm certain you haven't got a clue. Care to prove me wrong?

 

[Sylwester Kornowski]

First, you did not answer my question. So once more: Why the heterotic strings behave simultaneously as the fundamental bosonic strings and the Type II strings?

No, you took a bunch of buzzwords you don't understand, like 'heterotic SO(32)' and claimed it's part of your work. You didn't show anything, other than your lack of understanding.

You still write the nonsense because you did not read my theory. The formulae (5) and (6), page 14, lead to the phase transitions of the fundamental spacetime. They lead to the fundamental bosonic string theory, three supersymmetry theories and two heterotic theories. Of course, I can write much more about the heterotic SO(32) theory but it includes the answer to the question to you. Can you at first answer my question?

You have shown you don't respond to in-depth replies. And a response to your obvious fraud and lies doesn't need to be detailed. Anyone who even reads the 'simple' Wikipedia pages of string theory can see what you're saying is completely false.
And you haven't provided any scientific argument for your claims either. You've just taken the headers and made up what you think they mean. For example, you claim Type I is about phenomena between and m. We can measure such scales in particle colliders. Strings don't show themselves on those scales. Hell, weak bosons hardly show themselves, you're not even at quark scales there! We can probe down to about m. So you are demonstrably false in your statements.

AlphaNumeric, “you are demonstrably false in your statements”. You write the nonsense because the mainstream theories cannot describe correctly the INTERNAL STRUCTURE of the Einstein spacetime. This spacetime is the scene for the wave function which describes the state of electron. In my Everlasting/Elementary Theory (the E-theory), I described the all phenomena associated with the processes of creations and annihilations of the electrons and I calculated the mass of electron. There is also explained why we TODAY cannot see the Compton size (about 10^-13 m) of the electron. Electrons arise as specific POLARIZATION of the Einstein spacetime. The loop in the Einstein spacetime transforms into torus and next there is its collapse to the photon ball. Next, there is the ‘explosion’ of this photon ball. The collapses and explosions look as the absorptions and emissions of a point particle but there is not in existence a point particle, just the packed photons! The Compton size of the electron is associated with the torus i.e. with the POLARIZED EINSTEIN SPACETIME only. We cannot today measure the polarization of the non-rotating binary systems the Einstein spacetime consists of. The QED is associated with the photon-ball stadium and the collapses and explosions which lead to the Feynman diagrams. My theory includes also the loop/torus stadium and the non-perturbative part associated with the ball stadium i.e. its internal structure and its weak interactions.
The energy of an electron disappears in one place of the Einstein spacetime and appears in another one, and so on. Such phenomena cause that the mass/energy of electron is distributed in the whole spacetime. We can say about the motion of the electron wave, not about the electron. When a wave associated with an electron goes through slits then the electron appears many times in each slit so there is the diffraction pattern. Within my new interpretation of the Uncertainty Principle, electron cannot go through only one slit.
So once more: there is in existence the Compton-size loop/torus/electron and its lifetime is about 10^-21 s. This stadium lasts 2*(pi) times longer than the Feynman diagrams. Both stadiums lead to the same theoretical results.

Want another one? You claim the T duality between a IIA and IIB construction caused the big bang. T dualities aren't physical changes. They are mathematical symmetries where a IIA and a completely different looking IIB construct are shown to be phenomenologically equivalent. It shows how the mathematical formalism can completely change yet the physics stay the same. You mistakenly think it involves a physical change. That's not just getting the maths wrong (which we both know you can't do anyway) but getting the entire conceptual point of the duality wrong.

This illustrates you haven't learnt any string theory, you've just skim read pop science articles on it.

This is the next nonsense. I try to teach you and others the good physics but you do not listen to me! The ‘soft’ big bang after the period of inflation was due to the TRANSITION of the cosmic torus into the torus of neutrino. Such transition was possible because mass of the big torus is exact equal to the energy (not mass) frozen inside each neutrino. Neutrino consists of the SUPERLUMINAL binary systems of my closed strings (size of such strings is about 10^-45 m) so the LACKING DARK ENERGY FROZEN INSIDE EACH NEUTRINO is much, much higher than the mass of neutrino (the ratio is about 10^120). But the frozen dark energy in the torus of neutrino is the same as the mass of the cosmic torus. You can see that math in the IIA differs very much from the math in the IIB but due to the law of conservation of energy, the transition was possible.
The ratio about 10^120 for the E/m for neutrinos causes that the quantum effects are not important in the Einstein spacetime for sizes smaller than the Planck length. This causes that the non-quantum Einstein Gravity is the very effective theory.

If you mean can I explain how heterotic strings are constructed and the left and right moving oscillations have different numbers of degrees of freedom, one in line with the bosonic string and one in line with a supersymmetric string, then yes I can. Is it anything like you've claimed? Not in the slightest.

Do you understand what the word ‘simultaneously’ means? You should describe internal structure of the heterotic strings to show that such strings can act correctly. Try. I will show where is the mistake in the non-effective M-theory and why my M-theory is effective.

I have published peer reviewed cited work on the subject, sometimes in collaboration with others and sometimes on my own. I have proven to the scientific community I'm familiar with this stuff. You are stuck on forums lying, just flat out lying about this stuff.

But this does not mean that you understand physics correctly! And I write about the correct physics, not you – see the above explanations concerning the internal structure of electrons and the cause of the ‘soft’ big bang. I explained how new cosmology is associated with the EFFECTIVE M-theory i.e. my E-theory.

If you claim otherwise I'd like you to show how you go from the Type I string to a model of baryons. I don't mean "Give me a wordy description", I mean I want you to end up constructing an SU(N) gauge theory with coupling values in specific ranges which represents the theory you claimed Type I is.
This blatent attempt to steal some of the credibility of a mainstream area by claiming it's explained by your work really shows the level of dishonesty you are willing to employ. I am absolutely certain if I probed your 'understanding' about string theory, even just the simple stuff covered in an introductory String Theory 101 course required before you can move onto dualities, M theory etc you'd fail. More than likely you'd be evasive and not reply to my direct questions.

Am I right in this? Are you claiming to be competent at the actual details, the workings, the mathematics, of string theory? Are you willing to put your maths where your mouth is? String theory is mathematically complicated and I have never seen you do any mathematics beyond a high school student. Either you think you understand it because you're just plain ignorant and delusional or you know you don't and you're being dishonest. Either way I'm certain you haven't got a clue. Care to prove me wrong?

AlphaNumeric, you still do not understand that there are in existence the two different stadiums i.e. the ball stadium and the loop/torus stadium so there are the two independent descriptions (i.e. the perturbative and non-perturbative). The perturbative description leads to the non-effective M-theory whereas the non-perturbative to the effective M-theory. I wrote many times why the perturbative theory does not act in the loop/torus stadium. In my theory, I described the transition from the fundamental bosonic string theory to the theory of baryons i.e. to the Type I superstring theory.

Recapitulation
AlphaNumeric, you and Professors try to solve the hundreds unsolved problems via the sometimes VERY GOOD perturbative theories. This is because the QED gives such beautiful theoretical results. Physicists assume that there is in existence only the ball and the absorptions and emissions. This is not true. There is in existence the loop/torus stadium also. We cannot describe the interactions in the last stadiums via the very complicated perturbative theories. To describe the loop/torus stadium correctly, the high-school math is enough! And you and Professors cannot understand it. Such simple? Impossible!

Once more:
The perturbative description leads to the non-effective M-theory whereas the non-perturbative to the effective M-theory. Some phenomena we can describe correctly within the perturbative theories whereas some within the non-perturbative E-theory. Sometimes the descriptions concern the same phenomena – first of all they concern the weak interactions.

 

[Emil]

The cry of the crank, "You just know the maths, I know the physics!". Ever looked in a relativity textbook, a paper published in it, the original work of Einstein or Hilbert? It's very mathematical. The level of mathematics I've posted on this forum is basic. I don't think I've ever actually gone to the edges of my abilities here, the SR related stuff is first year material.

Someone need only look in a text book on relativity to see I'm not being any more mathematical than anyone else. You're too used to reading pop science articles where they remove all the mathematics. It gives you a false impression 'real' relativity is done without the maths. You should actually look at how relativity is done.

Would you like me to cite some examples for you?

And yet I explained it to you repeatedly over in the recent thread you and MD were being thick in.

So I'm arrogant for having a demonstrable understanding of special relativity, formal education in it and published research in models which incorporate it, while you're not arrogant for making claims you can't back up, having no experience with SR and being demonstrable wrong in multiple areas of it?

Wow are you ever detached from reality.

I have explained to you several times about logic.
The paradox is only an absurdity, said with nice words.
You must investigate, which means if an assumption leads to an absurdity (using your words, a paradox)

 

[AlphaNumeric]

Sylwester, you complain I didn't answer your question when I did comment on it and you know full well there's explanations in the literature. It's to remove a conformal anomaly in the massless field content of the supersymmetric string modes. One way to do this is to add particular field content in one direction and give it a gauge field associated to a group of dimension 496. SO(32) and $$E_{8} \times E_{8}$$ are the two non-trivial ones. The preferential treatment of one of the wave sets means their central charges are different and since the central charges pertain to the number of dimensions the oscillations can occur in, the left and right moving modes end up effectively being in different dimensionality spaces.

I said I could explain it but the reason I didn't is because, quite frankly, I think you're too ignorant (and too stupid) to understand. No doubt now you'll either say "No!" and spew another bunch of made up nonsense or you'll claim you've explained it and throw in some buzzwords. Either way there wasn't be a proper discussion, you'll just continue with your self advertising.

I also notice you didn't address my request, that you demonstrate you can construct the Type I formalism from your work. You don't provide it in your work and you haven't provided it here. Your entire previous post amounts to "I've explained M theory and I prove it by saying I've explained it".

For example, while you quoted me explaining why you are demonstrably false about the nature of T duality you didn't retort what I said. You just spewed out another talking point. Are you unable to actually address specific demonstrations you're mistaken? Are you unable to accept when you're wrong? You were wrong, just flat out wrong, about the nature of T duality. I don't have to go any further than that to find a mistake.

String theory is a complicated subject, there's no shame in saying you don't understand some of it. It took me years to get to the stage where I was comfortable thinking about some of these concepts.

Your actions strike me as a man desperate to convince himself he's not a failure and what better way than to pick the largest, most complicated area of theoretical physics and proclaim you've explained it all? Not disproven it, but explained it. That way you can try to get across how amazingly brilliant you think your work is because everyone is familiar with string theory and no one knows anything about you. Saying "I've explained string theory" is a short simple way to illustrate how wide ranging you think your work is. Such a shame you don't know the first thing about it and you can't do any of the relevant mathematics.

Can you construct any of the Lagrangians for any of the theories in question? 11d Sugra? IIA/IIB sugra?

You must realise the daftness of your claims? You can't even do undergraduate level mathematics and you're claiming to have explained stuff Fields Medallists work on? I seriously don't think you could even pass the university entrance exam for the universities such people work at. Care to demonstrate otherwise?

The more I think about it the more I'm wondering if you're just deliberately trolling. You know posting such a ridiculously laughable claim about something a number of people here are interested in would get a response and obviously you wanted an excuse to spew more of your self advertising. You aren't interested in discussion, each bit of my post you quote you don't respond to properly, you just throw out a repeat of laughable claims you've already made.

Clearly you want attention and you're willing to be dishonest to get it. How sad a man you are.

You must investigate, which means if an assumption leads to an absurdity (using your words, a paradox)

I hardly think you're in a position to tell people to investigate given your vocal dislike of things you are demonstrably ignorant of.

 

[Sylwester Kornowski]

AlphaNumeric, I discuss, you write the nonsense. I write the explanations to the hundreds unsolved problems within the non-effective M-theory and the QCD. I showed why this theory is the non-effective one. I showed physically and mathematically what we should do to transform this theory into an effective theory. This is associated with the phase transitions of the fundamental spacetime. This means that there is not in existence ONLY ONE SIZE OF STRING/LOOP. Due to the phase transitions, there are the four different sizes associated with the one bosonic string theory and the three string supersymmetry theories. The two heterotic theories are the mixtures of these string theories. The assumption that there is only one size of string and that it acts in the HIGHER DIMENSIONS causes that the M-theory is the non-effective theory. In my theory, there appear the numbers 10(11) and 26 but they are the number of elements in the phase space respectively of the fundamental bosonic string theory and the IIA superstring theory. When we exchange the only one size of the closed strings onto the four sizes (due to the phase transitions), we eliminate the higher dimensions and we obtain the effective M-theory!

You know, within the QCD, we cannot even postulate the exact masses of the up and down quarks.

You know, within the Standard Model we cannot calculate the superluminal speeds of the neutrinos whereas within my atom-like structure of baryons such calculations are very simple. I write them on this forum! The MINOS and OPERA data do not lie. The facts associated with the supernova SN 1987A do not lie.

AlphaNumeric, I think that it is obvious for all readers that you reject the obvious facts. You lie like a conjurer because there is my electronic book and all can see that I calculated within the high school math (the nature likes such math) hundreds theoretical results consistent with all experimental data from the 7 parameters only. I discuss here to show readers the true and beautiful physics. I do not discuss to convince you that my Everlasting Theory is correct because you assumed that the nature needs infinite time to calculate, applying the tremendously complicated math, how it should behave.

Recapitulation

My Everlasting Theory paralyses because it changes the non-effective and mathematically very complicated M-theory into the VERY SIMPLE effective M-theory and eliminates the higher dimensions.

My Everlasting Theory paralyses because it shows that the neutrinos are the superluminal particles.

My Everlasting Theory paralyses because it shows that nature is mathematically very simple. Scientific community has a grievance against me that the nature is such simple. Scientific community should have a grievance to the NATURE, not to me.

I can see that TODAY it is not the time for my theory. But because of my effective M-theory and because of the superluminal neutrinos the time is going.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

No demonstration, no evidence, no algebra. Precisely as I expected from you. You can't provide anything but vacuous posturing.