Sylwester's 'Everlasting theory'

[Sylwester Kornowski]

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

My advice for readers is as follows. You can press the field with my name, next the ‘Contact Info’ and next the ‘Home Page’. There is my book, the 120 pages A4 (soon there will be the 126 pages), 241 formulae derived from the 7 parameters only – they are recorded on the page 10 (soon the page 12). The math is very simple. On pages 10-25 (soon 12-27), I described the phase transitions which lead to the physical constants and to my EFFECTIVE M-theory (string/loop theory). On pages 104-105 (soon 106-108), the very simple calculations lead to the MINOS and OPERA data and to the 3 hours delay for the supernova SN 1987A. The obtained theoretical results are equal to the experimental and observational data.

All can see that there are indeed 7 parameters only.
All can see that the hundreds theoretical results consistent with the experimental data are derived from the 7 parameters.
All can see that scientific community neglects the internal structure of the bare particles and the spacetime. This causes that there is the very complicated math.

Below I explained it on base of the QED i.e. the hocus-pocus as said FEYNMAN.
The real picture of the electron is as follows. There is the Compton-size torus (today we cannot see it because it is the polarized Einstein spacetime only) – this is the electric charge so it has the electromagnetic mass only. In centre of torus, there is the ball i.e. the a little compressed Einstein spacetime responsible for the weak interactions. The weak mass is equal to the electromagnetic mass. This structure of bare electron is neglected in the QED. Outside the torus, there arise the virtual electron-positron pairs. They collapse and explode. This looks as the absorptions and the emissions of the photons by a photon ball. The diagrams in the QED are associated only with collapses and emissions. The hocus-pocus follows from the fact that the electromagnetic mass of an electron-positron pair is the same as the whole mass of the bare electron. In fact, the electron has electromagnetic and weak mass. In fact, the virtual pairs interact also weakly with the ball in the centre of torus. This follows from the fact that the bare mass of electron and the Einstein spacetime consist of the binary systems of neutrinos i.e. of the particles interacting weakly. Due to the weak and electromagnetic interactions of the virtual pairs with the real electron, there is emitted the radiation mass and this radiation mass is the scene for the Feynman diagrams. We can see that we can describe the radiation mass applying two methods.
1. The Feynman method is as follows.
We neglect the internal structure of bare electron. We take the real mass of electron from ceiling (this is the parameter in the QED) and next, due to the renormalization, we separate this real mass into the bare mass and the radiation mass. But the electromagnetic bare mass of the electron-positron pairs in the QED is the same as the whole mass of the bare electron in my theory. This means that due to the renormalization, the radiation mass is the same as in my theory. Next, we take from ceiling the fine structure constant (this is the parameter in the QED) and applying the perturbative theory (the diagrams) we calculate one thing or another.
For example, the central value for the electron magnetic moment in the Bohr magneton is
1.001159652201
For muon is
1.0011659180
2. My method is as follows.
We do not neglect the internal structure of bare electron and Einstein spacetime. The torus and the ball follow from the phase transitions of the fundamental spacetime and such phase transitions lead to my effective string theory. We calculate the mass of bare electron (see formula (18)), we calculate the fine structure constant (see formula (21)) and the coupling constant for the weak interactions (see formula (58)). There appears the radiation mass due to the electromagnetic and weak interactions between the virtual electron-positron pair and the real electron. There is only one diagram so my theory is the non-perturbative theory. Next, we calculate one thing or another.
For example, electron magnetic moment in the Bohr magneton is
1.001159652173
For muon is
1.0011659215

The experimental data are as follows. The central value for the electron is
1.001159652180
For muon is
1.0011659209

The results of subtraction of the experimental data and the results obtained within the QED are as follows
For electron is -21*10^-12 and for muon +29*10^-10
For my theory is as follows
For electron is +7*10^-12 and for muon -6*10^-10

Why my results are better? This is because in my theory the only one diagram is equivalent to the infinite number of diagrams in the QED. It is obvious that the theoretical results obtained within the QED are only for a few the first orders of the perturbation theory so the theoretical results obtained within the QED must be worse.

So once more: Where is the Feynman hocus-pocus? In the QED assumes that the bare mass is the electromagnetic mass only. This is not true but the electromagnetic mass of the electron-positron pairs is the same as the mass of the bare electron in my theory. This causes that due to the renormalization {m(radiation) = m(real) – m(bare)}the result of subtraction of the real mass and bare mass of electron in the QED and my theory is the same i.e. the radiation mass, due to the renormalization, is the same as in my theory. What it means? It means that within the QED we secretly assume that electromagnetic mass of electron is two times smaller than the bare mass of electron! We must change the mainstream picture of electron. We must eliminate the hocus-pocus. Then the QED becomes the very simple non-perturbative theory of electron described within my Everlasting Theory.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

My advice for readers is as follows. You can press the field with my name, next the ‘Contact Info’ and next the ‘Home Page’. There is my book, the 120 pages A4 (soon there will be the 126 pages), 241 formulae derived from the 7 parameters only – they are recorded on the page 10 (soon the page 12). The math is very simple. On pages 10-25 (soon 12-27), I described the phase transitions which lead to the physical constants and to my EFFECTIVE M-theory (string/loop theory).

No where in your pdf is what I asked. You don't show any string or M theory construct mathematically follows from your 'work'. You just make statements and assertions to the fact.

I asked you to show you could get the relevant Lagrangians. Where's that in your pdf? Where do you construct the field content? The anomaly cancellation for central charges? The Kac-Moody algebras? Nowhere.

Your mathematics level I'd gauge to be about that of a 16 year old. I have never seen you do anything I'd consider degree level, let alone stuff which is considered advanced PhD level.

Rather than produce another post where you just repeat baseless assertions why don't you step up and provide what I requested? Constructing the Type II massless field content is something any string theory researcher should be familiar with, particularly those working in dualities. You've made numerous claims you explain such things so you must be able to produce them in your work. Let's see it.

Oh and don't think I didn't notice you completely ignored my explanation of how you are categorically wrong about T duality. When you ignore things like that it shows you know you've been caught but you can't admit it.

 

[Sylwester Kornowski]

AlphaNumeric, your last post, the same as many others, is terrible. You, PhD, in spite of our very long ‘discussion completely do not understand what is the place of my Everlasting Theory in the M-theory, the SM and Gravity. I never claimed that due to my theory we must change whole physics. My theory shows which elements we must change or ADD to the mainstream theories to obtain the effective theories or better picture of nature. The first diagram in my book titled ‘Main ideas’ and the description associated with it show the range of my theory.

I never claimed that the M-theory as a whole is incorrect. I clam that due to the transition from the ONLY ONE TORUS acting in HIGHER DIMENSIONS in the mainstream M-theory (I claim that such assumption is awful) to the phase transitions in my theory which lead to four tori with different sizes, we obtain the effective M-theory. This ‘small’ change in the mainstream M-theory does not need a Lagrangian function, differentials, integrals, equations of motion, equations of state or a perturbative theory. But such simple change is the milestone in the ultimate theory.

I never claimed that the Schrodinger equation is incorrect. I claim that incompetence and ignorance concerning the internal structure of the Einstein spacetime and bare particles lead to tremendous number of wrong interpretations within the quantum physics. But in generally, the quantum physics is the correct theory. To solve the tremendous number of the unsolved problems within the quantum physics we need the high school math. But the needed changes in the quantum physics which we can describe by means of the high school math are the milestones in the ultimate theory.

I never claimed that the Einstein equations are incorrect. But they are incomplete because the neutrinos are the superluminal particles. To explain it, we must ADD to the QCD my atom-like structure of baryons and the photon-gluon transitions. My theory leads to the 8 gluons and to the masses of the quarks but in the QCD is many wrong conclusions and many parts should be removed. To do it we need the high school math only but the atom-like structure of baryons is the milestone of the ultimate theory. I want to write also something interesting about the SR. Does the relativity change the mass of an accelerated particle i.e. its internal structure, or does not or both solutions are possible? To answer this question we must know the internal structure of the bare particles and the Einstein spacetime. The SR and GR say practically nothing about such problems. And my theory solves them. The lacking part of the GR is the milestone also in the ultimate theory. To do it we need the high school math only.

The QED gives good results due to the two lucky assumptions. First, we must formulate theory in which the observed mass is the parameter and we must separate this mass into the bare mass and radiation mass. This theory is not theory about the bare electron i.e. about its internal structure. Fortunately, this theory is based on the creations and annihilations of the electron-positron pairs which appear in the radiation field. This means that the QED is about the radiation field of INTERACTING ELECTRON. Fortunately, the electromagnetic bare mass of the electron-positron pairs is equal to the bare mass of electron in my theory. The QED describes the electromagnetic interactions of electron ONLY. But my theory shows, i.e. the internal structure of the bare electron (it is neglected in the QED) that electron interacts also weakly and the coupling constant of these interactions leads to the superluminal neutrinos. This means that the QED is incomplete and the lacking part is the milestone in the ultimate theory. The lacking part we can describe by means of the high school math but this not mean that the changes are not important.
And so on….

Once more: Generally, I claim that my theory is the lacking part of the ultimate theory. This theory shows which parts in the mainstream theories must be changed, describes the lacking parts and shows which interpretations are incorrect. Generally, my theory is about the internal structures of the particles and the two spacetimes. This theory describes the interactions of the bare particles, not the interactions via the collapsing and exploding PAIRS. My theory shows that in many cases we can eliminate the perturbative theories and obtain better (for example, better than within the QED or QCD) and much better results or calculate physical quantities (as, for example, physical constants), impossible within the mainstream theories.

Albert Einstein wrote that calculations should be such simple as it is possible, but not simpler. My theory shows where the lower limit for the simplifications is. There will not be in existence the ultimate theory without my Everlasting Theory. I will wait till the scientific community will be ready to understand it i.e. that the mainstream M-theory and SM are the ineffective theories without my Everlasting Theory.

 

[Sylwester Kornowski]

I decided to add to the above post the below paragraph.
Scientific community assumes that on the lower and lower levels of nature the applied math should be more and more complicated because the quantum effects, i.e. the collapses and explosions of the PAIRS which lead to the diagrams, should be more frequent. But it is true only for the period of inflation. During the ‘era’ of inflation, there were the phase transitions of the Newtonian and Einstein spacetimes COMPONENTS into the stable, so CLASSICAL, objects i.e. into the classical closed strings, classical neutrinos, classical cores of baryons and the classical objects before the ‘soft’ big bangs after the period of inflation. Due to the tremendous dark energy frozen inside the binary systems of the closed strings the neutrinos consist of and tremendous dark energy frozen inside the binary systems of neutrinos (E/m = 10^120), the Newtonian spacetime, which is directly responsible for the gravitational interactions, behaves as CLASSICAL field i.e. there are not in existence the creations and annihilations of some PAIRS. The Einstein spacetime has density about 10^43 times higher than the Newtonian spacetime so there are possible the quantum effects. But the components of the Einstein spacetime, i.e. the binary systems of neutrinos, behave TODAY CLASSICALLY. This means that today we can describe the interactions of the stable 4 tori classically via the running couplings and it is in my theory. I showed also that some quantum effects are very simple so there are the very simple calculations. For example, the quantum states of the bosons on the Titius-Bode ‘orbits’ in baryons are the S states only i.e. they are the circles. The quantum effects concern the pair productions. The number of pairs changes in interactions so there appears the more complicated math.

Recapitulation
Due to the tremendous energy frozen in the binary closed strings and binary systems of neutrinos, today the Newtonian spacetime behaves classically and classically behave the Einstein spacetime components but in the Einstein spacetime as a whole, the quantum effects, i.e. the pair production, are possible. This causes that we can describe the stable tori (closed strings, neutrinos, cores of baryons and the objects before the ‘soft’ big bangs suited to life) applying very simple math and this is in my Everlasting Theory.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

All talk with nothing to say you are. I explicitly asked for you not to just repeat assertions and to show the mathematics and you do precisely the opposite. It shows your dishonesty and utter lack of understanding. Youre incapable of engaging in discussion, you just repeat endlessly your baseless assertions and lies.

 

[Sylwester Kornowski]

AlphaNumeric, you completely do not understand physics. It is not good situation in physics that the best mathematicians decide which papers in PHYSICS should be published. Generally, there acts following rule: better mathematician is worse physicist. In physics is needed SPECIAL INTUITION. I claim that I am the exception to the rule i.e. I have the special intuition needed in physics and I am good mathematician so I am able to select the simplest math to describe the most difficult physical problems.

Today, the best mathematicians in physics try to solve the hundred unsolved problems via the incorrect initial conditions i.e. via the higher dimension in the M-theory or via the fantastic assumption in the SM that point/bare particles can emit and absorb something. Due to these fantastic wrong assumptions, the decades go by and the unsolved problems still are unsolved. Congratulations for stubbornness!

Once more: Today there is regress in physics because we cannot accept my phase transitions instead the higher dimensions and my atom-like structure of baryons which leads to the superluminal neutrinos.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

It is not good situation in physics that the best mathematicians decide which papers in PHYSICS should be published.

I didn't say that. You're continually misrepresenting me. Here's a tip, when you do that you only make yourself look worse.

The point is that if someone says "Model A explains model B" then they need to show that mathematically you can extract B from A. For example, relativity explains why we have Newtonian mechanics for so long, it's the leading order in v approximation to relativity. QED explains why we had electromagnetism and electrodynamics. QCD explains why we have Yukawa theory. Electroweak theory explains QED.

All of those are shown mathematically, where you extract the model for the explained case from the explaining case. You're claiming to have explained string/M theory and I'm asking you to show it. You initially claimed to have the mathematics but when I looked it was nowhere to be seen.

You haven't justified your assertions, you have only repeated them.

Generally, there acts following rule: better mathematician is worse physicist.

Actually the vast majority of the best theoretical physics groups belong to mathematics departments. Cambridge has it's string theory, quantum field theory and general relativity research groups in its mathematics department. Newton, Green, Stokes, Dirac, Hawking, another Green, Perry, Gibbons, all of them were Cambridge mathematicians. Then there's people like Witten who even have a Fields medal for their contributions to mathematics.

You're extrapolating from zero data points. Your only guide is your own prejudice.

In physics is needed SPECIAL INTUITION.

Which mathematicians can have.

I claim that I am the exception to the rule i.e. I have the special intuition needed in physics and I am good mathematician so I am able to select the simplest math to describe the most difficult physical problems.

So you admit exceptions can occur, utterlyv negating your point.

Besides, I don't think you're a good mathematician (or physicist). Please point me to something you've done which required more than high school level mathematics.

Congratulations for stubbornness!

You're the guy whose been pushing his nonsense since the mid 80s (that's how long I've been alive!) and gotten nowhere and ignored all corrections and errors. I hardly think you're in a position to talk about being stubborn. And you have failed to accomplish anything

Once more: Today there is regress in physics because we cannot accept my phase transitions instead the higher dimensions and my atom-like structure of baryons which leads to the superluminal neutrinos.

More repetition of assertions, not evidence.

You seem incapable of doing anything other than asserting things without evidence. When I ask you not to repeat things for the n'th time you repeat them. When I ask you for evidence, you just repeat assertions. Do you have a learning difficult? What is the reason you are utterly unable to have a proper discussion?

 

[Sylwester Kornowski]

AlphaNumeric, I should not discuss with you because your ‘conclusions’ look as a paranoia.
I am physicist, Master of Physics and teacher of physics. There were the all needed examinations. My Master’s thesis is the “Optical Activity of Macro- and Biomolecules”. This paper is written in the quantum language. There is the Hamiltonian function and the perturbative series expansion. There are my OWN calculations. I obtained for it the best degree. You know, you still call in question my education. You know, this is a slander. This is the penal act. Do not try to do it again. You repeat it constantly because you are the loser in the discussion with me. There is indeed the regress in physics and it lasts decades. The phase transitions I formulated in 1997 whereas the atom-like structure of baryons in 1985. You completely do not understand that my theory describes the interactions of my closed strings. The math is very simple. There are following chapters in which I described the creation, internal structure, stability and interactions of the binary systems of the closed strings i.e. the bosonic string theory: “Phase transitions of Newtonian spacetime….” and “The weak interactions of baryons lead to the fundamental force”. I described the interactions of the neutrinos, cores of baryons and the evolution of the object before the ‘soft’ big bang (this is the new cosmology on pages 57-73). They are the three the superstring theories. My whole book describes also the heterotic theories. My whole book is about the effective M-theory. You are big liar. You write still the nonsense and the encyclopaedic information. It is awful because you claim that you are the PhD. Now I understand why there is the regress in physics.

You are the loser and you will be the loser in the future because there will not be a progress in physics without my M-theory, i.e. without the interactions described within my phase transitions of the fundamental spacetime, and without my atom-like structure of baryons which leads to the superluminal neutrinos. Within my M-theory and within my atom-like structure of baryons I calculated the hundreds theoretical results consistent with experimental data. You lie and lie and lie. But all see that you are the liar because my math and my theoretical results are in my book. Can you stop to write the posts which look as a paranoia? Can you stop to write the obvious facts? Can you read my posts and my book with needed self-communion?
You write “…. not evidence, not evidence, not evidence..”. This is paranoia because there are the 126 pages, 241 formulae, hundreds theoretical results, many tables and figures, there are calculated also the all needed couplings so we can describe all interactions of the STABLE objects without the quantum physics. Do you understand such SIMPLE explanation? There are also a few functions showing how some physical values depend on the changing energy.

 

[Reiku]

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.

I doubt, just by reading this, you actually know any fundamental mathematics behind neutrino's?

Yes, would I be right?

Your contentions and buzzwords are totally out of place, even for an alternative theory.

 

[Sylwester Kornowski]

Why here people do not discuss via scientific arguments? Even the PhD AlphaNumeric cannot do it. Probably no one taught them how such discussion should look. I will try to teach them how such discussion should look on base of the QED.

Before, I wrote that the QED is the incomplete theory of electron. This theory is about the electromagnetic interactions ONLY of the electron-positron pairs and photons which lead to the radiation mass of electron. The observed mass of electron is the parameter in the QED so within the QED we cannot derive this mass from a more fundamental theory than the QED. The hocus-pocus in the QED follows from the fact that the bare mass of electron is equal to the BARE ELECTROMAGNETIC MASS OF THE FERMION-ANTIFERMION PAIR. This means that in silence in the QED is assumed that the electromagnetic mass of one bare electron is two times smaller than its bare mass. The bare electromagnetic mass of the pair we obtain applying the next parameter in the QED i.e. the field normalization Z. This means that we have two parameters, i.e. the observed mass of electron and the field normalization Z which leads to the bare electromagnetic mass of the electron-positron pair. This is obvious that the distance of mass between the observed mass of electron and its bare mass (in reality, it is the electromagnetic mass of the pair) is equal to the radiation mass. Formulated in such way QED we can use to calculate other physical quantities such as magnetic moment, Lamb-Retherford shift, and so on.
Now, applying the scientific arguments I will prove that the QED leads to my complete theory of electron. I claim that the electron-positron pairs in the QED are created from closed photon loops which spin is equal to 1 and that next the loop transforms into torus-antitorus pair (i.e. into electric charge-anticharge pair). In centre of each torus is ball composed of the Einstein spacetime components and is responsible for the weak interactions of electron which are neglected in the QED. The Everlasting Theory shows that the weak (ball) and electromagnetic (torus) masses are the same. This means that my theory shows that the sum of the weak and electromagnetic mass of my bare electron is equal to the bare electromagnetic mass of the pairs in the QED. This is the hocus-pocus which causes that the QED is the effective theory but only for the electromagnetic interactions. How we can show that the QED indeed leads to the closed loops? In the renormalization theory applied in the QED, there appears the Euler-Mascheroni constant 0.577… which via the Hurwitz zeta function leads to the regularization and to the parameter in the QED i.e. to the field normalization Z. There were formulated many different regularizations. For example, in the Pauli-Villars regularization, when we put N=2, we obtain a regularized propagator as a function without SINGULARITIES. The N represents the N-dimensional spacetime. This means that the N=2 leads to the 1D-space plus 1D-time i.e. to the spinning (it is the 1D-time) closed loop (it is the 1D-space).

Recapitulation
The QED is the theory of the electromagnetic interactions only of the field around the bare electron which consists of the collapsing and exploding electron-positron pairs so also of photons. The pairs are created from the loops. Fortunately for the QED, the electromagnetic mass of a pair is equal to the bare mass of single electron. This is the hocus-pocus. The QED is the incomplete theory of electron because neglects its weak interactions.
My electroweak theory described within the Everlasting Theory is the complete theory of the electron. The structure and mass of the bare electron follows from the phase transitions of the fundamental spacetime. The torus (the electric charge and spin) and the ball (it is responsible for the weak interactions) in its centre are the stable objects for the period of spinning so we can reject the quantum physics to describe it. Within the Everlasting Theory, I calculated the bare mass of electron via the phase transitions of the fundamental spacetime and next via the electromagnetic and weak interactions of the bare electron with the stable electron-positron pairs (they are stable for the period of spinning) I calculated the radiation mass so the observed mass of electron also. Within my complete electroweak theory of electron, I calculated also the Lamb-Retherford shift and frequency of the radiation emitted by the hydrogen atom under a change of the mutual orientation of the electron and proton spin in the ground state (see Table 9, page 51 (soon page 53)). The calculations are very simple because for the stable objects we can reject the quantum physics and the perturbative theory. All can see that the obtained theoretical results are better than the obtained within the QED because in my theory I do not neglect the higher orders as it is in the QED.

Once more: Interactions of stable structures we can describe via the coupling constants. We can reject the quantum physics and the perturbative theory. The phase transitions described within my Everlasting Theory lead to the stable objects such as the closed strings, neutrinos, cores of baryons, electrons (for the period of spinning) and the objects before the ‘soft’ big bangs after the era of inflation. This causes that my theory is mathematically very simple and gives the better results than the theories containing the quantum physics and perturbative theory. Description of nature is very simple when we know the internal structure of the BARE PARTICLES AND THE SPACETIMES.

Is it clear?

 

[AlphaNumeric]

AlphaNumeric, I should not discuss with you because your ‘conclusions’ look as a paranoia.

What am I paranoid about? You appear to be using that word incorrectly.

I am physicist, Master of Physics and teacher of physics. There were the all needed examinations. My Master’s thesis is the “Optical Activity of Macro- and Biomolecules”. This paper is written in the quantum language. There is the Hamiltonian function and the perturbative series expansion. There are my OWN calculations. I obtained for it the best degree.

I find it hard to believe you are qualified to that level, given the nonsense you come out with.

You know, you still call in question my education.

So I'm not paranoid, I'm dismissive. Do you understand the difference?

You know, this is a slander. This is the penal act.

Actually you mean libel, as it is written. Slander is spoken.

As for the accuracy of what I said, I said I haven't seen you do any mathematics beyond high school level. I've given you plenty of opportunities, as I've repeatedly asked for such things, and you haven't provided. All the mathematics in your documents is extremely basic. If I am wrong in this assessment please point me to something you have written in your pdf or on this forum where you demonstrate a working understanding of degree level mathematics.

Do not try to do it again.

Or what?

You repeat it constantly because you are the loser in the discussion with me.

I repeat it because it's true (you haven't provided any beyond high school level mathematics) and because you refuse to provide the mathematics I request which you claim to have. I have not seen you provide any mathematics which demonstrates string theory is explained by your work and you refuse to provide it.

.... paragraph of self advertising and assertions

That is why I question your physics/maths knowledge, you seem incapable of engaging in rational discourse.

You are the loser and you will be the loser in the future because there will not be a progress in physics without my M-theory

As you just said, you're been peddling this since the mid 80s. There's been HUGE advances in all areas of physics in the last 25~30 years so your claim is demonstrably false.

You call me a loser but you're the one stuck in the pseudo section of a forum, unable to publish his work and considered a hack. I get paid to do physics, I engage in scientific discourse multiple times a week. You need to be a little more realistic and a little less delusional.

This is paranoia because there are the 126 pages, 241 formulae, hundreds theoretical results, many tables and figures,

None of which have anything to do with demonstrating your claims about string/M theory correct. That's what I have repeatedly asked for and you can't provide.

Why here people do not discuss via scientific arguments? Even the PhD AlphaNumeric cannot do it.

Because when I ask you a question you refuse to answer it and instead spew out paragraphs of repetitive assertions you refuse to answer questions on. The issue here is you.

Probably no one taught them how such discussion should look.

I managed to get more qualifications than you in physics so clearly someone thinks I'm capable of it.

I will try to teach them how such discussion should look....
[proceeds to spew assertions without evidence]

Thanks for proving my point. You won't answer questions and you don't know what scientific discourse is.

Is it clear?

It is clear you are unable to answer simple direct questions or engage in honest discussion.

 

[Sylwester Kornowski]

I repeat it because it's true (you haven't provided any beyond high school level mathematics)……

And it shows that there is something wrong with you. I apply the very simple mathematic because to describe the STABLE STRUCTURES such as my closed strings, neutrinos, cores of baryons, electrons for period of spinning and the objects before the ‘soft’ big bangs after the period of inflation, WE DO NOT NEED THE QUANTUM PHYSICS AND PERTURBATIVE THEORY.

I will explain you this as a child. To describe the gravitational force between the STABLE Earth and Moon, we need the coupling constant only. To do this we do not need quantum physics and perturbative theory.

We need the quantum physics to describe state and motions of, for example, electrons for periods longer than the period of spinning because then the electron disappears in one place of space and appears in another one, and so on. This leads to the wave function and the Schrodinger equation.

Difference between the ineffective M-theory and my effective M-theory follows from the fact that the first theory neglects the phase transitions of the fundamental spacetime which lead to the STABLE OBJECTS.

Recapitulation
I apply the simple math not because I cannot apply the very complicated math. This is the nature which needs the simple math to know its behaviour. Scientific community do not know that in the microworld (you know it due to my posts and because you read my book) are the STABLE STRUCTURES.

Once more:

I apply the simple math because due to the phase transitions of the fundamental spacetime, there appear the stable structures. To describe interactions and motions of largest and smallest stable structures we do not need the quantum physics and perturbative theories.


It is tragedy because I wrote it tens times and you, PhD, still do not understand such simple conclusion.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

Jesus, you just don't get it!

You claim string theory is explained by your work. Thus you must show string theory follows from it. Thus you need to reproduce some central aspect of string theory from your work. String theory is, almost in its entirety, complex mathematics. Thus if you haven't produced some complex mathematics you can't have shown you have explained string theory because you haven't actually got any string theory!

I am not saying a physical theory is wrong if it isn't complicated mathematics, you are utterly twisting my words there. I'm saying that if you are to have explained string theory you need show you can produce string theory. Something like constructing the relevant Kac-Moody algebras or SUGRA light field content would be sufficient but both of those are beyond high school level mathematics.

Understand? This is (part of) why I think you're not a physicist, you are completely dense.

 

[Sylwester Kornowski]

You claim string theory is explained by your work.

Yes, it is true.

Thus you must show string theory follows from it. Thus you need to reproduce some central aspect of string theory from your work.

I did it. There appear the one fundamental bosonic string theory, three superstring theories and two heterotic theories (there appear the objects containing 8*8=64 and 2*4*4=32 gluons).

String theory is, almost in its entirety, complex mathematics. Thus if you haven't produced some complex mathematics you can't have shown you have explained string theory because you haven't actually got any string theory!

This is the paranoia. The FOUNDATION of the EFFECTIVE string theory (only my M-theory is and will be the EFFECTIVE string theory) must be classical and due to the STABLE STRUCTURES, the complex mathematics is useless. But in my theory appears the complex mathematics when we want to describe the gluons, photons and fractal field. The complex mathematics appears in the quantum physics when we describe the evolution of the wave function of electron, and so on. But the descriptions of the quantum particles via the complex mathematics ALREADY ARE IN EXISTENCE. I many times wrote that such physics is correct so it is superfluous in my theory. But my theory leads to the initial conditions applied in such correct theories.

Recapitulation
I removed the wrong initial conditions from the mainstream string theory – there must be the phase transitions which lead to the STABLE STRUCTURES and then, to the 5 string theories. These new initial conditions show which parts in the mainstream string theory must be rejected to transform this theory into the effective string theory. The new initial conditions lead to the correct part of the quantum physics and show the origin of gravity. There are not in existence the gravitons and gravitational waves but there are in existence the particles carrying the spin equal to 2.

I am not saying a physical theory is wrong if it isn't complicated mathematics, you are utterly twisting my words there. I'm saying that if you are to have explained string theory you need show you can produce string theory. Something like constructing the relevant Kac-Moody algebras or SUGRA light field content would be sufficient but both of those are beyond high school level mathematics.

AlphaNumeric, you assume that readers do not see that you changed the sense of your words. You wrote hundreds times that in my book are not some effective calculations and any theoretical results because I apply too simple math.

I wrote many times that the mainstream string theory is ineffective because there are the WRONG INITIAL CONDITIONS which lead to the very complicated math and to too much solutions. This means that we must radically change the mainstream string theory i.e. we must change the initial conditions. Then, the math will be (it is in my string theory!) very simple and we will obtain (I obtained) only the solutions realized by nature. My string theory leads to the initial conditions from which start the correct mainstream theories based on the complex mathematics.

Once more: Without my stable objects, i.e. the closed strings, neutrinos, cores of baryons, stable electrons for period of spinning, cosmic objects before the ‘soft’ big bangs after the period of inflation, and without the Titius-Bode orbits for the strong interactions and the gluon-photon transitions outside the strong fields, the particle physics and cosmology will be in the tremendous regress.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

I did it. There appear the one fundamental bosonic string theory, three superstring theories and two heterotic theories (there appear the objects containing 8*8=64 and 2*4*4=32 gluons).

String theory doesn't contain either of those so your claims are false, as well as unjustified.

Case closed.

 

[Sylwester Kornowski]

AlphaNumeric, you still do not understand that new initial conditions in my string theory lead to new methods and NEW INTERPRETATIONS. Such non-perturbative string/M theory is effective (the mainstream string/M theory is ineffective) and gives only the solutions the nature can realize (the mainstream string/M theory cannot do it).

You cannot insist that I write in my theory, for example, about the Hurwitz zeta function because of the different initial conditions, methods and interpretations. But my theory gives better theoretical results and is much simpler without the Hurwitz zeta function.

So once more:
The new initial conditions are as follows: my phase transitions of spacetime.
The new descriptions are as follows: the interactions of the STABLE objects via the couplings ONLY and the Titius-Bode law for the strong interactions.
The new interpretations are as follows: the object containing the 4^3 = 64 gluons is the FUNDAMENTAL STRING/LOOP in the Type I superstring theory whereas the object containing the 2*4^2 = 32 gluons is the binary system which we need to describe the particle-antiparticle pairs, for example, the quark-antiquark pairs.

But both theories, i.e. my and the mainstream, lead to the one fundamental bosonic string theory and the 5 superstring theories for which the fermion-boson symmetry is obligatory. There indeed are the fermion tori/loops and the boson loops which arise inside the fermion tori/loops. This means that in my theory, the circular axes of the fermions/charges overlap with the bosonic loops but in reality, the fermions/tori are separated from the bosons/loops. This causes that I do not need the higher dimensions to describe the internal structure from which the fermion-boson symmetry follows.

AlphaNumeric, you should just write following very simple sentence: “Sylwester, you are right”. Can you do it? Then, probably, I will write something positive about you. You, as the physicist and PhD, should know that without my theory physics is faulty. The sooner or later I will be the victor. You know, there is the ineffective string/M theory, the superluminal neutrinos, the science fiction concerning the journeys to the past and the acceleration of the expansion of the Universe without any reason, the problems with the ‘confinement’ for low energies, we cannot define the exact masses of the up and down quarks, and so on.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

AlphaNumeric, you still do not understand that new initial conditions in my string theory lead to new methods and NEW INTERPRETATIONS. Such non-perturbative string/M theory is effective (the mainstream string/M theory is ineffective) and gives only the solutions the nature can realize (the mainstream string/M theory cannot do it).

So you have to resort to reinterpreting the models, without evidence or justification and certain no mathematical methodology. Basically you want to spin them a particular way to suit yourself. Its dishonest.

In addition you clearly don't know what 'effective theory' means. You should look it up too.

You cannot insist that I write in my theory, for example, about the Hurwitz zeta function because of the different initial conditions, methods and interpretations. But my theory gives better theoretical results and is much simpler without the Hurwitz zeta function.

But that is part of string theory. If you can't reproduce it as in string theory you haven't reproduced string theory. You're avoiding facing up to this fact by lying.

So once more:

No one cares about your repetitive self advertising. If you can't engage in discussion you waste everyone's time.

AlphaNumeric, you should just write following very simple sentence: “Sylwester, you are right”. Can you do it?

Except that would be lying.

Then, probably, I will write something positive about you.

Why would I care what a fraud and a hack whose accomplished nothing in 3 decades of whining thinks about me? If I did need the approval of others to feel good about my research I need only look at my pay cheque.

You, as the physicist and PhD, should know that without my theory physics is faulty. The

Flat out bullshit. You live in your own little world where you ignore the fact youve utterly failed to get anywhere in physics. You're stuck lying in the hack section of forums, you've gotten nothing but delusions to peddle.

Go you!

 

[Sylwester Kornowski]

So you have to resort to reinterpreting the models, without evidence or justification and certain no mathematical methodology. Basically you want to spin them a particular way to suit yourself. Its dishonest.

In addition you clearly don't know what 'effective theory' means. You should look it up too.

I can see that you are not a good thinker. My mathematical methodology is to describe the stable structures for which the fermion-boson symmetry is obligatory via the coupling constants ONLY. Such methodology leads from the 7 parameters to the hundreds theoretical results consistent with experimental data. So, this methodology is effective/productive in comparison with the mainstream string/M theories. The equations in the mainstream string/M theory concerning the coupling constants and higher dimensions, are ineffective because they lead to too many solutions i.e. to the solutions not realized by nature.
My tori/loops are spinning from beginning i.e. from 1997 (see formulae (9) and (10) in my book). Why you wrote the word ‘dishonest’? In the ‘discussion’, you are dishonest only and only you are the big liar – I proved it many times.

But that is part of string theory. If you can't reproduce it as in string theory you haven't reproduced string theory. You're avoiding facing up to this fact by lying.

The Hurwitz zeta function concerns the different methodology. Do you understand it? Such methodology needs much more parameters than my more effective/productive M-theory.

Why would I care what a fraud and a hack whose accomplished nothing in 3 decades of whining thinks about me? If I did need the approval of others to feel good about my research I need only look at my pay cheque.

Very impressive, just the pot-boiler.

You live in your own little world….

Go you!

Communist?
I live in my effective string/M theory (i.e. in the real world) whereas you live in the not existing higher dimensions.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

The equations in the mainstream string/M theory concerning the coupling constants and higher dimensions, are ineffective because they lead to too many solutions i.e. to the solutions not realized by nature.

So then you don't recover them in your work, as you claim they are wrong. Therefore you have not explained string/M theory because you don't produce them.

This is similar to your neutrino comments. The particles you are referring to are not what the mainstream would call neutrinos, they are something else. Instead you've used the same name. Likewise here, you haven't explained string/M theory, you haven't even gone near them, but you call something else string/M theory in the hope of making it seem like you're achieving more than you really are.

That's why I call you dishonest. You have utterly failed to justify your claims and you've pretty much admitted to having not got what you claim in the above quote.

Why you wrote the word ‘dishonest’?

For many reasons, one of which I just explained. You claim to explain string/M theory then you admit you think the equations are wrong. But you've never produced the equations anyway, so the claims of explanation are even more dishonest. You claim they involve 32 or 64 gluons, which they do not. That's dishonest. You think string theory says T duality is a physical transformation, which it does not. That's dishonest. You claim to have explained/predicted the strong force while dismissing the SM. I've repeatedly explained why that is false. You've claimed the SM can't predict a value for the strong force at high energies, while knowing full well it does. That's dishonest. You claim to know quantum field theory. That's dishonest.

Again and again, in many different ways, you've shown you're not above simply flat out lying.

In the ‘discussion’, you are dishonest only and only you are the big liar. I proved it many times.

Give an example.

The Hurwitz zeta function concerns the different methodology. Do you understand it? Such methodology needs much more parameters than my more effective/productive M-theory.

So you admit you're not producing M theory but you're producing something different that you're calling 'M theory'. That's dishonest.

Very impressive, just the pot-boiler.

Nice retort. Couldn't think of anything better, given it's a fact you've accomplished nothing with your claims in pretty much 3 decades?

Communist?

I know communism buggered up your country but you really need to learn that doesn't really count as much of an insult to me. You've been trying to use it for years but it's completely without teeth.

I live in my effective string/M theory (i.e. in the real world) whereas you live in the not existing higher dimensions.

So you think you've explained string/M theory and they are part of your work while simultaneously you think extra dimensions are nonsense? That's a direct contradiction, since string theory needs 10 dimensions and M theory 11. So which is it? This only helps prove my point, what you're talking about isn't string/M theory, it's something entirely different. You've just taken the wordy descriptions you read somewhere and pointed at the bits you think you understand and said "Oh, in my work that means lots of gluons!". Again and again you show you're willing to be point blank dishonest.

The question is whether you're just a very persistent troll or someone so delusionally stupid he thinks he can lie about string theory to a string theorist. If it were the former you'd be a pretty sad individual but at least not as stupid as the latter. Unfortunately, given the years of posting you've done on multiple forums I fear it is indeed the latter.

How many more years you plan to keep going like this, just whining on forums about how 'soon' you'll be proven true? Was it 'soon' in 1985? Was it 'soon' in 1990? 1995? 2000? 2005? 2010? Will you still be doing this in 2015? 2020? Why aren't you publishing your work in journals? Why are you stuck whining on forums? In 30 years you surely could find the time to send your work to a journal couldn't you? In 30 years I've found time to be born, grow up, learn physics and mathematics, research and submit work to a journal. Why haven't you?

 

[Sylwester Kornowski]

So then you don't recover them in your work, as you claim they are wrong. Therefore you have not explained string/M theory because you don't produce them.

I see that you have problems to understand the read text. I did not write that the equations in the MAINSTREAM string/M theory are wrong. I wrote that they are ineffective because they give too much the solutions. They do not appear in my string/M theory because I apply the productive methods only. My theory leads to following equation which defines the number of elements in the phase spaces of the string theories (see Table 4, page 29 and the description). The elements in the phase spaces define the number of co-ordinates and quantities needed to describe position, shape and motions of the stable structures which appear in the string theories.

N = (d – 1)*8 + 2,

where d = 0, 1, 2, 4, 8 and 16 – they are the Titius-Bode numbers.

For the fundamental spacetime (d=0), i.e. the gas composed of the tachyons, is N = -6. The sign ‘-‘ says that this space is the imaginary space i.e. spacetime which properties must be guessed.
The d=1, which leads to N = 2, says that in the relativistic phase space are the 2 elements more than in the non-relativistic phase space.
The d=2, which leads to N = 10, is for the binary systems of closed strings (radius of one closed string is in approximation 10^-45 m). The N=10 (the 11 we can reduce to 10 because distance between the components of a binary system follow from the structure and interactions of the closed strings) is for the fundamental bosonic string theory.
The d=4, which leads to N = 26, is for the neutrinos, binary systems of neutrinos and quadruples of neutrinos. All greater particles consist of such structures. The N=26 is for the Type IIA superstring theory.
The d=8, which leads to N = 58, is for the cores of baryons and the electrically charged leptons. The N=58 is for the Type I superstring theory and the heterotic theories.
The d=16, which leads to N = 122, is for the cosmic objects before the ‘soft’ big bangs after the period of inflation. The N=122 is for the IIB superstring theory.

Can you see that the numbers N are not the dimensions of spacetime? The N = 10(11) and N = 26 are most important. In my M/theory, spacetime is still the 4D-spacetime. Within my equation for the coupling constants (see formula (76), page 30), we can calculate the all coupling constants which appear in the all string theories.

So once more: my string/M theory is the effective theory because there are defined the phase spaces and the coupling constants. Within the mainstream string/M theory, we cannot formulate such exact definitions.

This is similar to your neutrino comments. The particles you are referring to are not what the mainstream would call neutrinos, they are something else. Instead you've used the same name. Likewise here, you haven't explained string/M theory, you haven't even gone near them, but you call something else string/M theory in the hope of making it seem like you're achieving more than you really are.

That's why I call you dishonest. You have utterly failed to justify your claims and you've pretty much admitted to having not got what you claim in the above quote.

You still write the big nonsense. The properties of neutrinos follow from my theory. Superluminal speeds of neutrinos follow from my atom-like structure of baryons and my electroweak interactions. The superluminal speeds of neutrinos discovered in the OPERA experiment show that the mainstream theory of neutrinos IS INCORRECT!
My string/M theory and my theory of neutrino are the only correct theories. We must radically change the mainstream string/M theory and the mainstream neutrino theory because these theories begin from incorrect initial conditions and ARE INCONSISTENT WITH EXPERIMENTAL DATA.

For many reasons, one of which I just explained. You claim to explain string/M theory then you admit you think the equations are wrong. But you've never produced the equations anyway, so the claims of explanation are even more dishonest. You claim they involve 32 or 64 gluons, which they do not. That's dishonest. You think string theory says T duality is a physical transformation, which it does not. That's dishonest. You claim to have explained/predicted the strong force while dismissing the SM. I've repeatedly explained why that is false. You've claimed the SM can't predict a value for the strong force at high energies, while knowing full well it does. That's dishonest. You claim to know quantum field theory. That's dishonest.

Again and again, in many different ways, you've shown you're not above simply flat out lying.

You still write and write and write the nonsense. My students understand physics much better than you, PhD.

The effective equations are in existence in my theory. See the first sentences.
T- and S-dualities are in existence in my theory. Due to the different sizes of the tori and the formula (76), I calculated the different coupling constants for different interactions in all string theories BUT, for example, COUPLING CONSTANT FOR WEAK INTERACTIONS OR GRAVITATIONAL INTERACTIONS ARE THE SAME FOR DIFFERENT SIZES. AlphaNumeric, you still write the nonsense about the T-duality in my theory!
The SM can predict a value for the strong force at high energies because there is at least 3 TIMES MORE THE PARAMETERS THAN IN MY THEORY. You know, in 2004 this value was zero. When the new experimental data appeared then in the SM instead the gas-like plasma appeared the liquid-like plasma.
The last but one your sentence is as usual the paranoia. I understand the quantum field theory much better than you can because my theory is the effective theory of leptons, hadrons, photons and the carriers of the gravitational forces. My theory unifies all interactions via the phase transitions and such theory is the EFFECTIVE theory. We cannot say the same about MANY mainstream theories. You claim that you understand the quantum field theory so my questions are as follows: Why there are in existence the superluminal neutrinos? Why we cannot detect the gravitons? Why within the mainstream theories we cannot EFFECTIVELLY unify gravity with other forces, and so on? Can you see that you are dishonest, not me? Can you see that you still write the nonsense because you did not read my book?
This is obvious that sometimes the interpretations within the mainstream string M/theory and my string/M theory must differ very much because these theories begin from different initial conditions. In the mainstream string/M theory there are two dual lattices in 16 dimensions, i.e. the heterotic-E (HE) and heterotic-O (HO) string theories. In my string/M theory which follows from the phase transitions of the fundamental spacetime, the heterotic string theories follow from the four-neutrino symmetry (see pages 35 and 36) and the Type I superstring theory. The difference between the HE and HO concerns the different stadiums of the pairs. The HE is for the loop stadium and quadruples whereas the HO is for the torus-antitorus stadium and their collapses to the gluon balls (see my QCD, pages 91-105).

So you admit you're not producing M theory but you're producing something different that you're calling 'M theory'. That's dishonest.

Your sentences are lamentable. I produced EFFECTIVE string/M theory. The string/M theory based on ONE vibrating in HIGHER DIMENSIONS STRING is the science fiction.

How many more years you plan to keep going like this, just whining on forums about how 'soon' you'll be proven true?

If scientists such as you will ignore the experimental data, for example, the OPERA data then my war will last very long.