To add comments or start new threads please go to the full version of: Acceleration of the expansion? Quarks?
PhysOrgForum Science, Physics and Technology Discussion Forums > Relativity, Quantum Mechanics and New Theories > Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, New Theories

Sylwester Kornowski
Below you can find abstract of my new theory:
“There is not in existence the quark-gluon plasma (predicted by the quark theory) and just after the Big Bang there were the densest cosmic structures (objects with highest redshift). Particle Physics and Cosmology need revision. To explain the structure of gravitational field and the structure of weak charge of neutrino we need two particles smaller than neutrino. The infinite Universe is filled with these two types of particles and neutrinos. All objects larger than neutrino are built of neutrinos. The structures of cores of neutrinos, baryons and the cosmic objects before the big bangs are dual (so my theory ties microcosm with macrocosm by the new physical constant K=0.79032 . 10{10}). The surfaces of cores are built analogically as the Ketterle surface for Fermi gas. Outside of the core of baryons is obligatory the Titius-Bode law. The ratio A/B=1.39 has the same value as for the solar system. On the orbits are pions. The visible Universe was created in similar manner as the large neutrino loop in a baryon.”
See new theory on www.cosmology-particles.pl (it is free; only 7 parameters - the 4 physical constants and 3 masses, the best results, see where the quark theory and the inflationary theories are falsified).
Among other things there is also about the 10(11), 26, 58, 122 dimensions (in the relativistic version), and about the internal structure of gravitational field.
The quark model it is science fiction because there is in existence the lower limit for volume of squeezed nuclei (about 13% of the original volume - it results from my theory, the experimental data also suggest that it is true), and such squeezed nucleons behave as a liquid because the cores of nucleons (the toruses; the external radius is equal to 0.7 fm) cannot be destroyed.
I also explained why the acceleration of the expansion is an illusion. From my theory results that the horizon of the dark energy has radius equal to about 21 billion light-years (see scientific version, page 27), the horizon of the visible and dark matter has radius equal to about 13.2 billion light-years (see scientific version, pages 61-62). The Hubble constant H has for the visible and dark matter following values:
-inside sphere of radius 8.3 billion light-years H=73,
-between 8.3 and 13.2 billion light-years value of the H decreases from 73 to 46. It results from fact that the highest speed of the distant galaxies and other objects is equal to 0.63c (my theory of nucleons proves it: see pages 32-33, 61-62). For most distant objects the rest of the redshift it is result of the strong gravitational field. Then the supernovae Ia placed in distance larger than 8.3 billion light-years look darker than they should be. It means that acceleration of the expansion of the Universe (our World) it is an illusion.
For quadrupole I obtained 145 micro-K{2} (see page 85). Within the inflationary models we cannot calculate correct value of the anisotropy power for the quadrupole because it is connected with the structure just before the Big Bang.

Sylwester Kornowski
fitz
Even Saul Perlmutter who headed the group that was the first to discover this acceleration of the expansion realized that any acceleration NOW is impossible.

So what Saul Perlmutter says we have is Einstein's original cosmological constant.

Einstein gave us this cosmological constant in 1917.

This was thought to be a steady- state universe in 1917.

Einstein's cosmological constant was a repulsive force equal but opposite to gravity.

It was a repulsive force equal but opposite to gravity holding all the stars and galaxies apart.

Why does Saul Perlmutter say this?

Because of the principle of equivalence.

If the principle of equivalence states that we cannot discern gravity from an accelerating, contraction then it also means we cannot discern gravity's equal and opposite repulsive force from an accelerating, expansion.


So what we have Sylwester is a steady-state universe.

Welcome back to 1917.


Fitz
Zephir
QUOTE (Sylwester Kornowski+Oct 12 2006, 01:04 PM)
I also explained why the acceleration of the expansion is an illusion.

By AWT the Universe is formed by dense chaotic interior of the black hole. The total density of Universe is by 1E+50 orders higher, then the density of observable matter.

By such way, the evolution of mass inside the Universe is solely driven by evolution of Aether, not the observable matter.It's obvious from the inflation phase, where no observable mass has existed at all. The black hole behaves like dense star, which collapses by it's own gravity with increasing speed, by the similar way, like most the stars inside our Universe.
Sylwester Kornowski
QUOTE (fitz+Oct 14 2006, 08:10 PM)
Even Saul Perlmutter who headed the group that was the first to discover this acceleration of the expansion realized that any acceleration NOW is impossible.

So what Saul Perlmutter says we have is Einstein's original cosmological constant.

Einstein gave us this cosmological constant in 1917.

This was thought to be a steady- state universe in 1917.

Einstein's cosmological constant was a repulsive force equal but opposite to gravity.

It was a repulsive force equal but opposite to gravity holding all the stars and galaxies apart.

Why does Saul Perlmutter say this?

Because of the principle of equivalence.

If the principle of equivalence states that we cannot discern gravity from an accelerating, contraction then it also means we cannot discern gravity's equal and opposite repulsive force from an accelerating, expansion.


So what we have Sylwester is a steady-state universe.

Welcome back to 1917.


Fitz

In our Universe there were (before the Big Bang) and are (in the expanding Universe) not conditions for action of the principle of equivalence. In my opinion the object before the Big Bang was created because of big fluctuation in the background of the infinite Universe. In the Big Bang was created the dark energy which has influence on the expansion of our Universe.

So: expansion - yes, acceleration started about 5 billion years ago - no. The biggest acceleration was just after the Big Bang.
czeslaw
Your theories - Sylwester and Zephir are very similar. Both of them have an aether like background.
Sylvester's theory has a good math and it may helps to develope Zephir your AWT.
Czeslaw
Sylwester Kornowski
QUOTE (Zephir+)
By AWT the Universe is formed by dense chaotic interior of the black hole. The total density of Universe is by 1E+50 orders higher, then the density of observable matter.


But we know that such model does not lead to the correct value for the anisotropy power for the quadrupole. In my opinion such initial conditions are incorrect.
And my questions: from what was built of this interior, and what phenomena started the Big Bang? Natural is assumption that there was a collapse which created the Big Bang. In the AWT a collapse is impossible (collapse of the black hole?).

QUOTE (Zephir+)
By such way, the evolution of mass inside the Universe is solely driven by evolution of Aether, not the observable matter.It's obvious from the inflation phase, where no observable mass has existed at all. The black hole behaves like dense star, which collapses by it's own gravity with increasing speed, by the similar way, like most the stars inside our Universe.


As I said the inflation models have big problem with the quadrupole.
I think that we must define the mass and the weight.
My definitions:
The mass it is amount of substance. There are particles which create the gravitational field which have mass but have not weight. Such particles do not emit and absorb other particles. Only such particles can gives the observable properties of the gravitational field (I call them the eterions).
Particles which structure leads to emission and absorption of eterions have weight. It is obvious that such particles must have the internal helicity (similarly as the tropical cyclones but speed of eterions is 8 . 10^88 times higher than light in vacuum; only such high speed of eterions leads to the observable properties of the gravitational field; so in gravitational field is concentrated energy).

What are your definitions?
czeslaw
QUOTE (Sylwester Kornowski+Oct 15 2006, 09:57 AM)

The mass it is amount of substance. There are particles which create the gravitational field which have mass but have not weight. Such particles do not emit and absorb other particles. Only such particles can gives the observable properties of the gravitational field (I call them the eterions).
Particles which structure leads to emission and absorption of eterions have weight. It is obvious that such particles must have the internal helicity (similarly as the tropical cyclones but speed of eterions is 8 . 10^88 times higher than light in vacuum; only such high speed of eterions leads to the observable properties of the gravitational field; so in gravitational field is concentrated energy).

What are your definitions?

The eterions create something like space for the particles with a gravitational field ?
Sylwester Kornowski
QUOTE (czeslaw+Oct 16 2006, 07:24 AM)
The eterions create something like space for the particles with a gravitational field ?

In my theory eterions (the fundamental, smallest particles, without internal structure) do not emit and absorb other particles because there are not in existence smallest particles. It means that these particles have mass (amount of substance) but have not weight (because do not emit and absorb other particles; it means that they do not create a field in their surrounding). Such particles can interact only because of the dynamic viscosity when they collide. Such particles must fill infinite volume.
In spaces with very high density of these particles (because of fluctuations) are created toruses which behave similarly (very big approximation because the speed of eterions is much, much higher that speeds of molecules in air) as the tropical cyclones (they have the internal helicity and spin).
The torus curves the trajectories of eterions (because of the dynamic viscosity) the same as tropical cyclone curves winds.
The set of the curved trajectories of the eterions connected to a torus I call the gravitational field of the torus (the higgson).
See chapter 'Gravitational field' - www.cosmology-particles.pl , popular version, pages 14, 15 (there are figures).

Only such particles (eterions) can create gravitational field which has strictly determined properties.

WE CANNOT TANGLE THE GRAVITATIONAL FIELD (BUILT OF PARTICLES WHICH DO NOT EMIT AND ABSORB OTHER PARTICLES) WITH THE QUANTUM MECHANICS BASED ON PARTICLES WHICH EMIT AND ABSORB OTHER PARTICLES.

Gravitation is based on the dynamic viscosity!

Thank you CZESLAW for this question.
Zephir
QUOTE (czeslaw+Oct 15 2006, 12:39 PM)
Your theories - Sylwester and Zephir are very similar. Both of them have an aether like background. Sylvester's theory has a good math and it may helps to developer Zephir your AWT.

Here's an incredible amount of Aether theories, they're using a quite different models. The AWT is using just the wave equation at the place of math model and I've no reason to change something about it..
Sylwester Kornowski
QUOTE (CZESLAW+)
Your theories - Sylwester and Zephir are very similar. Both of them have an aether like background. Sylvester's theory has a good math and it may helps to developer Zephir your AWT.


QUOTE (ZEPHIR+)
Here's an incredible amount of Aether theories, they're using a quite different models. The AWT is using just the wave equation at the place of math model and I've no reason to change something about it..


1. My theory of structures, which with the QM, SR and GR gives the groundwork of the ultimate theory, is based on very different initial conditions than the AWT. There is only one type of fundamental particle without the internal structure. The physical state of the fundamental particles is described by 7 parameters. The nature has its internal defensive mechanism which prevents the creation of singularities of infinite mass density.

2. The AWT is based on only one parameter. It suggests that this theory contains hidden parameters because there are the 4 physical constants. They are the parameters in each complete theory.

3. I calculated a few hundred physical quantities with high accuracy. All can see my calculations and results (see www.cosmology-particles.pl ). These calculations are very simple because the nature is very simple when we understand this nature. Where we can see the CALCULATIONS made within the AWT? Are they only in the author computer? Theory without calculations does not exist. I repeat my only one question:
Can author of the AWT show us the calculations for the nucleons? Within the theory of structures I obtained:
Mass of proton 938.28 MeV
Mass of neutron 939.55 MeV
Magnetic moment of proton +2.7937 mi-B
Magnetic moment of neutron -1.9135 mi-B
Range of strong interactions 2.7047 . 10^-15 m
Range of weak interactions of proton 8.7107 . 10^-18 m
Means of squares of charges of nucleons components 0.29 e^2
Life-time of proton stable
Life-time of neutron 929 s,
and many others. See my calculations.

Can you show your calculations?
Zephir
QUOTE (Sylwester Kornowski+Oct 17 2006, 12:20 PM)
...It suggests that this theory contains hidden parameters because there are the 4 physical constants. They are the parameters in each complete theory...

These constants should follow from recursive solution of wave equation and they're related mutually, for example the G=2/c. Everything in the nature should have it's own reason, even the etherons of your theory.

From this point of view, the complete theory is just an oxymoron.

QUOTE (Sylwester Kornowski+Oct 17 2006, 12:20 PM)
I calculated a few hundred physical quantities with high accuracy...

Can you explain the photon formation by your theory?
Sylwester Kornowski
QUOTE (Zephir+Oct 17 2006, 10:47 AM)
These constants should follow from recursive solution of wave equation and they're related mutually, for example the G=2/c. Everything in the nature should have it's own reason, even the etherons of your theory.

From this point of view, the complete theory is just an oxymoron.


Can you explain the photon formation by your theory?

The ultimate theory exists because there is only one the nature. There must be the relations between microcosm and macrocosm and minds.

All physical quantities must have the physical meaning. And it is the rule in my theory. It was big effort to understand the physical meanings within one homogeneous and coherent description. The G=c/2 has not a physical meaning. Want you say that the gravitational constant is equal to the half of the speed of light in vacuum? It explains nothing.

In my theory packet wave is built of the elementary photons. The elementary photon it is binary system of neutrinos of different weak charges (they attract one another). In the background of the Universe there are plenty of the elementary photons (i.e. the binary systems of neutrinos) with rotational energy equal to zero.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.